Why You Should Pick Obama Over Clinton
Mr friend Kyle Buchanan wrote a detailed breakdown of why he’s planning to support Obama over Clinton. It pretty much sums up the way I’ve been feeling as well.
Hey everyone! As many of you know from talking to me, I’m supporting Barack Obama in the primaries. There are a truckload of reasons why, and since some of you are on the fence (or willing to be persuaded), I thought I’d take the time to whip up an email outlining some of the best arguments for supporting Obama in the primaries and beyond. Here are three of the most important: electability, accountability, and possibility.(And yeah, I really did write this. No form emails for KB!)
ELECTABILITY
This is my bluntest argument, but it's an important one: I not only believe Obama will beat John McCain, I believe Hillary will lose to him.
In a matchup against McCain, all of Hillary's perceived strengths are neutralized. Experience? McCain has more of it. Ability to command an army? He was IN one. Not only that, but McCain is widely noted for his ability to lure independent voters (even Democrats) while Hillary (with sky-high negatives in polling) will not only lose Democrats, she'll incite Republicans to show up — and in a year when they're demoralized, no less! We can't afford that.
Unlike Hillary, Obama can draw new voters into the Democratic party and keep them there — just look at Iowa. That's the reason that so many Democratic officials in red states (Sen. Claire McCaskill, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius) are endorsing Obama, not Clinton. They believe that only Obama can win in red states and southern states that the Democrats have not traditionally been competitive in (and I believe them — I know plenty of Republicans beguiled by Obama). Hillary would be routed easily in those places, and that's why McCaskill and Sebelius denied her those highly coveted endorsements.
Additionally, polling trends are breaking Obama's way. According to Gallup, Clinton's national polling results have declined literally every day of the past week, by one to two points each day. Meanwhile, Obama's results have climbed every single day by one or two points. She's lost six points; he's gained eight. Do you want to vote for a candidate who lacks national momentum?
Out of the last four official primaries, Obama won more delegates than Clinton in all but New Hampshire. Yes, he even won more delegates in Nevada, despite Clinton's narrow popular win. Make no mistake, this contest will come down to delegates awarded by each congressional district, not a statewide popular vote. That's another reason that your vote and volunteering are so important — they can have a tangible effect in each small congressional district.
ACCOUNTABILITY
I'll grit my teeth and vote for Hillary Clinton if she ends up being the nominee (make no mistake — we cannot afford to put another Republican into office right now), but I have been massively disappointed by how her and her husband have run their campaign lately. And I was a fan of theirs! Among the things that have offended me: their scorched earth strategy to tar Obama as "the black candidate," for Bill Clinton to smear Obama's South Carolina win by comparing him to Jesse Jackson, for Hillary to sit and smile as Robert Johnson launched nasty slurs against Obama while introducing her, for her to say nothing when her own pollster, Sergio Bendixen, advanced the offensive canard that Hispanic voters have "not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates"…I could go on and on. Time and time again, they have shown themselves willing to play the race card and — most troubling — to disenfranchise the Democrats' most reliable base, African-American voters. We need someone who is going to bring in new Democrats, not alienate the ones we already have.
It's notable how many times Hillary has been asked to apologize for remarks that her surrogates or Bill Clinton have made, and how many times she has refused to do so. You may argue that it is not Hillary herself who is saying these offensive things, but she IS the presidential candidate, and she could easily rein in people like Bill, Bendixen, and Johnson if need be. She refuses to do so.She also advances outright lies about Obama's record. She slammed him on voting "present" during abortion issues, even though she knew that Planned Parenthood itself had coordinated with Obama on those very votes. In fact, Clinton has long distorted Obama's "present" votes without noting that it is a quirk of Illinois legislature (a few other states have this option as well) that allows lawmakers to address the constitutionality of a bill without endorsing it. So why would she say that? Because she doesn't care if it's a lie as long as you might believe it. Don't you want a candidate you can trust?
POSSIBILITY
This is an exceedingly rare and valuable time when we can actually put a true Democrat into office — the winds of change are at our backs and we must take advantage of them. National Journal just rated Obama as the #1 most liberal member of the Senate [This one is iffy. -g], and I have no doubt he would advance a truly progressive agenda at a time when the world (and the climate) need it most. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, did not even rank within the Top 10 on the National Journal's list. She has voted for anti-Democratic bills like the Patriot Act and she not only authorized the War in Iraq (a vote she refuses to apologize for, unlike John Edwards), she gave Bush similar authorization for an invasion in Iran. Why would we run such a hawkish, conservative Democrat when we don't have to? And make no mistake, you know Hillary would pick a VP even more hawkish than she in order to offset any idea she might not be tough on national security. Obama was against the War in Iraq from the very beginning. Imagine if we'd had his leadership back then, instead of Democratic leaders like Hillary Clinton compromising party ideals with an eye toward their Presidential run!
I should also refute one of the biggest falsehoods launched by Hillary Clinton's campaign: that she has more experience than Obama. As of this year, Obama will have twelve years of legislative experience to Hillary Clinton's eight. The only way Hillary has more experience is if you count her years as First Lady — and if you do, then what exactly are you including. Hillary's own pet project, health care reform, was a resounding failure (and now people want to let her have a second go-round at it?). If you accept that she advised her husband on certain policies…well, let me allow journalist Patrick Healy to elucidate: "During those two terms in the White House, Clinton did not hold a security clearance. She did not attend National Security Council meetings. She was not given a copy of the president's daily intelligence briefing. She did not assert herself on the crises in Somalia, Haiti or Rwanda. And during one of President Bill Clinton's major tests on terrorism, whether to bomb Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, Clinton was barely speaking to her husband, let alone advising him, as the Lewinsky scandal dragged on."
You'd also have to blame Hillary for allowing Bill to sign the vile, homophobic Defense of Marriage Act. She supported it then and to this day she won't fully repudiate DOMA.
Obama has a Clinton-encouraged reputation for being all talk and no substance, but that's a falsehood propagated by people who don't really follow Obama. I encourage you to check out his thorough positions at http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ . Not only does Obama have concrete, well-researched opinions on a host of issues, but he delivers them in an inspiring way. Make no mistake, that inspiration is important. We have been disenfranchised and disappointed by politicians for so long that many are resigned to it — but what if we didn't have to be? What if we actually looked forward to the State of the Union? What if our best and brightest minds wanted to work for the government instead of shunning it? Can you imagine the advances we would make?
I can. That's why I am doing everything in my power to volunteer for Barack Obama.
I encourage you to make the choice along with me — to talk about it, to donate, and to spread the word.
I’ll be working the phones for Obama this weekend and I encourage you to do the same.
18 comments »
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post or for TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Hmmm.. this is a very interesting article, and thanks for making it indeed. I wasn’t a very big supporter of Obama, but after reading this i think ill give him a second chance… right after i look into him quite a bit more. Thanks!
Comment by Dan — January 31, 2008 @ 6:22 pm
Oh, and i like that he is such a big liberal! ;)
Comment by Dan — January 31, 2008 @ 6:23 pm
Whatttt are you kidding Hillary Clinto will so win this. She si the best and she has experience becaus eof her husband so yea obama will lose hillary will win!!!!
Comment by HILLARY CLINTON WILL WIN — January 31, 2008 @ 7:04 pm
I just wanted to add to for people who are not aware Ron Paul supports:
People who make money by tips should be allowed to keep them untaxed.
Getting rid of the IRS & possibly switching to a sales tax that brings illegal aliens & corporate | individual tax cheats (who exploit tax loopholes) into the tax system.
Getting rid of corporate lobbying system that buys & pays politicians.
Revaluing our devalued dollar, by going back to having the dollar be backed by something of value (Gold like before 1974)
Why? Because right now….we just print more money when we need it….making the dollar worth less & less. That means when you buy something with your paycheck.. it doesnt go very far….because companies don’t value your dollar very much in comparison to other countries money. Obama & Hillary don’t plan on changing anything about making your paycheck worth anymore than it is today….it will remain devalued even if the deficit is paid. Thats a hard one to swallow.
They (H & ) both fill you up with issues that don’t really improve the quality of your life.
Ron Paul believes in making a foreign policy that makes a very strong military to defend America, without telling other countries how they have to live .
(Which only makes them hate us).
Making the government much smaller which allows the taxes to go down even further.
Getting the government out of our private lives, by telling us what to do & issuing ’sneek peek’ warrants that allow the govt to go into your home without your permission | take a look & leave.
Democrats are the same as most Republicans….do not be misled.
Investigate Ron Pauls voting record. He stands now where he stood when he first took office as a congressman. All the others give typical election year opinion changing mamby pamby ness.
Telling you what you want to hear.
I can’t believe American citizens have become so ignorant not to notice what is happening during these debates.
There is no doubt that if “Ron Paul” is NOT a threat to monied interests in this country (in receiving their tax sponsored corporate welfare…..why would they decide to exclude him?
Obviously he is a threat to their free money & ability to then spend it with lobbyists to pass even more legistlation that benefits them directly.
If Ron Paul has such a low amount of support, why did the mainstream media have no problem pushing someone with no support
(Guiliani was supposedly a wrap for the Republican nomination, with no support the media pushed him like crazy !)
Democrats are exactly the same as most republicans these days. Bought & paid for.
Clinton has been caught so many times with her hand in the cookie jar ( Insider commodity trading, Walmart Union Busting)
Obama’s beautiful mansion bought & paid for by his biggest contributor mafia-tied real estate developer
Chicago “slum landlord” federally indicted Antoin “Tony” Rezko. The lot is just 1 away from Rezko’s own.
Comment by Jeff — January 31, 2008 @ 7:40 pm
Very well said. I’d like to emphasize in particular the ability of Obama to get independents and Republicans — yes, REPUBLICANS — to cross over and not just vote for him, but to CAUCUS for him, as we saw in Iowa. This is a guy with a 100% liberal voting record in the Senate, and Repubs are lining up around the block to hear him speak? Somebody pinch me!
Only once in a generation do we see a politician (of either party) who can command that kind of game-changing swing in the electorate. Reagan did it in 1980, but no Democrat has done it since FDR in 1932. Well, when you’ve got a candidate who is capable of that, fellow Democrats, you’d better get behind that candidate and PUSH. Because this chance will never come along again. NOW is the time, for Obama, for the Democratic party, and more importantly, for the United States of America.
Comment by Keith Pickering — January 31, 2008 @ 9:11 pm
I too am rooting for Obama and for many of the same reasons. Many oldsters when recalling the 90’s still have a dirty taste in their mouths despite the dot com boom and its eventual bust. Obama seems to truly seek harmony unlike his competitor who thrives on confrontation. He has a sincere respect for people that Hillary seems to lack. I always felt a little suckered by the Clintons and won’t let it happen again. Obama/Edwards is the dream ticket.
Comment by Deb — January 31, 2008 @ 9:57 pm
“I have no doubt he would advance a truly progressive agenda at a time when the world (and the climate) need it most”
Yeah, practically every country on the planet practicing “progressive” agendas is nearly bankrupt. And we need more of this because…???
Comment by Rick G — February 1, 2008 @ 3:22 am
Couldn’t agree with you more. See:
THE REASON that Clinton supporters should vote for Obama
Comment by famoustrader — February 1, 2008 @ 8:16 am
Well put! I will do everything I can to help Obama. He is a breath a fresh air in a depressed and cynical time.
Comment by DeeJay Arens — February 1, 2008 @ 8:44 am
Barack Obama’s Health Care is the Same Universal Health Care offered by Hillary and Edwards, but with one Major Difference: You Have the Option of Choice!
We as a nation have to decide, do we want to be forced to pay for universal medical insurance, like we are mandated to pay for auto insurance now? Or would we rather have the option of CHOICE — to be able to decide whether or not we want to buy our medical coverage when we think the time is right?
Barack Obama’s plan thoughtfully does not want to put another mandated cost, like auto insurance, on the backs of the people, especially the young, who already have college costs to contend with. However, the coverage is always there for you, if and when you need it. That is our decision and our choice!
Comment by Angellight — February 1, 2008 @ 10:59 am
I am simply at a loss. John Edwards was a candidate for whom I felt I could actually get excited. I watched the most recent debate on CNN last night, and I could scarcely muster up any motivation to support either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.
Despite her desire to be judged on her own merits, I am loathe to put Clinton in the White House because I am staunchly opposed to having our country be headed once again by one of the two families that have been running this country since before I could vote. That leaves Barack Obama who simply leaves me cold. I see where his (or Hillary’s) triumph would be a symbolic victory for the country, but is that enough?
I’d love for the Democrats to finally wake up and realize what they have in John Edwards.
Comment by Earnest — February 1, 2008 @ 5:08 pm
Hillary will indeed energize the Republican base but I think she could be McCain anyway. But the problem is bigger than just the White House. Progressives need to get this country back in the right direction and having the right President. You also need a LARGE margin in the House and Senate. 60% works best.
A charged Republican base can’t help for a Republican President, but it could keep the Progressive win in November too small to really make a difference.
This is another reason to vote for Obama.
Comment by Mark — February 1, 2008 @ 5:56 pm
I disagree. He has a funny name and I’d never heard of him before. Ha-Ha, just kidding. May the best man or woman win!
Comment by Wayne — February 1, 2008 @ 9:49 pm
Ron Paul is in favor of abolishing the war and the Federal income tax. He is in favor of returning liberalism to the STATES as the constitution requires. If you believe in liberal programs, support the guy who wants to remove the NOT efficient Federal programs and move the money to where the people are.
Comment by Elliot — February 2, 2008 @ 2:33 am
I’m sorry, but we did that in Quebec - having a “minority” leader for the left. Believe me, we learned the lessons. We had gone from that:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/25/international/americas/25quebec.html
to that:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F05E3DA1731F93AA35756C0A9619C8B63
Not everybody is as open as you would like to believe. And if you want results, not just good sentiments, that matters.
So we have proposed a gay candidate. What happened ? The most right wing party got a free ride to the second place.
Now, a woman is in charge of the left wing party (PQ). And the super-right party (ADQ) is crashing again in polls.
Comment by Alphonse Maigrelot — February 3, 2008 @ 4:28 pm
[…] Kyle (formerly of the now defunct Ostrich Ink, now of Flaunt and others). Greg posted it over at The Talent Show. For any who are on the fence about whether to go for “the woman or the black dude,” […]
Pingback by Californians - Vote for Obama Today! « Nuclear Rays From My Halogen Haze — February 5, 2008 @ 1:11 am
Unfortunately, his record of undecided votes makes me think he doesn’t know how to take a stand, and if you think americans won’t pay for the health care he plans, who do you think will???? With terrorism the deadly close threat to where you and I live, do you really want someone in charge who hasn’t even fullfilled a single term as senator? Remember the president is the head of the free world. Think about that !!! He speaks a great game but in the real world what he proposes won’t really work. If I am facxed with a vote for a republican or Obama, I will vote republican. I am not alone in this. I was deeply offended when super Tues. night Obama spoke and played the race card. I was insulted and surprised that more americans were not !!! Shame on him. It doesn’t matter what color skin a child has, they should not be catagorized. They are all american children. Now I know I cannot vote for him if he sees people in black and white.
Comment by Jane Doe — February 6, 2008 @ 12:56 pm
to the note that someone couldnt vote for Obama for his undecided votes…those werent undeceide votes! They were votes where he declared “Present.” In the Illinoise system of voting-they have buttons of Green for yes Red for No and yellow for present. By declaring present, one is saying-i don’t oppose the bill…i’m not for it….if enough others support the bill, then it should pass, but note that I’m not going to add to either side in the vote totals. It is a way to make a statement on an issue.
Comment by kevin — February 7, 2008 @ 11:30 pm