by Damozel | It is ON. The race between Obama and Clinton is tightening (Gallup currently describes it as a "statistical dead heat," 46-44%) and McCain may---or may not--- be on the verge of solidifying his hold. Or not. As Gandelman says, "Polls have been hideously wrong this year." Shut up, polls.
Meanwhile, I'm gearing myself up to cope with a result that might not be to my liking (Romney) or not quite to my liking (Obama or Hillary? I don't know). It's a moot issue for me in one sense: we had our votes in Florida last week and it doesn't matter anyway since the DNC---who I will never, NEVER forgive---effectively disenfranchised me for a procedural decision over which I had zero control. On the other hand, I'm as invested in seeing the best outcome for both primaries, so I am certainly sitting on the edge of my seat, super-Tuesday-wise.
I just wish I had a clearer idea which Democrat I want to win. As D
Cupples points out, I swing back and forth every time one of the
candidates or one of their everlasting "surrogates" puts a crafty thumb on the scales.
While I'm clear why I prefer McCain (duh) to Romney, I am very unsettled in my own mind what outcome I'd like to see as between Hillary and Obama. You can see Obama's "Yes We Can" video here. Shut up, Obama's "Yes We Can" video. I want to know what Obama is going to do about the problems in his health care platform.
Bill Kavanaugh sums up my concern---as an Edwards supporter---about Obama's health plan in a nutshell, particularly now that Obama apparently is gaining momentum. He also sums up my concerns about Hillary's commitment..
Clinton has cloned the Edwards proposal in her healthcare plank, but Edwards voters aren’t sure she’ll be able to sell it—or be willing to fight for its passage without watering it down. Obama looks like a fighter, but his healthcare proposal will be dead in the water as is. It’s not a mandatory coverage plan and without covering everyone, it doesn’t actually have much of a prayer of success. (Bill's Big Diamond Blog)
Yep, that's about the size of it. And---though fairly neutral as between the two remaining candidates---I'm very worried, since this is one of my two or three major issues. Sigh.
I don't know why I don't feel the Obama spell---or rather, why, though I feel it, I keep coming out of it. He is new and fresh and comparatively untarnished. He isn't married to a former president who was impeached for the most embarrassing failing of any president ever. He is young and handsome and has a vibrant (as opposed to a somewhat metallic) speaking voice. His very candidacy shows a sea change in our nation that I used to think (growing up in the South in the Sixties) that I'd never live to see.
Possibly my lack of enthusiasm is precisely because Obama has got such a dazzling window display. To paraphrase Sinclair Lewis, there's still some doubt in my mind whether there is anything on the shelves inside. I don't trust charisma. I've seen what happens when the public chooses a president based on "the likability factor" or the "dazzle factor."
Recently, of course, there was the "Harry & Louise" revival, which just exacerbated a lot of my concerns about Obama's fitness to recognize the role that insurance companies play in making health care non-affordable in the first place and insurance non-affordable in the second. At Kiko's House, Sean Mullen wrote:
[T]he Obama campaign's new direct-mail ads (and I’ve gotten three earlier ads compared to none from Clinton or any other candidates) hit below the belt: They intentionally misrepresent Clinton's health-care plan and are a reminder of the also misleading "Harry and Louise" ads aired by the health-care industry that did much to bring down her sweeping 1993 health-care proposal.
The Obama ads claim that everyone will be forced to buy insurance under the Clinton plan even if they can’t afford it, which is plain old fear mongering since her plan offers subsidies to lower-income families and Obama himself has conceded that under his own plan people who don’t buy insurance might have to be penalized.
Memo to Obama: Knock it off!
Shaun Mullen likes Obama better than I do (as I say, I like him, but I like Clinton just about as well) but even so seems to be feeling some of the same unease I do about his failure to address issues squarely. Barring the ad (which was misleading) and some equally misleading references to her beliefs/platform in a recent speech, it's all glittering rhetoric and calls to arms and stirring exhortations to embrace change and believe. I need to hear a consistent focus from him on his specific plans for bringing about the changes he promises.
And I need Bill Clinton to stand down. Or do I?
Robert Stein has a great suggestion:
Forget the Super Bowl. Here’s a match for Pay-Per-View–the Clintons vs. the Obamas.
Now that the candidates have shown in their last debate how well they bounce the conversational ball between them, why not schedule a round of doubles?...
As Hillary keeps explaining away embarrassments by Bill, she always notes that Barack too has a supportive spouse. Yesterday’s Washington Post observes, “It is fascinating enough that Bill Clinton and Michelle Obama are playing on the same field as their partners duel for the Democratic nomination. More intriguing still is her effectiveness, hardly a given for a recent campaign recruit matched against a two-term president....
As this crucial campaign heads toward a two-for-one confrontation, a cable network could do worse than scheduling an hour for the Clintons and Obamas to sit together and talk politics.
There may or may not be social significance in the contrast between the out-front nature of potential Democratic First Spouses and the more conventional Republican mates, but the changes in the White House domestic scene have been evolving ever since the days of Eleanor Roosevelt.
That's a thought: let's see the spouses together in action! After all, one of the things Edwards had going for him as far as I was concerned was Elizabeth. Maybe what I need to tip the scales definitively is an opportunity to watch the candidates for First Spouse in action at the same time?
In the meantime, I think I've made my choice...FOR NOW.
I voted for Hillary last week because---whatever my objections to certain aspects of her campaign---she has the platform best designed to serve my interests. I wonder if all Obama's supporters have really looked behind the curtain to see if the same is true for him? I'm not saying no; I'm quite sincere in wondering.
What if, instead of focusing on which candidate we "like," we focused instead on choosing the person who was committing to do the best job of serving our interests?
That is why I initially chose Edwards and why I am now tilting Hillary-wards. Hey, I don't have to like her. I just have to believe she'll kick ass and take names to see that the job gets done. I do believe this. I believe Obama would kick ass and take names too. I just wish I were clearer about exactly what he's planning to do if he gets the accolade. After all, between one good candidate and another, I want the one who is best for me.
Memeorandum has the wringing of hands and rending of garments (or the opposite) over the current Gallup results here.
RELATED POSTINGS
Buck Naked Bloggerama: Obama's "Harry and Louise Ad"
Obama's Health Care Plan versus Hillary's
Four Misleading Statements About Hillary Clinton?
The New York Post "Endorses" Obama, Disses Hillary
Kennedy Family Divided over Hillary and Barack (update)
Watching Hillary and Obama Watch the State of the Union Address
To Obama Supporters Accusing the Clintons of Blasphemy: A Counterblast
The New York Times Endorses....(Can We Have the Envelope Please?)
Comments