The subtle difference between Hillary and Obama for me.

[Kablooie]

It's strange but I realized tonight, listening to the debate, that there is a subtle difference in effect between Hillary and Obama.

Hillary makes sound statements that I approve of but somehow they feel a little hollow. It's as if she offers them as enticements to draw me along with her.

Obama, on the other hand, gives the impression that he honestly believes what he's telling me and has a personal commitment to the issues.


Hillary tells me what I want to hear.

Obama tells me what he wants me to hear.



I'm not saying that either of these assessments are necessarily correct but they are the subtext that I am sensing in their presentations.



(and of course Bush tells me inanities that no one wants to hear. Anything is better than that. Moi brine 'urts. )

[Renew Deal]

1. My wife agrees with you.

This is her sense too.

[Johnny__Motown]

2. I agree completely, Many people assume Hillary is just posturing on most issues

Not all issues, but so many that you simply can't trust her. I know I can't

[jasmine621]

23. I believe many people are wrong. nt

[lligrd]

3. I Get The Same Impression

and Hillary's votes seem to suggest posturing too. Not that Obama isn't capable of it as some of his votes suggest but he isn't as practiced at it and hopefully he will realize that doing so doesn't pay off in the end.

[LadyVT]

4. I do not trust him; I, and many of my friends, get a bad feeling about him.

I just feel this whole thing is all about him, being adored, being admired, being fawned over. Sometimes he looks to me like a small child, maybe 7, beaming, with everyone clapping all around him. I think Hillary highlighted that difference, subtly, in her last response during the debate.

[ErnestoG]

9. Odd, since you support a narcissistic entitlement candidate

[anigbrowl]

13. You mean like this?

Aaaaw. Look at the cute little future President of the United States.

[anamandujano]

5. There's a HUGE DIFFERENCE in the issues.

She will remove the soldiers from Iraq and bring them home.
He will remove the soldiers from Iraq and put them in Pakistan.

She will shoot for universal healthcare as the cornerstone of her
presidency.

He will attempt some watered down policy that leaves us where we are with the crisis unchecked spiraling out of control.

They are miles apart on the other issues also.

He is the one who is poised for non-delivery of anything of value to the country. More war. More Repuke policy.

[enid602]

22. health care

For me, the litmus test is mandated, universal health care, not that the other issues you mention aren't important as well. Perhaps Obama's greatest strength is that he's curiously been able to garner so much support without being on board for universal health care. We've finally arrived at a time in our history where mandated universal health care is a real possiblity, and I can't believe the front runner doesn't support it

[babylonsister]

24. Why do you not tell the truth? You know he's not going to put

all the troops in Pakistan. That's just b.s. from someone loaded with sour grapes, and very unbecoming of you.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

And healthcare? Another fabrication, but you know that. If someone can't afford healthcare, they certainly don't need their wages garnished to get it.

And no, they're not really miles apart, on anything. Oh, except that war thing, that she voted for.

Don't prevaricate on here; you'll get called out on it as you should be.

[ExtraGriz]

6. he exudes narcissism

thats how he appears to me.....and narcissism sucks you right in.

[LadyVT]

7. I was part of a study on US Presidents in grad school. We found that

for much of the past century, we've elected a paranoid-ish man, then a narcissistic-ish man, then a paranoid-ish man, then a narcissistic-ish man. It's only been broken when the VP took over during the term of office. Most often, a narcissistic-ish President has a paranoid-ish VP, and vice-versa.

Most politicians have personality issues--think about what kind of person would agree to, and even pursue!, such a job.

The current President has both features (mostly narcissistic-ish, and paranoid-ish under stress), and the VP is more paranoid-ish... The Administration has been decidedly paranoid-ish. Bill Clinton's was obviously more narcissistic-ish.

I personally believe the Ns are better for the country than the Ps, who can be quite dangerous. They are so busy fighting all the dangerous outside, they neglect the inside. The Ns are busy puffing themselves up, usually by trying to please the electorate as a side effect so they'll be admired.

[anigbrowl]

14. Now this is a thoughtful post

and one I'm broadly inclined to agree with, as these are two 'successful' personality types (allowing for the fact that personality typing is a highly inexact 'science'). I think Obama is doing well because Bush and Cheney together have been paranoid to the second power, and this is going to be a major disadvantage for McCain if Obama gets the nomination.

I presume one reason you feel positive about Hillary is that you feel a woman might break up this pattern. Having lived under Thatcher int he UK and under 2 different female Presidents in Ireland (where the presidency is admittedly a considerably less powerful role - though we have many other genuinely powerful women political leaders in Europe, including Ireland), I am not sure that gender makes that big a difference.

Personally I would put Hillary Clinton slightly into the paranoid box. I do not think she is as narcissistic as some people suggest, but I do think she has a tendency to surround herself with those who affirm her worldview (as opposed to affirming her) and has a rather manichean view of things, not unlike Bush's. This is not to say that she has anything like the same goals or beliefs that Bush does, but that (imo) she pursues those in similar fashion and reacts in similar fashion when she is thwarted or encounters an obstacle. Were she president, I think the first year or so would be great, but by year three there'd be so much spin coming from her administration that it would get its own physics course.

For a variety of reasons, many of which are not her fault, she would enter office with a Republican opposition determined to sink every policy proposal she made. While some honestly worry that Obama's spectacular rise is semi-engineered by GOP strategists, the attitude I've been seeing from GOPers I know was that they really hated McCain, and it might even be worth electing Hillary in order to have her crash and burn and get the GOP back to where it was in 1994 under Gingrich - a 'see I told you so' strategy, if you like.

Of course, this has a lot to do with the fact that the far-right conservatives in the GOP are feeling marginalized right now - Bush was not right enough for them but they loved watching him insult the left. McCain, to them, is a slap in the face - not unlike if we on the left had somehow ended up with Joe Lieberman. After Giuliani spectacularly imploded it was pretty funny watching them convince themselves in the space of 3 days that Mitt Romney was a true conservative. They went into the election cycle expecting to nominate Rudy as Il Duce, and two months later a multi-million dollar industry based almost entirely on Clinton-hatred is going down the toilet (for a while anyway).

Meantime, expect the new RW meme to be apocalyptic: if he wins the nom, in 3-6 months the wingnut faction will trying to persuade everyone that he is, literally, the AntiChrist. Forget Rezko or his policy positions, they'll be trying to fight him off with the book of Revelations. Of course, I'm hoping that this will cause the wingnut movement to launch itself into complete political irrelevance for at least a decade, but the biggest thing I worry about is some armed nutcase who treats the Bible like TV Guide.

[XemaSab]

20. You don't think W is narcissistic?

I think W is laboring under the misimpression that the tiniest thought that comes into his mind MUST be true, and he's surrounded himself with people who only reinforce that. I can see the paranoia too, but not nearly as much.

As far as Obama goes, I don't think he's any more narcissistic than the Clintons. I think the Clintons are there to get power for the Clintons. It may not have always been the case, but I think it's the case now, and there's a certain politicians/diapers correlary going on that isn't so much true for Obama. But YMMV. :shrug:

[ErnestoG]

8. Does he use as much botox and collagen as Hillary does?

see, I don't think he does.

[LadyVT]

10. uncalled for and rude

[ErnestoG]

12. Yes, calling Obama narcissistic is rude and uncalled for. Thanks.

[cali]

17. Pot, kettle, black. n/t

[quantass]

11. She should sue the doc

[AGirl]

15. you are a dirtbag sexist.

[casus belli]

16. What is sexist about Botox and Collagen?

It's not as if only women use it. The only sexism I'm getting here is from you. Because accusing someone of sexism, with no reasonable evidence of said sexism is, in fact, sexism.

[rodeodance]

18. So--you know for a fact that Hillary uses botox and collagen? DO YOU??

Does he use as much botox and collagen as Hillary does?

see, I don't think he does.

[stark6935]

19. 1st post.

I'm a voter from Iowa, and decided to vote for Obama last summer. I decided to vote for him because of his debating, and not his speeches. I'm 22 a college grad, and at this point I don't trust politicians as far as I can throw them. I chose him because while he was debating you could tell he was actually thinking about things before he spurt them out, and he seemed to be honest.

Honestly, what is the difference if a person promises you 100 things, and says all these things if you don't trust them to do it? I think he has the most potential of anyone, and he can't mess it up any worse than Bush at this point.

[NoBushSpokenHere]

21. Welcome to DU stark! nt