My Quandary

It is February 16th -- and I haven't made up my mind. Obama, or Hillary?

The choice is obvious to many of my friends. Most of them long ago chose one or the other. I, on the other hand, still struggle to choose. Here is why:

Obama, to me, makes the better candidate. He is younger, more uplifting, more charismatic, and more "likeable." He represents a "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" type of politics. When he talks about hope, and unity, and making government work for all, I believe him. It's not just hype -- I sense that this is really who he is. Frankly, if it is Obama versus McCain, I think Obama wins in a walk.

Clinton, on the other hand, gives me such pause. There is so much about her that bothers me: her fund-raising, her ties to corporate interests, the amount of baggage (real and imagined) she brings to the election. Having Bill on her side has proven to be a liability during the campaign. Worst of all, she represents the tired DLC model of campaigning, while Obama seems to be closer to Dean's 50-State Strategy. McCain versus Clinton, to me, is a very close race.

But ...

I wonder if Clinton wouldn't make the better president, if elected. I get the sense that she is just as much a policy wonk as Bill. I think, frankly, she would be a stronger executive, able to push legislation through, able to build coalitions, able to deal with foreign leaders as experienced equals. Depending on how she works it, Bill's expertise might be very useful during her tenure.

And, unlike some, I sense that she really is doing this because she cares about this country, and wants to undo the damage that BushCo has done over the past eight years. I know it's the in thing to bash the Clintons as just typical baby-boomer climbers -- but even allowing for the expected level of ambition it takes to run for president, I still sense that the achievement is, for Hillary, only the means to the end, not the end in itself.

Obama, on the other hand, gives me pause in two ways. First of all, I wonder if there are things in the closet that we haven't heard about yet, that may come out during the general. Is he getting a pass during the primaries, because the "first black president" makes a better story, especially coupled with the "underdog overcomes the front-runner" story? Does our immense need for a politician we can believe in cause us to admire only, and not consider?

Secondly -- I wonder, frankly, how good a president Obama would make. I've heard all the lines about "it's better to be right on day one" and so forth -- but there is much to be said for having been there, if for no other reason than the ability to get up to speed quickly. From the building of an administration, to the million mundane details, to the ability to make it work, I think Clinton starts with a huge advantage. I think back to another idealistic president, Carter, and remember that it seemed to take his team forever to just get the engine started. Would Obama have the same problem?

And is Obama strong enough to govern? Assuming Money-Bags Mitch is back (at least an even bet, at this point), who is stronger in that confrontration? If I put Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and McConnell in the Oval Office, I think McConnell is the strongest person in that room. If it's Hillary instead of Obama, though, I think she is the strongest person in the room.

"You campaign in poetry; you govern in prose." I love Obama's poetry, but I wonder if Hillary's prose isn't what we need come January 2009. There is much to do, and much to undo, and frankly Hillary strikes me as more capable of getting the tough work done.

And yet -- I wonder, when she is finished doing, what she will have done, and for whom.

So, I still wonder, and watch, and wait. Kentucky's primary is in May, and this time, my vote may actually matter. Here's hoping the quandary is solved by then.

•  Tip jar

  Frankly, it's thrilling to me to have two great choices. What do you think? Anyone out there still considering, or am I the only one whose mind isn't made up?

  by bmaples on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:56:55 AM PDT

  •  either way

    we win.

    by AndrewMC on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:57:34 AM PDT

    •  If I were with the DNC

      I'd already be running this ad:

      America, here are your choice:
      The nation's first woman president --
      The nation's first black president --
      Or just another old white guy.

      Isn't it time for something new?

      Vote Democratic

      I love it. :--)

      by bmaples on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:00:36 AM PDT

  •  You're not the only one

    I didn't caucus this year because I just couldn't decide. The pros and cons of each candidate are equal in my mind.

    I'll be happy with either one.

    Here's to you and your decision.

    by BoiseBlue on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:59:01 AM PDT

  •  My suggestion

    Go out and get a copy of The Audacity of Hope.

    If you want to know whether or not Obama's wonkish enough for you, or whether he's given the process side enough thought, read this book.

    It really helped me gain insight into the course he wants to take.

    by DemocraticOz on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:10:08 AM PDT

    •  Thanks -- I'll do that

      I've put off reading the book because my side-table is already groaning. But, it seems the thing to do if I really want to be informed.

      Thanks,

      by bmaples on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:15:57 AM PDT

  •  A couple of thoughts

    In some ways I agree that HRC actually could be a good president.  I do agree wholeheartedly that she is immersed in the details and has a number of ideas across a broad spectrum of issues.

    However....we've also seen her in action before when setting down to task, most notably in health care reform.  Generally she was on the side of angels there and faced opposition from a hostile republican party but the way she conducted the task, the secrecy, etc, actually served to diminish her cause.  End game: despite her command of facts, figures and commitment to cause, 15 years later we still don't have health care reform and, in fact, the situation has become even more dire.   Hillary may call herself a leader---will anyone follow?

    Also in regard to skeletons in Obama's closets.  I suspect if he had anything heinous to uncover, Penn & co. would have found it by now.  The fact that they had to harken back to a kindergarten essay by BO speaks to the level of searching that they conducted.  I suspect there isn't much "there" there.   For that matter, there wasn't much on Kerry, either.  They used what every normal person would consider a strength against him.   The trick this time around is to respond against attacks, no matter how outlandish, and respond forcefully.  

    Back in the day, Jimmy Carter seemed like kind of a fluke candidate with little national outreach.  Obama has experience in Washington as well and has many influntial and experienced people backing his campaign.  I have no doubt that his team can hit the ground running on 1/21/09.

    Good luck in narrowing down your decision!

    by Bailey on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:25:15 AM PDT

•  One thing, about toughness...

  I'm shamelessly cross-posting this comment from another diary where I posted it. I should probably write a whole diary on it, but I think that's already been done better than I could do it:

  Obama's so-called "kumbaya" is not meant for Republican Pols. It's meant for voters. Voters who aren't committed to one party or the other, but who would rather go along with the one that is less nasty, less negative.

  Think of the "kumbaya" language as directed towards your Republican-leaning uncle that doesn't follow the political news all the time, and won't vote for Democrats because he thinks they are loud and shrill. He's not a bad guy, he isn't a torture-obsessed psycho neocon, but he's skeptical about whether Democrats will try to do what's best for the country rather than settling personal scores.

  by klizard on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:00:11 AM PDT

•  here's a big problem at this point

  mathematically the only way Hillary gets the nomination  is with a "dirty" victory. Looking at the demographics of states to come it's almost impossable to see how she wins the pledged delegate race. If Obama wins the pledged delegate race and is not the nominee Hillary has a much chance of becoming president as I do, like it or not it will be seen as a race issue and that this thing was fixed from the start. Hillary has fallen too far behind for a clean victory at this point it seems she's just trying to take Obama down with her.

  by nevadadem on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:00:49 AM PDT

  •  I haven't looked at the math yet

    but you make an interesting point.

    The only way, frankly, I can see this thing turning out badly for Dems is if we get to the convention with Obama with a large lead, only to have Hillary win it through super-delegates. That's a recipe for disaster.

    The math doesn't change my thinking, though, at this point. I'm still torn. A de facto candidate doesn't relieve me of the responsibility to vote for the person I consider both the best candidate AND the best potential president.

    Thanks for the note, though -- I need to go look at the math.

    by bmaples on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:03:52 AM PDT

    •  I disagree because if you really can't

      make up your mind making sure the next president is simply a Democrat should be a big tiebreaker. Barring a major upset in Wisconson it's going to be abundantly clear Hillary can not be president, how the party handles that fact remains to be seen.

      by nevadadem on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:07:21 AM PDT

•  I know longer see Hillary as

  this emblem of strength.  Not sure I ever bought into that narrative actually.  In any case, her inabiliity to run her own campaign is a major blow against the strength meme.  She kept an inept campaign manager on long after she should have seen the writing on the wall.  She didn't know about the financial difficulities of her own camaign.  She made an initial assumption that she was inevitable and was unable to move fast enough when that went by the wayside.  I see Obama as being a stronger President than Hillary, who will be mired in the thorny dynamics of the past.  

  by ClaryinVT on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:06:04 AM PDT

  •  Oops. Make that "no longer see....." eom

    by ClaryinVT on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:07:33 AM PDT

    •  The recent campaign changes

      certainly are a factor in the decision. Again, it's impossible to know all that goes on inside a campaign -- but it sure looks tough when the top person goes "on her own" and then the #2 follows suit.

      Thanks for the input,

      by bmaples on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:17:57 AM PDT

•  I'd go with BO

  I think he will be a strong leader who will get things done, his track recrod shows that.

  by SensibleDemocrat on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:13:26 AM PDT

•  Bill Clinton was a two term governer

  of a state with a population smaller than most medium or large sized cities.  Smaller than Chicago.

  He won the presidency on little more than his promises, a book he wrote, and an optimistic and refreshing vision.

  For me, it's character, temperament and how the candidate makes decisions that are the biggest qualifications.

  This isn't meant to be snarky at all, but I don't understand what people mean when they say Senator Clinton is "tough".  Does that mean aggressive?  Does it mean uncompromising?  In the context of the presidency, the toughest presidents have ALWAYS been the collaborative ones.  Receptive to opposing points of view, willing to have people around you that know more than you, willing to set the direction and hold people to account, but LET GO of the fine details so your cabinet can do its job.

  IMHO.

  by mrchumchum on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:22:26 AM PDT

  •  He was elected to 4 terms I think

    served, as gov for 12 years, just an fyi.

    by SensibleDemocrat on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 03:02:11 PM PDT

    •  My bad! Didn't do my homework on that one! n/t

      by mrchumchum on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 06:25:35 AM PDT

•  Excellent diary - Very Lucid

  I went through much of the same internal debate that you're going through. When I finally made a decision to vote for Obama in my primary it came down to this: if Hillary wins the general election she wins narrowly and she doesn't have coattails. If Obama wins he has the chance of winning big and bringing in big Democratic majorities into Congress. If that's true, then Obama have way less power to obstruct progress.

  by Red Bean on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:23:17 AM PDT

  •  I meant to say

    Rethugs have way less power to obstruct progress...

    by Red Bean on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:27:24 AM PDT

•  I keep hearing echos

  of Reagan versus Carter.  It was a different time and a different story of course, but there is some similarity.

  The Carter administration had its problems.  The oil embargo made Americans feel vulnerable in a way that the Cold War never had.  There was the malaise and of course the hostages.  The nation was not feeling "good".  People knew something was wrong, but they couldn't tell you what exactly.  

  Carter didn't offer optimism.  He talked about sacrifices instead.  Nothing wrong with that, but he was up against Mister Sunshine, Mister Morning in America himself.  And America saw someone who made them feel good about themselves, and they liked that.  They didn't know Reagan, but that was part of the charm.  When the calvalry comes charging to the rescue, people's first impulse is to cheer, not to ask what the plan of action is.

  And that's basically why Carter lost.  The more people know, the more people question.  The less people know, the less they question.

  It has precious little to do with the actual candidates themselves than it does with a fortuitous set of circumstances.  Imagine Obama running instead of John Kerry - wouldn't have worked.  Too much change at the wrong time.

  But now?  An entirely different story - only because the circumstances have changed.

  by Fabian on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:23:59 AM PDT

  •  I like the sig

    That's part of my dilemma -- I'm afraid Obama has a ton of sizzle, but I wonder about the steak. I don't want, a year or two from now, to be saying, "Where's the beef?"

    by bmaples on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:27:09 AM PDT

    •  LooAHville!

      I'm willing to believe that Obama has potential.  But I don't buy the idea that he is The One who can create real bipartisanship.  

      I think about going to church and the priest would deliver the homily and encourage us to "Go and live the Word of Christ!" in our lives.  I wondered how many of us actually tried to.  I suspected that most probably forgot his words by the time they left the parking lot.

      Same thing with Obama.  He talks inclusiveness and unity and the people who support him probably are none the better for having heard that message.  

      by Fabian on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:37:30 AM PDT

•  What this all really comes down to

  ..is that Bill Clinton, while perceived as a popular president and "got good things done" was actually incredibly weak in office. This has been overshadowed by loud shouts of how great it was during the 90s.

  Well sure it was, as compared to now! It couldn't NOT be better, with us not spending 400 billion a year on a war, and at least a token gesture at a fair tax system. I don't see that as a Clinton success. Also any financial guy worth his salt will tell you the late 90s was a complete aberration.. it was not supposed to happen, but rich folks dumped loads of capital into the tech market, creating a 'false bubble'. That wasn't Clinton's doing!

  The reality is that there were several things he did that created much of the mess we are in right now.

  NAFTA and GATT. Nuff said? Perot was right.. when NAFTA passed it created a "giant sucking sound that was American jobs leaving the country" GATT was worse.

  He strengthened the WTO, thus taking away some of our ability to police our economy with Tariffs and weakening our stance in International Courts of Law.

  He devastated Welfare (remember the whole 'welfare queen' thing?) putting millions of low income families directly into the poverty column, and as a result of it, the Children's defense Fund director's HUSBAND resigned his position in protest. You know.. the CDF? The place Hillary keeps mentioning she worked for? Yeah, they despise her now.

  He pardoned some FALC terrorists on his way out, much to the consternation of various groups.

  He signed a deal with Austria that limited the possible settlement amounts from American Holocaust survivors seeking compensation due to them from insurance claims to 225 million dollars. Now that doesn't sound like a big deal, until you realize the actual amount of money involved is on the order of 140 BILLION dollars. Yep.. he defrauded millions of Americans with a single stroke of a pen.

  And on and on. When you really LOOK at the Clinton presidency, and at Hillary in particular, you begin to realize they didn't do much at all for the Democratic party (they LOST the congress in 1994 due to all sorts of nasty, and it stayed lost until 2006, with almost no help from the Clintons) and in fact weakened it tremendously due to their politics of "Triangulation" which is shorthand for "throw people who cant directly help your political ambitions under the bus".

  No, I do not love the Clintons. I do not like the Clintons. I do not even respect the Clintons. But I have pretty good reason for that, and it is not just an "emotional reaction". Bill and Hillary were influence peddlers who, it is true, limited the damage they could have done by parsing out various tasks to people who actually gave a crap. But what they did NOT do is unite the country, or help the progressive case in any significant way. In my view, they damaged it more than if we had had another 4 years of G.H.W. Maybe then we would never have had junior, we would have held control of congress, and some real progressives would have gotten in since.

  No.. I am strongly for Obama for all of these reasons, and because of the simple fact that the most hurtful thing anyone can come up with on the guy is having an acquaintance with a land guy who turned out to be dirty, and the daughter of his pastor gave accolades to Farrakhan.

  Duh. Its Chicago! You can't walk 10 feet without hitting either one of those! Obama is the most authentic candidate I have yet seen in my lifetime, and I enthusiastically support him for his policy positions, for his heart, and for his talent. He is absolutely brilliant, and under the covers he is a true policy wonk. Check out "Sentinel Source Obama" on youtube sometime.

  And Obama does NOT have the shadow of corruption in state government following him around whenever anyone mentions 'ADFA'. In fact, he is so clean, I have to slap myself to believe he is real.

  Good luck in your decision!

  by knome on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:06:45 AM PDT