Watching Clinton & Obama Watch Bush as I Prepare to Cast My Vote

January 29th, 2008 by DAMOZEL

_3BF806A4_BEB8_4134_BBE9_4D90CF9F7B8F_.gif

As far as I’m concerned, the two Democratic candidates really did steal the President’s show, even though neither said a word.

Truly, it was a treat to see both of them react to the President’s speech, especially during his comments on health care.  Hillary responded with averted eyes and slow clapping, while Obama just scratched his chin thoughtfully.  Neither exactly rolled his or her eyes, but the sidewise averted gaze of each was the nearest thing to.  Bless them both. I wish they’d mend their fences.

Obama and Clinton seemed to see eye to eye on Bush’s domestic agenda, sitting firmly on their hands through most of the first half of his speech.

“I think there is some consensus in the Democratic Party,” Obama said in an interview with CNN immediately after the State of the Union when asked about the lack of difference between him and Clinton on economic policy (The Hill).

Here’s where Obama and I differed sharply from Clinton. 

Clinton and Obama’s divergent views on the troop surge in Iraq, however, were plainly visible.

When Bush proclaimed, “Ladies and gentlemen, some may deny the surge is working, but among terrorists there is no doubt,” Clinton sprang to her feet in applause but Obama remained firmly seated (The Hill).

Oh, Hillary. Why are you and Bill making it so hard for me to vote for you?  Why is that, hmmm?  I never dreamed I’d be wavering so much, assuming Edwards dropped out of contention (as sadly seems to be the case).  I’m considering  throwing my vote to one of the others.  Examining their platforms closely convinces me that Hillary’s would be the better deal for me.  (And don’t even bother talking to me about all the things you think are wrong with her and her campaign—I’m going for the candidate who (1) supports policies that would be in my best interests; and (2) has the right view on my personal "hot button" issues. What if each of us did that for a change instead of worrying about the secret motivations, the "likability factor," or comparative (and ultimately, non-verifiable) moral qualities of the candidates?  What if we all did that? Who would win then, I wonder?)

As for me, I’m not wealthy; I have a disability that’s likely to last the rest of my days and therefore ongoing health care expenses; and if it worsens, I’ll have to work till I die to afford even my co-payments.  I need a candidate whose policies help people circumstanced as I am.  Edwards would have been best for me, no question.   But as between Obama and Hillary, which?

When Bush warned the Iranian government that “America will confront those who threaten our troops, we will stand by our allies, and we will defend our vital interests in the Persian Gulf” Obama jumped up to applaud. Clinton leaned across Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), seated to her left, to look in Obama’s direction before slowly standing. (The Hill)

Oh, Obama.  Oh, Hillary as well.   Not that I don’t agree with the literal words Bush said; I just take everything he says about Iran these days as code for "Given the slightest excuse, we’ll be invading Iran next."  I don’t trust the subtext and I don’t want Dems endorsing it.  John Edwards would have stayed in his seat.  

But what about this then?

The Illinois senator strongly criticized the former first lady last year when she supported a resolution calling for Iran’s Revolutionary Guard to be designated a terrorist organization. Obama supporters and other Democrats charged the vote would give Bush political cover to begin military operations against Iran. (The Hill)

This, at least, seemed an appropriate response:

There also appeared to be some division among Democrats Monday over whether to continue to pump money into the Iraq war effort. When Bush said he would “ask Congress to meet its responsibilities to these brave men and women by fully funding our troops,” Obama and Clinton remained seated while Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) stood up behind them to applaud. (The Hill)

So they both sat that one out and I think it was the right response. It’s not about the troops; it’s about pouring more tax dollars into Iraq.

Anyway, today’s the day, and even though my state’s been stripped of its delegates, we’re told that the rest of the country will be watching Florida.  I’m mad as hell over the delegate thing, but naturally I’m going to vote.  But for which?  For which?  I have a feeling I’m not going to know until I actually hand in my ballot.

CROSS-POSTED TO BUCK NAKED POLITICS

This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 29th, 2008 at 5:06 am and is filed under DNC, Democratic Party, Bush Administration, Primaries, Florida, Elections, John Edwards, Democrats, George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Liberals. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Pondering The President’s State Of The Union Address »

By posting comments on The Moderate Voice you are acknowledging and agreeing to the following general comments policy:

(1) The Moderate Voice's comments are hosted by Disqus (http://disqus.com). If your comment doesn't appear immediately, please be patient since it is an off-site system.

(2) All e-mail received from readers by The Moderate Voice is considered intended for publication unless otherwise indicated in the initial message from the writer. Please do not send us attachments unless you contact us and we agree to it.

(3)The Moderate Voice reserves the right to edit all e-mail and posted comments for content, clarity, and length.

(4) Our comment space is reserved for comments that relate to a post's topic. You should not reprint lengthy text from your own works or those of others, including news articles. You MAY link to them.

(5) Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Such comments also violate the very SPIRIT of this site -- which was created to encourage thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.

(6) All points of view are welcome on The Moderate Voice, with the following exceptions:

(a) Comments posted several times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread by turning a discussion into the equivalent of a bitter shouting match.

(b) Comments posted several times a day that insult or call other commenters or blog writers names or repeatedly make the same point with the effect of or clear intent to annoy other commenters or blog writers.

(7) Name-calling, personal attacks, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by The Moderate Voice will NOT be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice. In some cases a comment may be deleted and the writer will be given another chance. Commenters who virtually ASK The Moderate Voice to ban them by ignoring any warnings or daring TMV to ban them will quickly get their wish.

(8) Anonymous commenters should identify themselves with the same moniker, so readers know their comments are coming from a single individual. If they don't, they are subject to a banning.

(9)If we have problems with inappropriate or inflammatory comments from a commenter who it turns out gave a fake email address that person is subject to immediate banning.

(10) Quotes from material appearing on The Moderate Voice with attribution are allowed. Reprints are allowed only by permission from The Moderate Voice. You may request permission by e-mail.

(11) The Moderate Voice is a personal site. It is not the Government. It is NOT aligned with any political party. It is NOT promoting any specific candidate for office. It is not a public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors' varying points of views. Writers on this weblog WILL take positions. It reserves the right to limit comments to those that, in its view, comport with its stated comment policy. Comments that do not comply are subject to deletion and banning of the author's ISP.

Disclaimer:

--Reading and posting comments at The Moderate Voice constitutes acknowledgment of and agreement to the terms outlined in this comment policy. This comment policy may be revised in part or in full at any time.

--All comments must comport with applicable state and federal laws. The Moderate Voice has no obigation to monitor, edit, censor, or take responsibility for comments. It may or may not act upon a violation of its comment policy once a suspected violation has been brought to its attention. Therefore, commenters are solely responsible for the content of their comments and should ensure that that their comments are lawful and fall within the stated guidelines of both The Moderate Voice and its hosting company.

--The Moderate Voice is not be responsible for injury or liability to any reader or commenter resulting from its own communications or those of commenters, that may be offensive, misleading, inaccurate, illegal, or otherwise unsuitable in the view of the reader. Readers and commenters further agree to indemnify and hold harmless The Moderate Voice from claims resulting from the use of any material appearing on The Moderate Voice which damages the reader, commenter or any other party.

--The Moderate Voice is not responsible for and might disagree with material posted in the comments section. While we strive for accuracy in our posts and DO correct errors, material posted by The Moderate Voice in its posts -- or those left by others in the comments section -- may or may not be accurate.

Read and Post at your own risk.