Obama is willing to break from the party line on several issues where the party is wrong. Charter schools, trade agreements, and whether there were awesome things about Reagan (as well as some bad) feature prominently in this line of argument.
I get that this is about the negative reasons, but this interaction was the worst I've seen on the Dem side this cycle: BLITZER: All right. Senator Clinton, all of us remember the big NAFTA debate when your husband was president of the United States. A lot of us remember the debate between Al Gore, who was then vice president, and Ross Perot.
Ross Perot was fiercely against NAFTA.
Knowing what we know now, was Ross Perot right?
(LAUGHTER)
CLINTON: All I can remember from that is a bunch of charts.
(LAUGHTER)
That, sort of, is a vague memory.
The only possible defense is that she was lying and pandering, which I hope to be true. To her credit, her voting has been more positive than her rhetoric on the subject. Also, Bill's rhetoric is still great and it's possible that he'd have influence.
Anyway, back to the positive, electorally Obama puts himself forward as an optimist, a move forward to a new politics, and is exceptionally capable when it comes to making his attacks personal without seeming negative. His current stump speech about agreeing with the McCain who put was against tax cuts for the rich is a great example. By cultivating the razzle dazzle over the appearance of personal attacks, he guarantees a powerful contrast with his opponent that should have significant down ticket effect, getting more Democrats elected. Likewise with his honesty (lots of "you'll suffer under this policy, but it'll be worth it to protect the poor/ the planet/ etc.") and positive marital record. I'm not currently aware of any Obama silliness along the lines of the energy independence efforts being what is needed to get America out of a recession. Again, there's a lot of mileage to be made from the contrast between an environmental plan that's worth sacrificing for, and essentially the same plan that comes for free (McCain's claim). There's much less of a difference between one miracle plan and another.
His health care plan retains more of what makes American health care great. Canadians would still have somewhere to go.
The President isn't a legislator, and most of his administrative duties are cabinet secretarial work. There's a degree to which what we want in a POTUS is a diplomat, and Obama is pretty good at persuading the unwashed masses of various countries that he's a good guy. Admittedly, some of that may change since he's still wanting to be, you know, an American President, and with most of the world sucking on America's teat, it's pretty hard to avoid resentment.
I'm not convinced that Obama would be a better POTUS than Hillary. I'm not completely sold about which party would be better in November, either, but I thought I'd offer a few of the arguments that push me toward the man.
no subject
I get that this is about the negative reasons, but this interaction was the worst I've seen on the Dem side this cycle:
BLITZER: All right. Senator Clinton, all of us remember the big NAFTA debate when your husband was president of the United States. A lot of us remember the debate between Al Gore, who was then vice president, and Ross Perot.
Ross Perot was fiercely against NAFTA.
Knowing what we know now, was Ross Perot right?
(LAUGHTER)
CLINTON: All I can remember from that is a bunch of charts.
(LAUGHTER)
That, sort of, is a vague memory.
The only possible defense is that she was lying and pandering, which I hope to be true. To her credit, her voting has been more positive than her rhetoric on the subject. Also, Bill's rhetoric is still great and it's possible that he'd have influence.
Anyway, back to the positive, electorally Obama puts himself forward as an optimist, a move forward to a new politics, and is exceptionally capable when it comes to making his attacks personal without seeming negative. His current stump speech about agreeing with the McCain who put was against tax cuts for the rich is a great example. By cultivating the razzle dazzle over the appearance of personal attacks, he guarantees a powerful contrast with his opponent that should have significant down ticket effect, getting more Democrats elected. Likewise with his honesty (lots of "you'll suffer under this policy, but it'll be worth it to protect the poor/ the planet/ etc.") and positive marital record. I'm not currently aware of any Obama silliness along the lines of the energy independence efforts being what is needed to get America out of a recession. Again, there's a lot of mileage to be made from the contrast between an environmental plan that's worth sacrificing for, and essentially the same plan that comes for free (McCain's claim). There's much less of a difference between one miracle plan and another.
His health care plan retains more of what makes American health care great. Canadians would still have somewhere to go.
The President isn't a legislator, and most of his administrative duties are cabinet secretarial work. There's a degree to which what we want in a POTUS is a diplomat, and Obama is pretty good at persuading the unwashed masses of various countries that he's a good guy. Admittedly, some of that may change since he's still wanting to be, you know, an American President, and with most of the world sucking on America's teat, it's pretty hard to avoid resentment.
I'm not convinced that Obama would be a better POTUS than Hillary. I'm not completely sold about which party would be better in November, either, but I thought I'd offer a few of the arguments that push me toward the man.