Here are my issues:
1)Inspirational talk is a great tool, but what is he going to do specifically.
2)He's been campaigning for the big job since he started in the Senate, has he proven his worth as a public servant yet?
3)Why does he have to constantly refer to Kennedy and MLK alone? These are no-brainer civil rights figure heads. This rhetoric doesn't help me understand the specific goals of his administration.
4)Will someone please tell me why Hillary is the devil? (Honest question)
5) I kept thinking about Bob the Builder during his speech (can we do it? yes we can!)
5 comments:
I'm just wondering why it's been over 5 hours so far, and Stella hasn't come uncork'd on you!
(as stella is in class, i will make a few points, certainly not the only ones to consider.) WARNING: I WROTE TOO MUCH, AND AM AN OBAMA SUPPORTER.
HC's not the devil, but she is too often exactly what she critically claims BO to be. She is, therefore, a hypocrite. For example, if we want to talk about someone running for the Big Chair from Day 1, Hilary is the winner. First, BO did 8 years in the Illinois legislature; not known as the express line to Oval Office. By contrast, HC, ran for the Senate in New York, where she had never lived before, having never held elected office before that. Her 8 years as first lady really, REALLY, don't count as being elected to, and responsible for, holding public office. Fact. That gives him more experience (in elected office) than she. Hypocrite on experience and possibly on overreaching ambition (though they are both ambitious, and that's necessary tobe in the race at all).
Having watched a LOT of BO speeches, I would say that his reference to MLK and JFK, JFK in particular, is not simply about civil rights. It is about building consensus and achieving unity to create change. Personally, I have heard as many HC campaign references to BO using those names as I've actually heard him use. Your mileage may vary on this one, but that is my opinion, based on my actual viewing of many speeches of his during this campaign.
HC is not the devil. HC has, however, appealed to fear of terrorist attack in her primary speeches, right out of the GOP/Bush playbook. (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/clinton_reaches.html)
I watched this speech to see if it was out of context, or not about Obama. It was quoted in context, and referred to Obama, to repudiate Bushian incompetence in the face of missing warnings on 9/11, and to posit herself as an expert prepared with experience. Well, she voted to cede authority to Bush on the invasion; she did not read the classified reports available to her prior to that vote (large NYT article about that, in the magazine); she did not espouse criticism of our presence in Iraq or espouse a course of action differing from the Bush admin until Spring, 2006. Her credibility on the issue is near zero, imho, and I can't think of a more important vote in the last 8 years for a senator to have blown. (At least Edwards admits that he made a mistake when he voted for it.)
I also feel that her claim to foreign policy experience is ridiculous. Why no one asks what her security clearance was during BC 1 and 2, what her participation in cabinet meetings on those issues was, what policy initiatives she influenced or created, or anything else specific is truly beyond me. She loves to claim credit for her husbands' administration, to claim expertise and connections from that period; well, why does she never offer any specifics?
I would also like to point out the issue is largely moot. For example -- who was the only President to successfully orchestrate and complete a peace treaty in the Middle East (not including any bs by Bush in puppet Iraq)? Jimmy Carter, whose pre-Pres. job was governor of Georgia. Foreign policy experience: nil. Bill Clinton's foreign policy experience: nil. Reagan, the man who killed communism (NOT! but even if you believe it...): nil. Therefore, I don't think it's a big deal, as well as thinking she also has no substantive experience in this area.
BO does have many specifics. Check out his health care plan; I actually prefer Clinton's and Edwards' in many ways, but I also think his is a great improvement on our current plans, ie none. Actually read his plans, everyone; don't just use the opinion of his opponents as a substitute. I'm not claiming to have it all down, but I have read many of their specific positions and plans, and he is not the blank slate/empty vessel he is made out to be by debate moderators and HC. That is not my opinion. Read his Iraq plans. Read his tax plans.
BO public service bonafides. Example - The bill he authored and passed into law, that reveals all earmarks and their sponsors, is not bullshit. He forged support for it by co-authoring with the most reactionary Republican freshman Senator, Tom Coburn, and it is an example of both the political savvy and bipartisan work required to undermine entrenched interests, and change the playing field in a way needed to bring about further change. It is also one he really worked on, didn't just sign onto, from what I've read.
I'd like to hear more about the work that HC has done in the Senate. Not just her committeeships, but her votes, her work.
I have yet to hear HC take anything but credit for change; the only reference to her blowing a chance to revolutionize healthcare in term 1 of Bill C. is to say that "they" (ie "she") did not communicate effectively in that process, which helped create resistance. Again, while this is my opinion, I feel this is not simply dishonest (to be expected) but duplicitous (unacceptable). She not only blew healthcare with her botched project in Term 1 BC, her failed work helped create the tide that swept the Democrats out of Congressional majority in 1994, making it that much harder for BC to pursue his agenda, keeping healthcare a botch to the present day, and making any proposal left of Lieberman a no-go. She had a significant role in that blowout, and has shown no honest effort to learn from that except for learning to outflank any rival in her own party by moving to their right.
She criticizes BO for missing votes; she has missed 23% of the votes since election to Senate. When BO said he would "talk" to our enemies as part of his foreign policy and diplomacy, HC said many emphatic times that it was a sign of his inexperience...until she said, less than a month later, that she would do exactly the same thing (in contrast to the Bush administration).
BO and HC voted the same over 90% of their shared time in the Senate. HC, however, has the tendency to use the rhetorical methods of her real opponents (GOP) against her real allies (Dems). That speech I linked to, re planned attacks and fear and FEAR, was made the morning after she lost the Iowa caucus. That, and other campaign tactics, would suggest she regards winning as the "only thing", and I have a real problem with that, both on principle and as a way to set the stage for her term as Pres, should she win. She is making it harder to change things vs the last 8 years of gwb for ANY Democrat that wins, by resorting to the words, issues, and tactics of the GOP. We lose because of the way she tries to win, not only forsaking some higher ground, but also the "reality-based" community, the world of facts, when it suits her campaign needs.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/
politicalintelligence/2008/01/clinton_reaches.html
sorry, the link above was cut off.
salic!
And on the off chance your head didn't just explode. ..
Check out this npr piece (scroll to the bottom, text and audio), Obama addressing some of your questions!
Ka-Boom!
Thanks Tony, that was what I was some of what I wanted. I understand Obama's theory that a more unified country can result in real change, and i think he can do that. A grassroots approach to change in government is exciting and I support it. But I refuse to discount HC's experience in and around the White House as well as her dedication to health care and child wellfare over the course of her entire career. There has been no adminsitration, elected official or public servant completely above reproach by someone something or some issue.
I want the democratic party to put forth the candidate who is most likely to be elected POTUS and lead an administration that will encourage least 12 years of Democrats in the WH. I want a President who is a about change and development. I hope Obama is the one and it is my hope that he will articulate that in the coming weeks.
Post a Comment