Sunday, February 25, 2007

The Candidates

It's sad but true that the 2008 Presidential election campaign has already started. Like many liberal feminists, I'm torn between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. The trouble is, I feel I ought to support Hillary to become the first female president; but I have the feeling that she is running, not because she thinks she can do things better (although she may think that too), but because she wants to be the First Female President. She's nothing if not competent, and would undoubtedly do a good job. I just get bad vibes from her.

I get really good vibes from Barack Obama, and I don't think it's because he's a youngish, good-looking guy. (You have to be my age to call a 46 year old a "young man", sigh...) It is unfortunate that he's a smoker (and I think he's raving crazy to commit to quitting smoking at the same time he's running for President). But what would you rather have: a competent, intelligent guy with one bad habit, or Dennis Kucinich? What I like about Obama is that he seems to have a sense of proportion; even better, he has a sense of humor. My husband commented the other day that no one at that level of politics has used humor the way Obama does since Ronald Reagan. Nobody in the current administration has a sense of humor, and unfortunately, neither does Hillary Clinton.

I'm trying to stay uncommitted, and see what happens. We'll all see more as the campaign unfolds; but for now, I'm leaning strongly toward the guy who can laugh at it.

7 comments:

  1. Anonymous8:58 PM

    Obama stikes me as the most capable, most energizing campaigner of the lot, and he's plenty smart and quick-witted. I too am kind of waiting before I make a commitment, and as I've said on FA, I think, I'll go with a yellow dog if he/she's a Democrat. The party and the political machine is more significant in presidential elections than the individual. Even a decent Republican is still wedded to the Republican agenda, which is wedded to the most powerful special interest of all. Democrats just dance with that special interest sometimes, but the party doesn't marry it. Mostly, a la FDR, we just save it from itself.

    Anonymous David

    Where are you, Stephen?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Stephen9:07 AM

    I myself am leaning to Obama at this point. He seems to be honest and not to tied up in the political swamp as the rest. That he is new to politics, as so many have said, is a plus in my book. I am keeping an open mind at this point and not writing off anyone at this point, democrat or republican, just needs to not be an idiot. I get bad vibes off of Hillary also, and really don’t think she would do very well in a general election. Which is a pity, I think a female president would be lots of fun.

    Sorry I haven’t been around. Fighting the good fight to get a new school built in my district so we can get students in their own classrooms instead of sitting in the halls. Dang Repug tax payers!!

    By the way, hedra. I don't think I have ever typed those crazy letters right the first time...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Welcome back, stephen, sounds like you've been usefully employed. Good luck on your school effort.

    I've had trouble with the letters myself, but with the new version of Blogger, it "knows who I am" and I don't have to type them. It's just to keep the Viagra ads out....

    I so agree with you about the politicians: "just needs to not be an idiot." Is that so much to ask??

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous6:54 AM

    Apparently that is too much to ask. It was certainly too much to ask of the media that they grant some importance to said issue.

    Stephen, just remember any Republican will be wedded to the Republican national machine. Bush actually was the correct choice for that agenda, and I really don't think any Republican would dare take any kind of meaningfully different tack, except possibly Chuck Hagel, but he mostly agrees with Bush's agenda. Sadly, the Democrats are still locked into the issue of whether or not the War on Iraq has been handled competently, when the real issue is the rightness/wrongness of the war and the consequences of the US assuming the mantel of military aggressor.

    Anonymous David

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous6:57 AM

    Mantle, dammit, mantle, although sometimes I do want to put the Democratic leadership over the fireplace as a warning that the next step is into the fireplace...

    Anonymous and needing another cup of coffee David

    ReplyDelete
  6. Oh, I don't know, the "mantel of military aggressor" has a kind of surreal charm. I can see it as a caption to that Magritte painting that has about a quarter sized locomotive coming straight out of a fireplace into the air, about 3 feet off the ground. I found a picture of it on the Internet. That isn't what Magritte called it, but what is surrealism for if not to excite your imagination?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous9:27 PM

    Thanks for the Magritte link, hedera. Glad I wrote mantel first.

    I stage-managed a production of AFTER MAGRITTE at the University of Central Florida as part of a summer program 30 years ago. Damn but time does fly!

    Anonymous David

    ReplyDelete