Hillary vs. Obama -- Isn't it Time to Move On?
First let me just say I have no beef with the Clintons. I've admired them greatly. When the primary campaign first started, I was a Hillary supporter.
However, as the campaign went on, based on what I heard and considering where we are as a nation, it was apparent to me that Barack Obama was the best choice, given his background, temperament, political philosophies, etc. Our political system is broken; we don't need more of the same back room power brokering. That is Hillary's strength, and while the Clinton's have served us well in that regard in the past, times have changed. I’m no dancer, and I’m very old school, but here it goes: you don’t put someone who is expert at doing the monkey in a juke dancing contest.
A lot of people have invested themselves in seeing a woman in the white house. For some, clearly, that is more important to them than the other "first" that Obama represents -- the first black man in the white house. To each is own. While much has been made of his race by others, including Clinton supporters, Obama has worked overtime to NOT run as someone campaigning to be a "black president." We know this to be true because clearly, such a campaign would be resoundingly rejected by whites. This is why the campaigns of Jackson and Sharpton were not well received by our pigmentationally-challenged brethren. Shirley Chisolm was such a shock to the system at the still relatively racially backward time when she ran that, asking voters to grasp her campaign and see her as president was like asking most of them what e = mc2 means.
Still, because of the craziness of race in America, Obama could not avoid the issue, as it would be brought up for him. The pundits speculate endlessly about why Obama isn’t further ahead. They offer up McCain’s negative advertising as the chief culprit, even as they acknowledge how juvenile, dishonest and downright idiotic it’s been. Well, let’s just get real here: the reason Obama is not farther ahead, as I believe a man of his caliber would be, given who he’s facing and what the GOP has come to represent, is because he’s black.
Still, Obama has a higher percentage of the white vote than any democrat in recent times, i.e. Clinton, Gore or Kerry. Regardless of the ire of the Hillary backers, he leads McCain amongst women. Most importantly, the polls only consider recent voters. Obama and the democrats have registered millions of new voters, of which it will be the volunteers’ task to get them to the polls on 11/7.
Some have said Obama needs Hillary because she’s a fighter. First, you don’t rise through the ranks of Illinois politics, which really means Chicago politics and the democratic machine, without being a fighter. Secondly, where was Hillary’s vaunted battling ability when she served in the senate? She did more to enable Bush than to stand up to him.
What about the Clinton’s celebrated political skills? Well, they lost to a rookie senator from Illinois, who also happened to be black. Obama had every disadvantage you can think of, and he prevailed. He ran a smart campaign; the Clintons didn’t.
Obama won this campaign fair and square. Its time for all democrats, if they are truly concerned more about the state of this country after eight years of Bushism, to rally around the democratic nominee and his choice for VP. The choice we face – the possibility of more of the same – in November is bigger than the s*x or race of the democratic candidate.
However, as the campaign went on, based on what I heard and considering where we are as a nation, it was apparent to me that Barack Obama was the best choice, given his background, temperament, political philosophies, etc. Our political system is broken; we don't need more of the same back room power brokering. That is Hillary's strength, and while the Clinton's have served us well in that regard in the past, times have changed. I’m no dancer, and I’m very old school, but here it goes: you don’t put someone who is expert at doing the monkey in a juke dancing contest.
A lot of people have invested themselves in seeing a woman in the white house. For some, clearly, that is more important to them than the other "first" that Obama represents -- the first black man in the white house. To each is own. While much has been made of his race by others, including Clinton supporters, Obama has worked overtime to NOT run as someone campaigning to be a "black president." We know this to be true because clearly, such a campaign would be resoundingly rejected by whites. This is why the campaigns of Jackson and Sharpton were not well received by our pigmentationally-challenged brethren. Shirley Chisolm was such a shock to the system at the still relatively racially backward time when she ran that, asking voters to grasp her campaign and see her as president was like asking most of them what e = mc2 means.
Still, because of the craziness of race in America, Obama could not avoid the issue, as it would be brought up for him. The pundits speculate endlessly about why Obama isn’t further ahead. They offer up McCain’s negative advertising as the chief culprit, even as they acknowledge how juvenile, dishonest and downright idiotic it’s been. Well, let’s just get real here: the reason Obama is not farther ahead, as I believe a man of his caliber would be, given who he’s facing and what the GOP has come to represent, is because he’s black.
Still, Obama has a higher percentage of the white vote than any democrat in recent times, i.e. Clinton, Gore or Kerry. Regardless of the ire of the Hillary backers, he leads McCain amongst women. Most importantly, the polls only consider recent voters. Obama and the democrats have registered millions of new voters, of which it will be the volunteers’ task to get them to the polls on 11/7.
Some have said Obama needs Hillary because she’s a fighter. First, you don’t rise through the ranks of Illinois politics, which really means Chicago politics and the democratic machine, without being a fighter. Secondly, where was Hillary’s vaunted battling ability when she served in the senate? She did more to enable Bush than to stand up to him.
What about the Clinton’s celebrated political skills? Well, they lost to a rookie senator from Illinois, who also happened to be black. Obama had every disadvantage you can think of, and he prevailed. He ran a smart campaign; the Clintons didn’t.
Obama won this campaign fair and square. Its time for all democrats, if they are truly concerned more about the state of this country after eight years of Bushism, to rally around the democratic nominee and his choice for VP. The choice we face – the possibility of more of the same – in November is bigger than the s*x or race of the democratic candidate.
Good point. Seems very simple: either you want more of the same with McCain or a different direction with Obama. If you like the way things are going, than pick McCain. If you would like a different approach, then pick Obama. When all the smoke clears thats really what your vote is really about.
I know some people have concerns about the candidates stances on war, gay marriage, abortions, taxes, gun control, etc. but the economy is not doing so well. So who is the best to handle this crisis? I think Obama is leading in that department. For one, Obama wants to tax the wealthy more, to pay their fair share, while McCain wants to continue the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. So pocketbook wise, I think Obama fits the bill. I guess time will tell, in the upcoming debates when we can really get details on their economy package.