Clinton or Obama? Why I am so torn.

[Ugnmoose]

First let me say that whoever finally emerges with the nomination, I will support wholeheartedly. Either one will be light years better than McCain. I must also admit that I was and still am a big John Edwards fan and was truly devastated when he dropped out. Nevertheless, we are now faced with the proposition of trying to discern who of the remaining candidates will not only change things for the better but will stand the best chance of getting into the White House come November. I have tried to make a critical and objective assessment of each of the candidates strengths and weaknesses and weigh them. Here is what I have come up with so far. Please feel free to chime in by adding your own comments.

Hillary Clinton
Strengths
1. She has substantial White House experience by virtue of having been a fully engaged and actively involved First Lady.
2. She has been fully vetted. There is virtually nothing about her that is not well known - no skeletons in her closet
3. She is a policy wonk - heavy on details and hands on in making decisions.
4. She communicates her positions very well.
5. Bill Clinton - for those who respect him and what he had done as President.
6. Progressive positions on major issues such as universal health care
Weaknesses
1. She is a woman. And regardless of what one might think this is still a male dominated society when it comes to politics. We are making progress, but I don't think we are quite there yet.
2. She has a pension for speaking out of both sides of her mouth which makes her look wishy washy.
3. Her vote for invasion of Iraq and refusal to apologize for it.
4. Major financial support from lobbyists - can she change the system when she is indebted to those who seem to control it.
5. Bill Clinton - for speaking off the cuff and alienating folks. Also, for those who still hold grudges over the Lewinsky affair.

Barack Obama
Strengths
1. Powerful communicator - has inspirational message
2. Solid campaign management and strategy
3. Limited national legislative track-record. You would think this is a liability but in his case I think it helps since there is very little one can attack him on.
4. He is black. He is a novelty in that we have never had a black man who can run a competitive campaign for President.
5. His campaign is engaging young voters who typically don't turn out to vote in general elections.
Weaknesses
1. Light on policy details so far, especially as compared to Clinton
2. Admitted that he is not hands on and will rely on others to run the government - will rely heavily on advisors
3. Not fully vetted yet. So far he has gotten very little scrutiny from the MSM. If he has any skeletons they will surface during the GE.
4. Dodging his 17 year relationship with indicted influence peddler Tony Rezko
5. Race could be an issue, especially in the South

On balance I guess one would have to say that Clinton is a known entity. People either like her or hate her. She will probably have a difficult time with independents in the general election which brings her overall electability into question. However, one should never underestimate the Clintons or their resourcefulness. They don't go down easily. Obama on the other hand is the fresh face - the new kid on the block. He can be the voice of change we so desperately crave. The big question is can he deliver. Can we trust him since he is unproven and relatively inexperienced, or is he just another politician who will make promises he will not keep leaving us disappointed.
Obama's background has been relatively undistinguished and built along lines of bi-partisn compromise. And his campaign emphasizes that he will bring us all together. Is this realistic. Can he stand up to the Rethuglican attack machine? Do we want a President who may be unwilling to take a stand and fight for it even if it might be unpopular with the inside the beltway crowd. So many questions and so few answers. In this regard, I do agree with the Clinton camp that nominating Obama is a leap of faith. However, it may well be a leap worth taking given the alternatives.





4.
2.

[eleny]

1. You know what you want to do

I told myself I'd sleep on it. Sort of gave myself some breathing time where I didn't have to think anymore. And when I got up the next day I knew what I wanted to do all along.

Good luck with your decision.

[Ugnmoose]

2. May I ask who you picked and why?

eom

[thevoiceofreason]

3. Ugnmoose

There is no wrong decision. Follow your gut and your heart (a message from, believe it or not, your neighborhood barack supporter).

Do that with which you are comfortable. You are always welcome.

[usregimechange]

4. Good thoughtful and fair analysis, k/r

[David Zephyr]

5. They are both good candidates and I hope they are on the ticket together.

I just think Obama is more electable and would be the cultural leap that I've waited my life for.

I support whatever you choose. I sat out all of 2007 because I just couldn't decide, so don't feel bad. Barack or Hillary are both brilliant and would both be superb. For me, the war in Iraq probably still came to be something deep in my spine that I could not resolve with Hillary. But that's just me.

[Ugnmoose]

9. I think we win either way

Both are highly energetic and intelligent and excellent communicators. What a breath of fresh air from what we have experienced over the past 7 years. I think it is very critical that we come out of this nomination process united and fully engaged in getting our candidate elected.

[FrenchieCat]

6. I disagree that there is nothing new on HIllary......

cause there is...which is why she's not releasing the tax returns till AFTER the nomination process is over, she says.

FYI, Here's the tip of the iceberg: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4473288

[Indenturedebtor]

12. OMG I talked to Vin Gupta the other day

I sell ad space for companies at tradeshows and I talked to the guy for like 20 minutes. Ended up telling him that he's basically an asshat for not buying an ad haha :P

Ok total sidetrack but I just realised that after reading your link. Salesgenie. HAH. I should have ripped him a new one for his shadiness instead of telling him that he lacked strategic vision.

:rofl: Funny how stuff like this happens. I was probably reading DU at the time as well.

Anyways back to our scheduled programming.

[sandnsea]

7. You're wrong about the vetted part

There are plenty of scandals waiting for the Clintons. InfoUSA is just the tip of the iceberg.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4581505&mesg_id=4581505

Rezko has been vetted in Chicago for years. There is nothing there.

When you actually compare policy, Obama is the one who has the legislative record of accomplishment and the practical details that will make the difference.

What has Hillary accomplished in 8 years in the Senate? Nothing that she's ever mentioned.

What has Obama accomplished? Passed Ethics Reform and Lugar-Obama nonproliferation, two big pieces of legislation. There are a lot of good small ones as well.

As to health care, Obama is the one who introduced an amendment to the Illinois State Constitution to make health care a right. A mandate is irrelevant to bringing health care to everybody. How it is done will make more difference. Vagrancy laws didn't end homelessness. You have uninsured motorists because mandates didn't make everyone have auto insurance.

Try looking at the two of them from a view outside the one the pundits are pushing, and your choice will be easier.

[donheld]

8. Torn between two lovers/ feeling like a fool/ loving both of you

is breaking all the rules...

[onenote]

10. I engaged in a similar analysis a couple of weeks ago:

From my post of a couple of weeks ago...

I have steadfastly remained on the fence in the race for the Democratic nomination. However, I find myself moving off the fence and wanted to share my thinking (with the hope that I am not starting a flame war in doing so).

First and foremost, I should be clear that I approach the issue of who to support from a totally pragmatic perspective. I want a candidate that can win. Period. That may bother some people who think that it means I have no principles, but I can live with that criticism. What I can't live with is another four to eight years of repubs controlling the executive branch (and by extension, the judiciary).

With that in mind, I have always considered Clinton, Obama and Edwards (the only candidates I felt were ever serious contenders for the nomination) as nominees who could defeat the repub candidate and I would have no problem in voting for any of them. If anything, I was probably leaning a bit towards Edwards based on my belief that he might be more acceptable to the electorate at large than either Clinton or Obama.

However, Edwards never did catch on and now he's gone. As between Obama and Clinton, I see strenghs and weaknesses in both. Obama's "newness" is both an advantage, in that I think it attracts people who have not previously gotten involved in politics and who are ready for "change", and a disadvantage, because many will consider him too inexperienced or untested. (I personally am not concerned about Obama's experience or lack thereof; my only reason for mentioning it is that my perception is that some voters may be concerned).

As for Clinton, her lack of "newness" is also both a blessing and a curse. She is a known entity. Her husband's presidency, particularly in comparison to the past eight years, looks pretty good and that attracts a lot of Democrats who have been active in the party through both the good times and the lean times. On the other hand, she is a polarizing figure to many. Its unfair that this is the case, but its undeniably true. I think she, like Bill before her, can overcome that and win against any of the potential repubs, particularly because of her appeal to women, but overall I'm not sure if the number of "ABC" voters doesn't offset at least in some significant measure, the number of voters that she brings in that would not previously have paid attention to the campaign.

Ultimately, my leaning towards Obama is based on the sense that I have that his message of "change" (whether or not you believe it means anything in reality) is resonating with a lot of voters, particularly independents and those who have not gotten involved in the political process in the past. Does he have the potential to push away voters, particularly those who with deep set racial biases? Yes. But I think a lot of those voters, sadly, also would be alienated by a female candidate. So on balance, I see the Obama candidacy of having more potential upside for exciting a part of the electorate that hasn't been active.

I think that either a clinton candidacy or an obama candidacy could generate a lot of excitement. But at the moment, I'm personally feeling that this sense of excitement surrounds the Obama campaign more than the Clinton campaign. Maybe its just an infatuation with the new and unknown -- and like all infatuations, it will diminish. But at least for the moment, that feeling of excitement is drawing me in and pulling me off the fence in Obama's direction.

[Ugnmoose]

11. Thanks

This is a refreshingly pragmatic view. I too selfishly believe that electability is a critical issue.