Obama seems to be running away with it with his victories this weekend, though he's really just making up ground lost to Clinton. He has more states, but about an equal number of delegates since losing both New York and California. I think that I'm leaning more in his direction... not that it matters much, since the Washington caucuses are over and I didn't participate thinking I couldn't because I'm not a resident. This was in fact untrue, and while I began to wonder about the voter registration process being responsible for low voter turnout, I quickly realized that the process is in fact exceedingly simple (at least in Washington). What's actually to blame is the perception that the process will be effortsome and bureaucratic just because everything else is.
I recently read through the Democratic candidates' issues statements on their websites. There are incredibly interesting meta-messages and sub-messages going on there. Pros first, cons second.
If you're in a hurry, skip this part and head to the end, that's where the interesting stuff is.Clinton:
I'll give Clinton some credit on her issues drop-down list for one reason: it's non-alphabetical. Alphabetizing the issues (as does Obama and McCain) is an easy way to avoid prioritizing any of them. You definitely feel that some issues have precedence over others on her list. Close to the top, she has Health Care, Ending the War, Global Warming, and School Improvement. Down near the bottom, she's placed Immigration Reform and Creating Rural Opportunity. I think Clinton has the most extensive and (I would assume) the most well-thought out plan for health care reform, an issue I think is of incredible importance. This rivals school improvement, in my opinion, because kids need to be healthy and have healthy parents in order to learn well and be ready to face the day. Basic needs first kind of thing, right? On my other issue, I like where she's at too; she actually has put up there that she wants to out and out end NCLB. I also have to mention that all of her issue write-ups are very detailed and laid out for the reader to engage in fully.
However. When I said 'close to the top,' it's because one issue was above all others, and this is what worries me. That issue is Strengthening the Middle Class. I'm sorry, I didn't realize the middle class needed strengthening. It seems pretty damn strong to me already, belonging to the mostly white dominant culture. I'm not certain why this is placed above all of her other issues, especially since they're the ones she's running on. That fact disturbs me. On energy and global warming, she's a proponent of a 100% auction cap and trade system, and while it's possible that I don't understand fully what that is, the concept that a company that's rich enough can buy its way out of violating emissions standards seems exceedingly ridiculous to me. The environment is not something one should be able to pay for the right to destroy. The one exception to her very detailed plans is to "cut the drop-out rate." No explanation, not sure how she's planning on doing this. Might be over-sensitive to that one, since I did my Master's work on the topic.
Obama:
While his issues are alphabetized and therefore almost void of prioritization, I have to say that I like what those issues are. He's the only candidate to mention Poverty, Civil Rights, Ethics, Seniors and Social Security, and a few others. There's even an "Additional Issues" section as a catch-all for others, although I have to admit I didn't read that one. Poverty and Civil Rights are big ones for me. There's a lot of institutionalized racism in our system, and Obama seems to be the only one willing to talk about it. Each issue page begins with an outline of what the Problem is and follows with his strategies.
However. And this is a big however. Obama's actual reading on the issues reads like a Christmas wish list rather than a plan. There are PDFs you can download with (presumably) more details, but that's beyond the scope of this opinion. There's a lot of "Obama will..." followed by actions that the president simply doesn't have the power to do. Such as "Obama will X by passing his legislation that..." Presidents don't pass legislation, Congress does. He also seems to have twice the number of issues, but half the planning on the front page of his website than his rival. Reading the PDFs is something only the most invested voters are likely to do.
Of course, herein lies the genius of Obama's strategy. It's simple. He's put down twenty issues, made some vague promises, and ensured that they appeal to everyone. He's running on the attitude that everything needs to be changed. He lists problems first. He's playing to the fact that Americans are, by and large, righteously outraged and want something new. And I think he's going to win on it.
A.K. spread an article by Robin Morgan, head of the Women's Media Center, (found at http://www.womensmediacenter.com/ex/020108.html) that had reached viral status fairly quickly. It essentially outlines the ways in which Clinton's treatment during the campaign has been disgustingly sexist and inexcusably ignored and accepted. And, in fact, I fully agree with her statements about how upset and outraged we should be over that treatment. It's not funny, it's revolting. Unfortunately, I can't agree with her that these are reasons to vote for a president. These are social ills, not a running platform. Presidential campaigns are not contests to see who can put up with more adverse treatment. I can't include this in a reason to vote for Clinton.
Many have said that Clinton is more qualified and more connected than Obama is. I think I'd agree with that too, and that's one of the reasons I'm leaning towards Obama. Obama's betting his reputation for the rest of his life on the fact that he'd make a great president. Maybe he's making a lot of vague promises, and while I'm concerned that he's not as strong on two of my biggest issues (NCLB and Health Care) as I'd like him to be, I think he realizes that if he gets there, he'd better bring the hammer down hard or he won't last longer than four years. And since incumbents always get the nod, that means it'd likely be McCain in 2012 and we'd be right back in the hands of the Republicans. (I have to admit though, McCain seems better than most). Obama seems to have goals, rather than an outlined plan, and I almost think this is a better way to go.
I am a little concerned as to why I give Obama this benefit of the doubt rather than Clinton. Is it an internal gender bias of some sort? Am I falling victim to the age-old halo-effect fallacy of, 'well, he's less qualified, less connected, not as experienced, but doggone it, people LIKE him!' I'm not sure, and I'll have to deal with that if I'm wrong, I suppose.
