This Hillary Supporter Says, Why Not Roll the Dice On Obama?

by Deb Cupples |   I'm a very hard sell where political candidates are concerned, because I don't blindly accept campaign claims and sound bites.  Given my research, I do have reservations about Sen. Obama's actual policy positions.  Much of what he says sounds good, but I still don't know about which of his claims he is sincere.  Saying and doing are two different things.

Unfortunately, the same is true of John McCain. Up until earlier this week, I was in a bind as I looked ahead to November -- truly unable to commit to voting for Obama or staying home, because both candidates have failed to convince me that they are truly committed to cleaning up President Bush's monstrous mess.

My conclusions changed Wednesday afternoon, during one of a long series of robust phone conversations with my co-blogger Damozel.

Damozel and I did not debate which candidate would spearhead better public policy: we both know that this is a completely speculative matter -- and that both candidates have misrepresented their positions and even misled the public about some issues.

Instead, we debated in terms of the policy-making process. 

Symbolically, presidents are the most powerful people in our nation, but practically speaking they can't just decide to make a law and actually do it.  Realistically, Presidents can't just make legislation, because a President's proposals go through editing by (potentially) 535 contentious and self-interested members of Congress before ever making it to the President's desk for signing.

Among other things, what Damozel pointed out was the power of the veto.  Her argument: if decent Democrats in Congress submit decent health care or tax or education bills to the President, Obama would be less likely to veto them than McCain would.

That Wednesday afternoon, Damozel sold me on the notion that Obama would be at least a slightly better bet than McCain in terms of cleaning up President Bush's mess.

To be clear, speeches don't wow me,as they're just political theater -- like a stage play or TV commercial.  In know first hand, because I've written political speeches.

Bottom line: a good speech writer can bestow all kinds of sentiment and grandeur upon any politician with decent speaking skills.  And our politicians are not above tapping the talents of Hollywood and Madison Avenue.

That said, I watched Sen. Obama's acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention last night (see text here), as did about 40 million other viewers.   I wasn't wowed but I was interested, because this is the first speech I've seen where Sen. Obama didn't overly focus on the rhetorical flare and heart-strings nonsense.

What perked up my ears was Obama's discussion of economic and tax policies.  He pointed out basic concepts that I've been writing or thinking about since before Obama even ran for U.S. Senate.

As I listened, I thought that Obama was saying all the right things: e.g., give tax cuts to working folks and cut tax breaks for corporations that ship jobs overseas.  It was the antithesis of what George Bush has done for nearly eight years -- and we see what his policies have done to our economy.

Again, I recognize the difference between well-crafted words and actions.  Frankly, I don't know whether a President Obama would genuinely try to do what he has promised while campaigning.

But here's the thing: at least Sen. Obama has demonstrated that our nation's current economic policies have had disastrous effects on our nation.

John McCain, on the other hand, talks as though Mr. Bush's policies have had grand results and claims that he wants to continue down that path.

Fact: one hasn't a prayer of solving a problem unless one actually sees said problem.

Though I can't answer the sincerity question, Sen. Obama has demonstrated an understanding of some of our nation's problems -- while Sen. McCain clearly has not demonstrated such understating.

That, if nothing else, makes Sen. Obama more worth the gamble. Am I a complete Obama convert?  No.

Do I think (given the circumstances and alternative) that Sen. Obama is worth a dice roll?  You bet.

And I think I'll send him a donation -- words that six months ago I never thought I'd see myself writing.

 Memeorandum has commentary.

 

Comments

[Adam]

This is a reasonable way to look at things, I suppose. Even if you don't believe Obama, at least he's claiming to do the things you want, as oppose to McCain, who is claiming he will do things you don't want.

I don't think it's fair to say that this was Obama's first policy-heavy speech. Certainly, this was more policy-heavy than any of Obama's primary night speeches were. If those were your only exposure to Obama speeches, then I agree with your statement, "this is the first speech I've seen where Sen. Obama didn't overly focus on the rhetorical". But it was a whole lot more rhetoric-heavy and one-liner-laden than his speech on race in Philadelphia, or his speech on financial reforms in New York, or his foreign policy speech, to name three. Obama's made plenty of substantive speeches.

[Charles]

I'm glad to hear you're looking at it in this pragmatic way, Deb. I only wish all Americans were as pragmatic-- and as well-informed.

[Deb Cupples]

Adam,

You should have quit at the first paragraph.

Can't you just be happy that I've decided to throw my money and vote Obama's way? Geeeez. :)

[Deb Cupples]

Charles,

Thanks for the kindly intended words.

Note that I was every bit as "pragmatic" a week ago when I was considering staying home or voting for a third-party candidate.

I just had my zoom lens focused differently than you did.

[billkav]

The Denver speech was a real litany of specifics. I think his mission was to convince those who didn't think he could be specific on policy and it was quite successful on that level.

If it helped convince you, Deb, with all you've had to say about Obama, it must have been plenty specific.

On a policy level, you and Damozel are on-target that the difference in the Presidential election is also about all the policy wonks who will occupy Executive administrative positions for four years in areas from health to national security. Progressive legislation coming out of Congress will stand little chance of being enacted under a McCain Administration, while an Obama Administration will have the opposite effect of working with Congress to formulate law.

[Deb Cupples]

Bill,

If I believed that Obama was truly progressive, I wouldn't have hesitated a bit in supporting him after Hillary lost the primaries. Evidence strongly suggests that he's been pretending.

At the same time, I don't believe that McCain is anywhere near as right wing as he's pretending.

To me, they're both major dice rolls -- and I think there's a slightly better CHANCE that Obama's reactions (as opposed to his actual initiatives) will produce less harmful results than McCain's.

Again, I'm just speculating. Time'll tell, I suppose.

[jimbo]

Can't get enough of Palin. She has everything that Hillary lacks and more.

[Deb Cupples]

jimbo,

That depends on what one liked about Hillary.