Super Tuesday
Feb. 4th, 2008 11:50 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sub_dividedPresidential primaries in 24 states tomorrow, including mine (New Jersey). If you're a registered Republican or Democrat in one of these states, or a registered voter in a state that allows unaffiliated voters to declare on election day, or a registered voter living in a state with an open primary system, please vote!
I'm a registered Democrat. I wrote out a partial description of my views on the nominees in response to Tari here. I also did my best to objectively sum up what the press has been reporting as the weaknesses of each candidate, focusing on issues of policy and qualification and ignoring personality and electability issues (because if exposure to 3-4 hours of daily news coverage has taught me anything, it's that the press has NO ability to predict who's electable and who isn't).
The major critiques of Obama have been:
1. He's young and inexperienced; he's only a Junior Senator and hasn't headed any major senate committees nor backed any important bills.
2. During his time in the Senate he's avoided weighing in on sensitive issues (debatable), preferring to keep a clean record.
3. He isn't knowledgeable about the day-to-day operations of the government, nor about the intricacies sure to be involved in the passage of legislation on sensitive issues like Health Care and corporate reform.
Obama counters that it is the President's job to inspire and prioritize, not to micro-manage. His abilities as an inspirational speaker are well-recognized. (EDIT: And![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
ubersaurus points out that he was a State Senator for 8 years before moving up to Congress.)
The major critiques of Hillary have been:
1. She has experience, but as a corporate lawyer/member of the Board at Walmart/first lady who did not succeed in passing universal health reform.
2. Numerous scandals still surround her and her husband, notably Whitewater and continued stonewalling on the publication of presidential and other records.
3. Bill Clinton can't be in the White House without getting his hands back into politics. (May be a plus, if you were a fan of his presidency).
Hilary has countered that she has been more closely scrutinized than any other Presidential candidate in history, and so, naturally, the press has more dirt on her. (To which I say, that is still an awful lot of dirt.)
Publicly, their positions on major issues like Iraq and Universal Health Care have been virtually indistinguishable. The feeling though is that Hilary is probably much more conservative than she is letting on (she was a hardcore conservative republican in college before becoming a democrat), while Obama is probably more liberal. Hilary was pro-war in 2003 and more recently supported taking a tough stand against Iran. Obama's position is unclear but he has definitely not been as keen on advancing American militarism. Obama has a more consistent record of public service (law school --> non-profit work with Chicago's poor --> Illinois Senate --> US Senate) while Hilary's background is more corporate. She's gotten quite a bit done as a New York Senator but is also beholden to many more special interest groups.
I'm not going to comment on the intelligence of either candidate except to say that they are BOTH extremely smart.
Edwards dropped out of the race last weekend, though he might still be on the ballot in some states.
I'm a registered Democrat. I wrote out a partial description of my views on the nominees in response to Tari here. I also did my best to objectively sum up what the press has been reporting as the weaknesses of each candidate, focusing on issues of policy and qualification and ignoring personality and electability issues (because if exposure to 3-4 hours of daily news coverage has taught me anything, it's that the press has NO ability to predict who's electable and who isn't).
The major critiques of Obama have been:
1. He's young and inexperienced; he's only a Junior Senator and hasn't headed any major senate committees nor backed any important bills.
2. During his time in the Senate he's avoided weighing in on sensitive issues (debatable), preferring to keep a clean record.
3. He isn't knowledgeable about the day-to-day operations of the government, nor about the intricacies sure to be involved in the passage of legislation on sensitive issues like Health Care and corporate reform.
Obama counters that it is the President's job to inspire and prioritize, not to micro-manage. His abilities as an inspirational speaker are well-recognized. (EDIT: And
ubersaurus points out that he was a State Senator for 8 years before moving up to Congress.) The major critiques of Hillary have been:
1. She has experience, but as a corporate lawyer/member of the Board at Walmart/first lady who did not succeed in passing universal health reform.
2. Numerous scandals still surround her and her husband, notably Whitewater and continued stonewalling on the publication of presidential and other records.
3. Bill Clinton can't be in the White House without getting his hands back into politics. (May be a plus, if you were a fan of his presidency).
Hilary has countered that she has been more closely scrutinized than any other Presidential candidate in history, and so, naturally, the press has more dirt on her. (To which I say, that is still an awful lot of dirt.)
Publicly, their positions on major issues like Iraq and Universal Health Care have been virtually indistinguishable. The feeling though is that Hilary is probably much more conservative than she is letting on (she was a hardcore conservative republican in college before becoming a democrat), while Obama is probably more liberal. Hilary was pro-war in 2003 and more recently supported taking a tough stand against Iran. Obama's position is unclear but he has definitely not been as keen on advancing American militarism. Obama has a more consistent record of public service (law school --> non-profit work with Chicago's poor --> Illinois Senate --> US Senate) while Hilary's background is more corporate. She's gotten quite a bit done as a New York Senator but is also beholden to many more special interest groups.
I'm not going to comment on the intelligence of either candidate except to say that they are BOTH extremely smart.
Edwards dropped out of the race last weekend, though he might still be on the ballot in some states.