Saturday, February 09, 2008
Here we go
I was reading a very brief interview with Barack Obama in Paris Match. He mentioned that a cornerstone of his foreign policy will be open dialogue with states like Syria and Iran. Hillary is a bit hawkish, and has a whiff of the neo-con about her, and will likely keep convenient "enemy" states around instead of reaching out (what if Bill Clinton had reached out to Khatami when Iran had its best chance to open up?).
It's true that Obama and Clinton have rather similar domestic agendas, and each is qualified, smart, and competent. But I get the sense Obama can repair much of the damage done by Bush/Cheney both domestically and internationally. I doubt Clinton's ability to inspire generally to the same degree.
Edwards was closest to me ideologically. I'm concerned that both remaining Democratic candidates are less worried about corporate power than I. But I'm throwing my hat in the ring for Obama. I like his speeches. I like his demeanor. I don't think it's just hype. I think he is inspiring and well-rounded and compassionate. I sent him some cash today.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I voted for him. There's no choice really. Also, I agree that he's more likely to roll back a lot of the expanded executive powers than is Clinton. Not to mention that the Clintons are vile corporate scum.
I've been using the political compass as my objective filter for looking at candidates. Ideologically speaking, we have no left-leaning candidates in the game (at all) so I find it hard to get inspired by anyone. In the final analysis, everyone on offer is simply a moderately conservative, christian, white middle-aged guy (and yes, that does accurately describe Obama and Ms. Clinton).
I agree with Silenus, even though he probably meant something different when he said "there's no choice, really."
In choosing the lesser of the evils, I, too, will probably go with Obama, who, no doubt, will turn out to be vile, corporate scum like the rest of the crew.
Post a Comment