Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Oh Goody....
Bill Clinton has offered his support in getting Obama elected. Yippee... After his stunning performance campaigning for his wife-- saying that since she's a little up there in age now, her recollection of her trip to Bosnia might have been a little off, especially since she gave the speech around 11 pm. This was, of course, after her "3 am phone call" ad started airing, and, oh yeah, she didn't give the speech late at night either. And let's not forget about the Obama-Jesse Jackson comparison. With supporters like Bill...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
It is funny to me how much dislike there is for Hilary from the Obama supporters, especially since they stand for pretty much the exact same positions. I can only assume that it is the person, not the policies, that make the diffrence.
And if that is the case, it is ironic to me that the Democratic party is now making the same argument that they poo-poo'ed in the 90's... namely that, "Character matters."
I am interested in your take on that... How central a role should a person's character play in determining how a person should vote?
And as a follow up, what criteria should we use to determine the charcter of a professional politician?
the first question would be clearer if I had written, "How central a role should a candidate's character play in determining how a person should vote?"
Sorry for the confusing word structure!
well first, i'm not saying whether or not i dislike the clintons, only that he did a crappy job campaigning for his wife, so i could care less if he's going to campaign for obama.
i'm not sure there is so much dislike because of the clinton's character as there is because they are clearly obsessed with attaining power at whatever cost. obama's supporters also view him as a breath of fresh air, and the clintons as representing the old ways.
when it comes to character as a deciding factor on who to vote for, that's tough. it obviously matters. but are marital affairs going to deter me to vote for someone? no. are shady-looking financial dealings? maybe, depending on the circumstances and how long ago it was. i think bill clinton is a sex addict and prone to truth-bending, but sincerely and deeply wants whats best for this country and the world. i think he's a visionary who wants to make the world a better place. i think those things about hillary as well.
that said, this is a really tough question... character, obviously matters, but here's the thing: if i were faced with two candidates on election day -- one who was a lying, sleeze-bag politician who was against the war in iraq and another who had great character but who was extremely hawkish -- i would be inclined to vote for the sleeze bag. ultimately, i vote based on what i think will happen to the country and the world and not if i like the person. i know that's kind of a messy answer, but that's the best i can do.
I appreciate the honesty in that response. However, may I ask a follow up? Ok... Thank you, I will. :)
How do you know that the sleeze-bag liar is actually telling you the truth about his positions? And doesn't this just further illustrate the brokenness of our system? (ya, I know... that's two questions... but they do it all the time in press conferences...)
If all we are voting for is "hope" or "change," two words that mean entirely diffrent things to diffrent people, then what "hope" is there for any meaningful "change" when the offices are basically sold to whoever raises the most cash and know one can really be certain if the person has any character at all? (I am taking about both McCain and Obama here, not just Obama). So Obama says he is against the war and has spent his entire national political career proving it... (all 3 years). But I don't know... something tells me he is all about saying whatever he thinks he needs to to get elected... What he will do after getting there is probably 180 degrees from what he is telling us now. And therein lies the root of my cynicism with the election this year.
OK, times up...
Post a Comment