« Jose Padilla: We Hardly Knew Ye
Senior Military Strategists Warn NATO: Pre-emptive Nuclear Strike Must Remain an Option »
Obama underwhelms; Spiegel Online explains why
Do you think Barack Obama’s treatment of Hillary Clinton is snarkier than it should be? Do you think he is as cold and calculating as any candidate can expect to be? Two Ohio blog friends of mine insist that if I’m underwhelmed by Obama, then I must not be paying attention.
But not only is that an unfair characterization of my feelings, it’s also untrue. And now, I’ve found support for that fact in this
Spiegel Online column by Gabor Steingart.
What resonated for me:
At the center of society, the place where elections are won or lost in every democracy, Obama the candidate has not triggered the kinds of earthquakes that would be necessary to topple the status quo. The ground may be trembling, but it isn’t shaking.
The deeper one penetrates into that all-important center of American society, the cooler are people’s reactions to Obama. In places where work is hard and pay keeps shrinking, where the costs of education are rising and the fear of job losses has taken hold, Americans pay attention to him but don’t support him. He may be touching the souls of blue-collar workers, but he hasn’t been able to inspire them.
And then:
All it takes to understand Clinton’s appeal is to observe the way people react when she speaks with voters in small groups, as she recently did in a lecture hall on the campus of the University of Nevada. Hardly any college students were in the audience, but about 100 middle-aged women, some of whom had even dragged along their husbands, sat around the candidate on folding chairs.
Clinton told her audience about the hard work waiting for her in the White House, about responsibility and about her view of herself as a problem-solver. No one cheered, no one jumped up from her seat and there were no choruses of approval. But the women nodded quietly in response to Clinton’s words. They didn’t seem fired up, but they did feel understood.
Watching the group, I realized that perhaps this election isn’t about visions at all, but about something even bigger: trust.
Now, I don’t know about Clinton and the trust thing. But the feeling understood? I can see that. Obama also makes certain sectors feel understood, but not others.
It feels to me like it’s a slugfest for who not only feels understood, but who feels so not understood enough, right now, and believes that they will be understood much more, in the future, that they will go out and vote for the person who makes them believe that.
As Steingart indicates, for some, it’s Obama, for others, it’s Clinton. And, simplistic though it may be and sound, it all boils down to who makes more people feel most understood.
42 Responses to “Obama underwhelms; Spiegel Online explains why”
In my family, Obama overwhelms and is loved. And I know why: it's the history. Not saying that other racial groups don't feel this way but a sizable amount of black folks have fell in love with the first black president notion. I have to be honest, Obama intrigues me for that reason alone. I find myself cheering for him at times. It's weird for me since I've ALWAYS voted third party in order to protest the Big 2 parties. Should I pay more attention to his plans for America in terms of policy? Absolutely. But the historical ramifications are starting to outweigh that in my mind. I've never like the Clintons before but now I REALLY don't like them because I have this “connection” with Obama. I'm really at odds with myself at times. History vote (Obama) or Protest vote (third party).
T-Steel: Forget your first 2 reasons, think this- Bush 2 felt a sense of absolute entitlemen tto the Presidency while not being qualified to runa lemonade stand. Hillary feels that same sense of entitlement. Is she smarter than W? Of course. Has she an ounce of fortitude? No- see Haelthcare in 93 and the war in 03.
Drive a stake thru her with an Obama vote, because Hillary can lose to the R's. Obama won't.
“Obama also makes certain sectors feel understood, but not others.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120067436785100…
Wow – DLS, thanks for that link. Fascinating.
And you know, I'm always trying and NOT always succeeding in making sense out of all of this. But maybe it's really this simple: we have candidates on the Dem side that really do reflect some very distinct, specific groups and if anything, these candidates are our proxies for working out what we can't. Does anyone else sense that?
Of course, the bottom line for me continues to be: I don't know WHO I want to vote for. I really, really, really don't.
T_Steel – that is such an honest comment, thanks. The pull for me to vote for Clinton has been almost zero, not totally zero, but almost zero re: the women thing. What it has made me do is double and re-double my efforts at getting women into the pipeline, so that there are choices there that I prefer among women. Of course, I'd prefer there be choices from any demographic that I prefer more than the ones who are there now! But I still haven't figured out why I am so not in love with any of the remaining three. Sigh. I really don't know.
Cosmoetica – what's the basis for your certainty re: Obama won't lose to an R? Not accusing, just curious. How can you be so sure?
Jill: Obama is black, which means the crypto-racism and classism that the R's have deployed for the last 30 years cannot be dismissed as mere whining, as they can from a white candidate. Also, Obama reaches out to R's, Hillary repulses them and has too much baggage. Thus why Bloomberg won't get in if O upsets Hill, because he won't be able to peel away O's supporters, but he'll pick off droves of the 'Hillary's better than another Republican voters', as well as the R's he'll get who are not Christian loony tunes.
In short, Obama's very blackness inoculates him from the Rovian tactics of yore. One poss problem, though. If Obama will not play hardball w the Clintons, even if he wins, will he have enough spine to whip the R's?
Edwards wd, and Hillary wd try, but O? I have doubts.
Here's the Pew report mentioned in the Wall Street Journal article:
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?Re…
Hmm – well – I know I've read/heard some of those arguments, Cosmo, but I'm not so sure about the GOP-voter block going for him. Maybe. I'm not sure. There's the American dream stuff, the hard work, work ethic and you know, the guy's got more than enough talent and skill. But frankly, I'm a little worried about the effect – I forget what they call it – re: when voters say they'd do one thing but then do another? I'm not saying that people aren't ready but – well – what do you think?
Hmm – well – I know I've read/heard some of those arguments, Cosmo, but I'm not so sure about the GOP-voter block going for him. Maybe. I'm not sure. There's the American dream stuff, the hard work, work ethic and you know, the guy's got more than enough talent and skill. But frankly, I'm a little worried about the effect – I forget what they call it – re: when voters say they'd do one thing but then do another? I'm not saying that people aren't ready but – well – what do you think?
Thanks, DLS – I remember seeing that in passing as a headline and article.
You know, if people WANT to slice and dice us, they can. It really makes me want to say no to whatever surveys I can, you know?
Thanks, DLS – I remember seeing that in passing as a headline and article.
You know, if people WANT to slice and dice us, they can. It really makes me want to say no to whatever surveys I can, you know?
“Edwards wd, and Hillary wd try, but O? I have doubts.”
I hope he would. I always thought that John Kerry would be President right now had he responded to the Swifties' attacks. Edwards was right when he said that Kerry was too cowardly in his approach to them.
“Edwards wd, and Hillary wd try, but O? I have doubts.”
I hope he would. I always thought that John Kerry would be President right now had he responded to the Swifties' attacks. Edwards was right when he said that Kerry was too cowardly in his approach to them.
Yeah, you know, Edwards definitely has some cajones, I'm not sure why he doesn't interest me though. But Kerry – I don't know – in this field for 2008, I don't imagine him doing well at all. But maybe that's not a fair comparison.
Yeah, you know, Edwards definitely has some cajones, I'm not sure why he doesn't interest me though. But Kerry – I don't know – in this field for 2008, I don't imagine him doing well at all. But maybe that's not a fair comparison.
Underwhelms. What an interesting word to use re: Obama. But trust was even more eyebrow-lifting when applied to Clinton.
We've chatted about this across a couple of post thread, Jill, and it's clear that you're kind of feeling your way through. It's a tough evaluation to make, and I appreciate your honesty. And until recently I was also on the fence about these two candidates.
But seeing the well-oiled machine gear up, and the spin go out in Nevada really kind of solidified things for me. I really am very very tired, now, of the SOS that the Clintons embody. I can see why some folks might prefer her, though, for just this reason. It's not necessarily trust (though some no doubt do feel this), perhaps, so much as it is familiarity.
I'm over-familiar, thanks.
I think the near-deification of Obama we saw initially set some unrealistic expectations. Had they read his first book, they wouldn't be so surprised to see that his feet aren't quite dry as he wades through the roiling political campaign waters. But he does bring a much different element to our cynical, jaded environment, and all by itself, that's worth getting excited about.
Underwhelms. What an interesting word to use re: Obama. But trust was even more eyebrow-lifting when applied to Clinton.
We've chatted about this across a couple of post thread, Jill, and it's clear that you're kind of feeling your way through. It's a tough evaluation to make, and I appreciate your honesty. And until recently I was also on the fence about these two candidates.
But seeing the well-oiled machine gear up, and the spin go out in Nevada really kind of solidified things for me. I really am very very tired, now, of the SOS that the Clintons embody. I can see why some folks might prefer her, though, for just this reason. It's not necessarily trust (though some no doubt do feel this), perhaps, so much as it is familiarity.
I'm over-familiar, thanks.
I think the near-deification of Obama we saw initially set some unrealistic expectations. Had they read his first book, they wouldn't be so surprised to see that his feet aren't quite dry as he wades through the roiling political campaign waters. But he does bring a much different element to our cynical, jaded environment, and all by itself, that's worth getting excited about.
Polimom – you are so on target re: my thoughts about we're we are at this stage of the game as between these two candidates. One of my dearest friends, actually, two of them, are for Obama and reason it pretty much exactly as you have.
There's a leap of faith to be made with either of Hillary or Obama (I use Hillary just to distinguish her from Bill), a big risk of expectations that will never be met. And so I keep thinking to myself, well, who can get us closer in a better way and hopefully faster? I keep thinking it's Hillary, but then I have to be willing to abdicate to their insider status. If I go with Obama, there are so many unknowns about how he'd run an entire country's government.
I don't know – maybe it really IS a crap shoot?
Thanks for your very sensitive and sincere comment.
Polimom – you are so on target re: my thoughts about we're we are at this stage of the game as between these two candidates. One of my dearest friends, actually, two of them, are for Obama and reason it pretty much exactly as you have.
There's a leap of faith to be made with either of Hillary or Obama (I use Hillary just to distinguish her from Bill), a big risk of expectations that will never be met. And so I keep thinking to myself, well, who can get us closer in a better way and hopefully faster? I keep thinking it's Hillary, but then I have to be willing to abdicate to their insider status. If I go with Obama, there are so many unknowns about how he'd run an entire country's government.
I don't know – maybe it really IS a crap shoot?
Thanks for your very sensitive and sincere comment.
“I don't know – maybe it really IS a crap shoot?”
LOL!!! Much as I'm a bit peeved at Bill, that question really applies to all of the candidates, regardless of political orientation. Even if we think we know precisely what someone will do… even if they detail every possible way they would address this issue or that crisis… the world will NOT be the same as it is right now, at this moment in time, in a year, or three years. And without our crystal balls, it's impossible to ask any of the candidates how they'll handle the unknowable or unpredictable.
Yes, it's always a bit of a crap shoot. Every time. Eventually, we all have to take at least a small leap of faith.
“I don't know – maybe it really IS a crap shoot?”
LOL!!! Much as I'm a bit peeved at Bill, that question really applies to all of the candidates, regardless of political orientation. Even if we think we know precisely what someone will do… even if they detail every possible way they would address this issue or that crisis… the world will NOT be the same as it is right now, at this moment in time, in a year, or three years. And without our crystal balls, it's impossible to ask any of the candidates how they'll handle the unknowable or unpredictable.
Yes, it's always a bit of a crap shoot. Every time. Eventually, we all have to take at least a small leap of faith.
I hate making mistakes. How come I didn't feel this way about Gore? I really trusted him. Maybe I shouldn't have, but I did.
I hate making mistakes. How come I didn't feel this way about Gore? I really trusted him. Maybe I shouldn't have, but I did.
Clinton promises to make specific people's lives better through a panoply of governmental policies. I generally support those policies myself, but I don't know that they alone are a reason to support her candidacy. What Obama promises is to make America a different place on a more abstract and, in my opinion, more important level. I believe his policy formulations would be very similar to those offered by Clinton. But Obama makes America itself a different kind of nation. Those intrigued by the historical meta-narrative of an Obama Presidency support him, despite his less policy-driven discourse. This includes African Americans, reform-oriented Independents, and highly-educated liberals. But other sectors of the country – and the Democratic electorate – are unimpressed by the meta-narrative of Obama (though some are driven by a different transformative narrative based on gender). To working class women and Latinos, for example, it matters more what Clinton actually offers them than what Obama offers some abstract formulation of America.
This is the crux of the debate. Unfortunately for Obama, there are more Democratic voters who care about bread-and-butter policy prescriptions and immediate help than there are abstract idealists.
Clinton promises to make specific people's lives better through a panoply of governmental policies. I generally support those policies myself, but I don't know that they alone are a reason to support her candidacy. What Obama promises is to make America a different place on a more abstract and, in my opinion, more important level. I believe his policy formulations would be very similar to those offered by Clinton. But Obama makes America itself a different kind of nation. Those intrigued by the historical meta-narrative of an Obama Presidency support him, despite his less policy-driven discourse. This includes African Americans, reform-oriented Independents, and highly-educated liberals. But other sectors of the country – and the Democratic electorate – are unimpressed by the meta-narrative of Obama (though some are driven by a different transformative narrative based on gender). To working class women and Latinos, for example, it matters more what Clinton actually offers them than what Obama offers some abstract formulation of America.
This is the crux of the debate. Unfortunately for Obama, there are more Democratic voters who care about bread-and-butter policy prescriptions and immediate help than there are abstract idealists.
Well said, thank you.
Well said, thank you.
Elrod: But if you really look at Hillary's ideas, they are nothing but refired ideas that never got going in the first place. If you scan O's website, he's every bit as detailed as Hillary, PLUS he does not have a track record of wilting to R pressure (Healthcare 93, War 03).
Of Course, the most detailed, and passionate, candidate on either side, is Edwards, and folk like Jill reject him. Why? Who knows, but I really believe there is a pathoogical voter obsession against real change.
Just look at this site- most people here whine, but the Righties stick with the Dinosaurian R's and the D's prefer Hillary the gutless hack, who actually has less political experience than Obama (whose exp is non-DC).
I think Jill actually relishes the fact that in 4 years, she can still have something to whine about. Think of it- she is not moved by Edwards, but trusts Al Gore?
C'mon, examine your ownrole in why this country is off track.
How about a Bloomberg if left with a Hillary-McCain/Mitt fight?
But no, that would mean leaving the safe womb of the Party, rather than putting Country first.
Elrod: But if you really look at Hillary's ideas, they are nothing but refired ideas that never got going in the first place. If you scan O's website, he's every bit as detailed as Hillary, PLUS he does not have a track record of wilting to R pressure (Healthcare 93, War 03).
Of Course, the most detailed, and passionate, candidate on either side, is Edwards, and folk like Jill reject him. Why? Who knows, but I really believe there is a pathoogical voter obsession against real change.
Just look at this site- most people here whine, but the Righties stick with the Dinosaurian R's and the D's prefer Hillary the gutless hack, who actually has less political experience than Obama (whose exp is non-DC).
I think Jill actually relishes the fact that in 4 years, she can still have something to whine about. Think of it- she is not moved by Edwards, but trusts Al Gore?
C'mon, examine your ownrole in why this country is off track.
How about a Bloomberg if left with a Hillary-McCain/Mitt fight?
But no, that would mean leaving the safe womb of the Party, rather than putting Country first.
The Republicans are by now seasoned experts at running against the Clintons. They've had 16 years to rehearse, and the Clintons have had 16 years to screw up their chances at getting a third term. For good reason, there is a sizable movement against the 20 year long two-family dynasty that America has been under. Dynasties are not a sign of a healthy democracy. Lastly, do not be lulled into the false hope that the Clintons will be able to “outsmart” whoever their opponent ends up being. Gore and Kerry both easily outsmarted Bush in front of the country's very own eyes, yet they lost.
The Republicans are by now seasoned experts at running against the Clintons. They've had 16 years to rehearse, and the Clintons have had 16 years to screw up their chances at getting a third term. For good reason, there is a sizable movement against the 20 year long two-family dynasty that America has been under. Dynasties are not a sign of a healthy democracy. Lastly, do not be lulled into the false hope that the Clintons will be able to “outsmart” whoever their opponent ends up being. Gore and Kerry both easily outsmarted Bush in front of the country's very own eyes, yet they lost.
The Republicans are by now seasoned experts at running against the Clintons. They've had 16 years to rehearse, and the Clintons have had 16 years to screw up their chances at getting a third term. For good reason, there is a sizable movement against the 20 year long two-family dynasty that America has been under. Dynasties are not a sign of a healthy democracy. Lastly, do not be lulled into the false hope that the Clintons will be able to “outsmart” whoever their opponent ends up being. Gore and Kerry both easily outsmarted Bush in front of the country's very own eyes, yet they lost.
The Republicans are by now seasoned experts at running against the Clintons. They've had 16 years to rehearse, and the Clintons have had 16 years to screw up their chances at getting a third term. For good reason, there is a sizable movement against the 20 year long two-family dynasty that America has been under. Dynasties are not a sign of a healthy democracy. Lastly, do not be lulled into the false hope that the Clintons will be able to “outsmart” whoever their opponent ends up being. Gore and Kerry both easily outsmarted Bush in front of the country's very own eyes, yet they lost.
Cosmo – you wrote some interesting things in your most recent comment – but you certainly could direct the questions to me, directly. No need to speculate.
I'm sure I don't have a pathological obsession against change, based on the route my life has taken, but without blathering, you'll have to trust me on that.
I haven't said that I'm not moved by Edwards – I'm not moved enough. By any of the candidates.
And yes Gore moved me – why do you find that unbelievable? I'm not alone in feeling that way (there's a ton of stuff out there on this but you can start here.
As for waiting four years to whine? Honey, I live in Ohio. I can whine about something every single day without blinking an eye, and with great support from fellow Ohioans. I don't do that – but again, you'll have to decide whether you believe me or not.
I'm not a party girl and never have been – I'm not sure why my twisting in the wind makes you think I am a party person.
But the bottom line here is that if you look at numbers pretty much anywhere across this country, I have more company than the best wedding planner would know what to do with: millions of Americans feel exactly as I do.
Why shouldn't Americans want better from a candidate? Why shouldn't I want someone to flip my lid before I vote for them?
I'm having a hard time understanding why you think it just has to do with a malaise and an opposition to change.
Cosmo – you wrote some interesting things in your most recent comment – but you certainly could direct the questions to me, directly. No need to speculate.
I'm sure I don't have a pathological obsession against change, based on the route my life has taken, but without blathering, you'll have to trust me on that.
I haven't said that I'm not moved by Edwards – I'm not moved enough. By any of the candidates.
And yes Gore moved me – why do you find that unbelievable? I'm not alone in feeling that way (there's a ton of stuff out there on this but you can start here.
As for waiting four years to whine? Honey, I live in Ohio. I can whine about something every single day without blinking an eye, and with great support from fellow Ohioans. I don't do that – but again, you'll have to decide whether you believe me or not.
I'm not a party girl and never have been – I'm not sure why my twisting in the wind makes you think I am a party person.
But the bottom line here is that if you look at numbers pretty much anywhere across this country, I have more company than the best wedding planner would know what to do with: millions of Americans feel exactly as I do.
Why shouldn't Americans want better from a candidate? Why shouldn't I want someone to flip my lid before I vote for them?
I'm having a hard time understanding why you think it just has to do with a malaise and an opposition to change.
efranklin – thanks for commenting – sorry it should up twice (that happens once in a while).
Here's the best takeaway for me from what you wrote: “Dynasties are not a sign of a healthy democracy.”
If that's true, then, from a variety of vantage points, the democracy practiced in the U.S. has a chronic illness dating back centuries, literally.
What would you propose to change that?
efranklin – thanks for commenting – sorry it should up twice (that happens once in a while).
Here's the best takeaway for me from what you wrote: “Dynasties are not a sign of a healthy democracy.”
If that's true, then, from a variety of vantage points, the democracy practiced in the U.S. has a chronic illness dating back centuries, literally.
What would you propose to change that?
Jill: The passionate Green Gore that won the Nobel was not the Right of Center VP whose boss presided over a terrible ecological record. That's why you should not rhapsodize of Gore.
Like Pete Abel did in another post of Reagan, there is a schism between the reality and your imago of Gore.
If, say, Gore decided to run and won the Prez, do you really feel he's stay the Gonzo Greenzo he is now?
So, of the 3 Dems, since you've staked out your side, which of the 3 would you vote for? And which is the best candidate- they can be diff options. And, if they are diff, then why are they not one and the same?
People have to stop voting for a perceived pragmatism, which leads to the lesser of two evils.
There is nothing in Hillary's record, as example, that says she will follow thru and gut out any of the things she proposes, and that which she proposes is nothing new nor diff than other candidates propose. So, why not go elsewhere? She is so clearly a poor candidate, alone, or compared to the R's who can beat her.
It's insanity to choose her, ala Kerry & Gore, when there are better candidates, and better potential Prez's.
Again, would you go for a Centrist like Bloomy if Hill and McCain or Mitt are the finalists?
Jill: The passionate Green Gore that won the Nobel was not the Right of Center VP whose boss presided over a terrible ecological record. That's why you should not rhapsodize of Gore.
Like Pete Abel did in another post of Reagan, there is a schism between the reality and your imago of Gore.
If, say, Gore decided to run and won the Prez, do you really feel he's stay the Gonzo Greenzo he is now?
So, of the 3 Dems, since you've staked out your side, which of the 3 would you vote for? And which is the best candidate- they can be diff options. And, if they are diff, then why are they not one and the same?
People have to stop voting for a perceived pragmatism, which leads to the lesser of two evils.
There is nothing in Hillary's record, as example, that says she will follow thru and gut out any of the things she proposes, and that which she proposes is nothing new nor diff than other candidates propose. So, why not go elsewhere? She is so clearly a poor candidate, alone, or compared to the R's who can beat her.
It's insanity to choose her, ala Kerry & Gore, when there are better candidates, and better potential Prez's.
Again, would you go for a Centrist like Bloomy if Hill and McCain or Mitt are the finalists?
Unlikely I'd go for Bloomberg, but never say never (see the end of this comment). See – and this might just be too long to go into in this post, but what they hey –
First, re: Gore – I'm plenty old enough to remember Gore all the way back and before 1992. I didn't just get to him in 2000. Or 2006. But even with all that, I have no illusions – it is all relative. And relative to the candidates in the 2008 (Dem side), I still prefer Gore. If I said he was in fact ideal, I retract that. I just prefer him.
Part of the problem is the system – we learn to think that this system is so wonderful – and comparatively speaking, it is. I know that. However, why shouldn't we want better? They say that pessimists are really just disappointed optimists – that is, we aim so high that we get let down – but in essence, we really believe that we can achieve anything. And when we don't, we get bummed out – repeatedly. But we don't give up on thinking that it can be better.
That's closer to what I believe I am – whether I'm consistently acting like that's how I am, well – this isn't that kind of blog, now, is it?
Finally – re: Bloomberg. He's different – I would definitely research and learn about him. But I'm not prepared to say whether i'd vote for him I do not know enough, except to say that I don't imagine him to be much like most of the GOP candidates right now.
See – here's what I've learned over the last 2-3 years: I always thought you/I vote for the person. But as I've seen my district's interest become completely unrepresented and I've seen how a GOP Ohio legislature battles with a Dem governor, i've really started to focus more on what it means to be in the majority versus the minority and how each seat matters and whether voting for the party because of that balance is something to consider.
So – I'm just not sure re: Bloomberg. It's really not about where they are on a continuum for me, it's about what they will do as a concrete action and what CAN they get done.
I don't know. My head hurts. lol
Unlikely I'd go for Bloomberg, but never say never (see the end of this comment). See – and this might just be too long to go into in this post, but what they hey –
First, re: Gore – I'm plenty old enough to remember Gore all the way back and before 1992. I didn't just get to him in 2000. Or 2006. But even with all that, I have no illusions – it is all relative. And relative to the candidates in the 2008 (Dem side), I still prefer Gore. If I said he was in fact ideal, I retract that. I just prefer him.
Part of the problem is the system – we learn to think that this system is so wonderful – and comparatively speaking, it is. I know that. However, why shouldn't we want better? They say that pessimists are really just disappointed optimists – that is, we aim so high that we get let down – but in essence, we really believe that we can achieve anything. And when we don't, we get bummed out – repeatedly. But we don't give up on thinking that it can be better.
That's closer to what I believe I am – whether I'm consistently acting like that's how I am, well – this isn't that kind of blog, now, is it?
Finally – re: Bloomberg. He's different – I would definitely research and learn about him. But I'm not prepared to say whether i'd vote for him I do not know enough, except to say that I don't imagine him to be much like most of the GOP candidates right now.
See – here's what I've learned over the last 2-3 years: I always thought you/I vote for the person. But as I've seen my district's interest become completely unrepresented and I've seen how a GOP Ohio legislature battles with a Dem governor, i've really started to focus more on what it means to be in the majority versus the minority and how each seat matters and whether voting for the party because of that balance is something to consider.
So – I'm just not sure re: Bloomberg. It's really not about where they are on a continuum for me, it's about what they will do as a concrete action and what CAN they get done.
I don't know. My head hurts. lol