Boston Globe for Obama
I’ve been thinking more lately about the ‘08 Presidential race. Yes, I’ve looked on in horror as, e.g., Mike Huckabee’s star ascends in direct proportion to his attacks on Mitt Romney’s religion. I’ve been satisfied by Giuliani’s fall after it was learned that he fudged the books, Enron-like, to hide the fact that New York City was paying for a security detail to accompany him during trysts with his lover-now-wife in the Hamptons. And what about the Ron Paul Revolution? He can’t crack double digits, but he’s the nominee!!!!! Bank on it!!!!!!
On the Democratic side, I’ve been quietly supporting New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, but he’s not going anywhere. He’s run something of a clumsy campaign. It’s between Obama and Clinton. Richardson is running for Secretary of State at this point - a post for which he is eminently qualified. So, as between Obama and Clinton, I’m leaning very much towards Obama.
We need a sea-change in Washington. Among the Democrats, he’s the one who can pull it off based on his intelligence, his experience, and his penchant for openness and transparency. I get the impression that he’ll do what he can to dramatically alter the way Washington does business, and he’ll do it without pissing off everyone in his way. Then consider his major competition.
Hillary Clinton.
How much baggage do those two words come with? How polarizing is she? Remember the 1994 conservative backlash and how that helped deepen the divide between Democrats and Republicans? I don’t have any particular problem with her at all, but when I think of whom I want in the White House to follow up a Bush, I don’t think I want her. This country is in need of emergency repair - a uniter, not a divider. Hillary is a lot of things, but a uniter, she’s not.
Put simply, I don’t think Hillary Clinton is whom this country needs to lead it deeper into the 21st Century.
Read this passage from the Boston Globe’s endorsement of Barack Obama:
Obama’s critics, and even many who want to support him, worry about his relative lack of experience. It is true that other Democratic contenders have more conventional resumes and have spent more time in Washington. But that exposure has tended to give them a sense of government’s constraints. Obama is more animated by its possibilities.
In our view, the choice on the Democratic side is between Obama and Hillary Clinton. Clinton has run a diligent, serious campaign, and her command of the issues is deep and reassuring. But her approach is needlessly defensive, a backward glance at the bruising political battles of the 1990s. Obama’s candidacy looks forward.
Obama’s memoir, “Dreams From My Father,” is divided into three main sections. The first is a reflection on his youthful search for identity. The second recounts his days in Chicago, which include the first stirrings of a religious life. The third is a roots pilgrimage to Kenya, to better understand his often absent father. It is hard to read this book without longing for a president with this level of introspection, honesty, and maturity - and Obama published it when he was only 33.
We’ve had a Bush or a Clinton in one of the top two spots since 1981. Twenty-six years. I was twelve years old. It’s enough already.
Whom are you supporting and why?
Hillary Clinton » Boston Globe for Obama Says:December 17th, 2007 at 7:15 am
[…] Here’s another interesting post I read today by Denise Grier […]
LC Scotty Says:December 17th, 2007 at 8:58 am
Fred! Thompson is my first choice, but then the field gets real slim real quick. On the Democratic side, Obama or Richardson. They’re pretty much the only two that don’t make my skin crawl.
So, if Obama or Richardson get the Dem nod (but Obama in particular) and Huckabee, Paul, or Giuliani then I could end up going either way. In other words, as much as I disagree with many (most) of Obama’s planks, I at least have some faith in this guy to really try and do the right (in his mind) thing, and that certainly trumps partisan expediency.
mike hudson Says:December 17th, 2007 at 9:58 am
i don’t think we need a “uniter.” where is the common ground with a party that vows to continue the war, opposes a woman’s right to choose, thinks that everyone having health care equals communism and has supported george w. bush unwaveringly for the past eight years?
which is another way of saying i will support whoever isn’t the republican.
the democratic nominee will likely benefit from further increases in the house and senate majorities, although in the year since those majorities took office, their perfomance has been disgraceful. maybe with obama or clinton in the white house these scared mice will finally grow some.
at least with the dems running things we won’t continue to be subjected to endless discussions about who is most christian, as though that even fucking mattered.
Rifle Dude Says:December 17th, 2007 at 10:23 am
Remember when Mrs. HR Clinton ran for the Senate in 2000? She made so many promises that I wouldn’t be surprised if she hinted at pony rides and blow jobs for all if they pulled a lever for her.
The more I hear from the Clinton campaign, the less I like. I would definitely vote for a Republican over her - something I never thought I would consider after what this nation has had to endure under the shrub.
Mr. Pink Says:December 17th, 2007 at 10:50 am
I’ve never been so “undecided” on anything in my life. Today I’m with Obama and here’s my simple reason. I remember when a big deal was made about Bill Clinton being the first baby boom president. Well, now we’ve had two and quite frankly, I’m sick of boomers and their world view. Obama technically qualifies, but he was born at the very tail end. So, Obama because we need a president who hasn’t already filled out his/her AARP card.
Give me another week and I’ll be posting how the nation really needs the grandfatherly maturity of John McCain.
Buffalo Girl Says:December 17th, 2007 at 11:17 am
O-BAM-A, O-BAM-A!!!!
STEEL Says:December 17th, 2007 at 11:29 am
Obama will cause an massive and instant positive change in how the word perceives the US if elected. That is something we desperately need.
hank Says:December 17th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
First, I’ll look at the Democrats like I actually WAS ONE. And with the people still in the field, it’s just as ugly as the other side.
After reading 500 comments on the Atlantic.com blog after Clinton the Perjurer melted down on Charlie Rose,all but a few written by Democrats (who are fighting like 2 cats in a Gunny Sack)
Despite many claims to the contrary, Hillary Clinton HAS NO EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE. She’s twice made the adoring Democrat voters of NYS look like ignorant chumps. She’s done little if anything of note in Congress. Being First Lady qualifies you to be President? The best comparison I read on the Atlantic.com blog was Bill Clinton allowing the Surgeon’s wife to do his Cardiac Surgery. After all, if the wife is deeply involved in the Practice, would she not be just as good? That’s what they’re trying to say, and it’s BULLSHIT. So “BEST QUALIFIED” don’t cut it. Then you have to consider she’s the most polarizing person in US politics today. Even many Kossacks think having HC in the General election will be a disaster.
OBAMA–Also no executive experience. But also NOT A CLINTON. He got to the nomination with a big boost from the media, but other than that, his credentials are HIS–he’s not riding in on his spouses coat-tails.
His view is fresh, and if he surrounds himself with smart people like JFK did, he would likely do a good job. Upon assuming the office he would find it isn’t as easy to end the war as he thinks. Only drawback I see is he keeps saying he didn’t vote to go into Iraq. He couldn’t, as he wasn’t in the Senate OR the House at the time. Had he been there, saying he was against the war would actually carry some weight.
EDWARDS–Couldn’t get elected Dog Catcher in NC. Talks about helping the poor from his 28,000 sq.ft. Mansion. In NC just about everyone sees him as a “Limousine Liberal”
Even the D’s have his number here. He shit all over the state and the NC Democratic Party, who actually expected him to do his job. Spent the whole 6 years of his term in IOWA, running for President. His seat was, of course, lost to a Republican. The NC Democratic Party has not forgotten.
RICHARDSON doesn’t have much of a chance of getting the nomination, and I don’t care for his immigration stance, BUT he’s got executive experience. I agree with Alan, a good VP or a GREAT Sec. of State. Of course for the D’s, after Madeline Albright, a monster squid in a cloth sack would be a better Sec. of State.
BIDEN would be a good President. He knows how the system works, could build bi-partisan support in the Congress, and he’s no dumb ass. But he’s not getting the nod either.
DODD was my CT State House Rep in the 70’s. He’s a moron, and has no business as a Presidential Candidate.
Kucinich and Gravel? One’s in AK, and one sees UFO’s. Put a fork in their asses, they’re done.
When Abe Lincoln was a child, one night all they had for dinner was boiled potatoes. His father whipped him for his remark during Grace, which reminds me of this field of candidates. Abe’s dad said “thank you God for these blessings”, to which Abe retorted “Damn Poor Blessings”
Hudson’s either back on the sauce, or he rarely talks to Republicans or Conservatives–I understand Mike, where in NF would you find one?
He said:
where is the common ground with a party that vows to continue the war,
Mike–Look at polls who ask the question “DO YOU WANT THE US TO WIN THE WAR” and you’ll see just as large a percentage answering “Yes” to that question as you will to the question “would you like the war to be over”
opposes a woman’s right to choose,
The true Conservatives (Fred, and dare I say it Ron Paul) DO NOT OPPOSE a woman’s right to choose. They take the Federalist position that it’s none of the business of the Federal Government. Just like states “let those who ride decide” when it comes to motorcycle helmets, they want the states, and those who LIVE THERE to go to the polls and make that decision.
thinks that everyone having health care equals communism
Do you always paint with a 8″ wide brush? No candidate has said that.
Republicans would like everyone to have health care that they can AFFORD TO BUY. We already have tens of billions being spent annually for Medicare and Medicaid. So who doesn’t have health care? It’s a total canard. Drive through the parking lots of WNY hospitals and see all the Canadian Plates–That is the success of HillaryCare and other forms of proposed Socialized Medicine. I’m also sure Mike Hudson wouldn’t mind paying a couple thousand dollars more in taxes every year to make sure it happens.
and has supported george w. bush unwaveringly for the past eight years?
He’s only been in office for 6 years and 11 months–almost.
True Conservative Republicans do not like the way that Bush allowed Congress to grow government over the first 5 years of his term. They don’t agree with him on Immigration. They also wish he would have made better choices on his Iraq strategy, and put better Generals on the ground sooner.
If that is “Unwavering Support”, it’s time to put down whatever it is you’re rubbing into your belly and get your eyebrows above the daily leftie talking points.
Bottom Line–If I was a Democrat (and thank God I’m not), Obama is probably the best person to put up front. If he won, I wouldn’t be happy, but a LOT happier than I’d be if another Clinton was in there.
For the Republicans, go over to the Free New York Blog and you’ll find the race is decided. Ron Paul will triumph. In about 10 minutes, Monkeys will begin to fly out of my ass as well.
starbuck Says:December 17th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Obama? At this point, doesn’t it seem he’s been around forever?
This country needs some fresh faces and new ideas, not some incumbent senator stuck in his D.C. ways of gridlock and status quo.
How about that guy who won the special election in Virginia last week? Ron Wittman. He’s been in Congress a whole week now, and served before that in the state legislature for over a year. Although their qualifications look very similar on paper, doesn’t it seem Wittman would bring much newer ideas to the White House than Obama?
I’m no expert, but I think the key will be if Wittman could get Judge Judy or Dr. Phil to campaign for him. Or Regis - couldn’t go wrong with a Regis endorsement.
ryan Says:December 17th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Ron Paul vs. Obama sounds good to me.
Buffalo Blood Donor Says:December 17th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
“I don’t think Hillary Clinton is whom this country needs to lead it deeper into the 21st Century”
I point out this sentence (that you wrote) not because it expresses your opinion, but rather because it is utterly grammatically correct.
Throughout my voting life I have chosen most candidates by how well they are able to use the English language, both in speech and in their writing. I believe that clarity of thought can be deduced by how well it can be expressed.
Needless to say I was unable to vote for George Bush Jr.
And it is too soon - way too soon - for me to choose a 2008 Presidential candidate.
BBD
BobbyCat Says:December 17th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Hillary cruised into office on a promise of 200,000 jobs for upstate New Yorkers and she renegged, big time. That promise is unknown outside of NY. 26 years of a Bush or a Clinton is too long. Bill Clinton will partake in ANY democratic administration. He cannot keep away from it. Hillary connection with Rupert Murdock disqualifies her, period.
Joe Biden has the most experience. I like Joe, but he won’t make it.
Obama would be a good president, I think, but John Edwards is the only candidate who posits that Washington is a crooked system and says he knows how to fight it. I believe him.
I’ll support Edwards.
Bye the way, I think we do need a religious question or test: All candidates should be asked if they believe that a nuclear armegeddon is inevitable. Thousands of WNYorkers and millions of Americans fundamentalists are hoping to elect a president that is ready and willing to fight the battle of Armegeddon in which most of humanity will die so that a handful of the faithful will rise triumphantly into heaven with Jesus.
I usually don’t care what a person believes. People are free to believe what they want, or not. But I also think we deserve to know which candidates believes that a nuclear armegeddon is part of god’s plan. It’s a matter of life and death. I Wouldn’t want such a person with their finger on the nuclear trigger.
dave in Rocha Says:December 17th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
I’d like to think Kucinich has a chance, but he doesn’t. Given that, I’ve been keen on Edwards and Obama. I like the idea of Edwards because I think he’d appeal to a lot of “on the fence” voters who would perhaps be weary of Hillary or Obama. I like Obama for several reasons, including the one STEEL mentioned above.
The reason I don’t like Hillary is because she voted for the war. It’s all well and good to follow public opinion and be against it now, but back when it mattered she followed the other sheep/Dems and voted for it.
I also like what BBD said about grammar and speaking ability. No, I don’t expect every president to sound like FDR, but the leader of this nation should at least sound like he/she passed 8th-grade English. Needless to say, I misunderestimated Bush Jr. about that….
peter scott Says:December 17th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
I too was an early supporter of Richardson due to his foreign policy experience, but he just doesn’t seem very presidential…
I’m down to Edwards and Obama…
I honestly think that Edwards is in 3rd because Democrats can’t fathom not nominating a woman or an African American for president when they’re faced with a great opportunity to do so…and I don’t necessarily think thats a horrible thing…
Becky Says:December 17th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
“Democrats can’t fathom not nominating a woman or an African American for president when they’re faced with a great opportunity to do so”
But will the red states go for it? I think not. Therefore one could draw parallels to the Erie County Executive position that was the Democrats for the taking. But they chose to reward a longtime loyal member with the coronation, figuring anyone could win that wasn’t a Republican.
We all know how that turned out.
So who? I don’t know. I tend to agree with Mike Hudson far more than Hank.
Mike Says:December 17th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
hank, you voted for that turd in the white house twice, why would anyone care what you think? win what war? the war on the middle class? the middle east is just a big gold mine for oil and defense industry.
mike hudson Says:December 17th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
god love you hank, but anybody who voted for bush TWICE has got to be on something a lot more potent tha stuff i drank like water for 35 years. charlie rose? who he? oh yeah, that guy who’s on pbs because he couldn’t get a one share at cbs, nbc or abc. yeah hank, we all saw that!
clinton has the most money by far of any candidate in either party and enjoys a 2-1 advantage in places like new york, california, florida, you know, places with actual delegates, as opposed to the barren wastes of iowa and new hampshire. the traditional import those states had, candidates won there and then rode the momentum for the next eight weeks, is gone when you consider that the whole thing will be decided around valenines day. remember super tuesday? it was in march, giving that iowa winner two months to raise money and run campaigns in a large number of states. edwards and the rest will be out after new hampshire, and obama’s history the minute states with labor unions start voting.
hank, i want to win the war too. and i want life to be discovered on mars and see world hunger eradicated forever. in the meantime though, i’m voting democratic.
ryan Says:December 18th, 2007 at 12:30 am
It’s nice to see that Hudson has matched Hank’s level of blind acceptance of party loyalty. It takes two to have comfort in the basement.
I’m just trying to figure out which one is catching and which one is receiving. On the other hand, you’re both adults and it’s none of my business. Just be safe *guys*.
mike hudson Says:December 18th, 2007 at 5:57 am
the ron paul revolution weighs in with a homo joke!
hank Says:December 18th, 2007 at 8:47 am
Ryan–While serving in the Marine Corps, you learn to have the common courtesy to give a reach-around. So who’s doing what isn’t as important.
You might call it the basement, but for better or worse there’s 2 parties.
I really enjoy all you pro-Edwards folks. Shows you don’t know anything about the man. Dig into him a little bit. Talk to NC DEMOCRATS and see what THEY say about him.
If you’re tired of Obama and HC, it’s because they’ve been campaining since the day after GWB won the last election 37 months ago. Don’t blame the Republicans for that.
Mike you should get out of deep blue places like WNY and Ohio and see what the rest of the country thinks. For God’s sake–you’re going to be critical of a republican who votes for his party’s nominee, and you want to put a man who sees UFO’s in the White House. You’re in NF, not Roswell, AZ right?
Mike—BITE ME. You and Hudson done talking about your Mama’s?
mike hudson Says:December 19th, 2007 at 1:40 am
jesus hank, your anger and despair over not being able to vote a third time for the worst president in american history seems to be getting the better of you. do i need to go deeper into the red states in order to figure out what kind of moron believed there were weapons of mass destruction in iraq and then, four years latr, was entirely ready to believe the exact same lie spread by the exact same people except about iran? met a guy from oklahoma during the salmon run in alaska this past spring, stuck on a boat with him for the better part of a day. once he i said i was from new york, all of which he apparently believed to be a cab ride from times square, it was hillary the liar this and global warming my ass that. it was becoming uncomfortable for everyone, a kid from romania, a chippewa elder from north dakota, our inuit guide, a wal-mart executive from arkansas, and finally i said, “dude, i came here to fish. gimme a fuckin break all right?”
so i know what they think, hank. i just couldn’t care less.
hank kaczmarek Says:December 19th, 2007 at 5:40 am
so i know what they think, hank. i just couldn’t care less.
Know what? There’s more of THEM than there are of YOU. And they could care less about what ANYONE in NY thinks. After all, NY’ers voted for Hillary Clinton and her pack of bullshit stories—TWICE. You’ve showed the Nation your intelligence at picking legislators.
You don’t listen well. Bush promised smaller government with tax cuts and didn’t do it. He promised immigration reform and didn’t do it.
Just because you want a third round of Clinton doesn’t mean every Repblican wants a third round of GWB.
Now I know why Mike talks about your Mama. Does she know she’s let a moron loose on the streets?
mike hudson Says:December 19th, 2007 at 10:25 am
i’m not a hillary supporter, hank. as i’ve written before, dennis kucinich will get my vote in the primary. i’ve voted twice for hillary for senate it’s true. she ran against some frat boy from staten island the first time and the second against some dotty upper east side dowager.
i also voted for rudy guiliani, twice, for mayor of new york. again, the opposing party couldn’t seem to find anyone to run against him who seemed worthy of being the mayor of the greatest city in the world.
as there is only one of me, of course there are more of “them.” but if you mean there are more people who will vote republican in the next presidential election that there are who will vote democratic, you’re delusional.
as mike noted, you voted for bush twice. you are a moron. and for the past eight years the party of morons has been running my country. bush’s 24 prcent approval rating is half what bill clinton’s was on the day he was impeached.
so no hank, i’m not a hillary clinton supporter, per se. but if it comes down to supporting her against mike huckleberry or andy griffith, i mean fred thompson, the choice seems quite clear.
Tatonka Says:December 19th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Ohio is a “deep blue state” now? Hey, that’s great to hear, even if it isn’t, you know, true.