Micro vs. Macro

[THUNDER HANDS]

I was watching CNN earlier, and they were showing little snippets of a Hillary Clinton speech at a forum. And the question someone asked was about education, and Hillary went on this 10-minute long answer about No Child Left Behind and what her plans were for how to improve education and what needs to be done with schools and the testing issue and stuff. It was really rather impressive and made me realize that while, yeah, I think she's a ruthless campaigner who will do anything and say anything to win - she's also incredibly smart and knows more about the minutia of every issue probably better than any other candidate in either party.

I still prefer Obama though, because I think the skills that Hillary has - an encyclopedic knowledge of issues and a pragmatic approach to getting things done, is better served in the senate. I think if she spent her career there she'd be one of the best senators the county has ever seen.

I think the question of whether we want Obama or whether we want Clinton depends on the type of president we want.

I think Hillary, if she became president, would be an LBJ-type president. I think she could get a lot accomplished through the legislature because I think she knows how to work it really well. She knows the issues, she knows how to count votes, and she has keen enough political instincts to realize what could get passed and what couldn't. I don't think she'd overreach and fall on her face, but I also don't think she'd shoot for the moon and succeed - because I think she still lacks the confidence in her own ability to bring about the change she's now talking about. I really think whatever idealism she had in the 60s was crushed by her experience of being first lady in the 90s.

As for Obama, I think he has the potential to be a JFK or Reagan-type president. Someone who can galvanize a nation through sheer force of will or personality. They may not always get the legislation they want passed, but I think they'd get at least one or two big things done that any of the other candidates running wouldn't have a dream of accomplishing. I think if we want Universal Health Care - it would most likely happen under an Obama presidency.

It all comes down to micro vs. macro. Small change vs. Big change. Hillary represents small, incremental change. A lot of little accomplishments and some small minor failures. Obama represents big, sweeping, fundamental change. A few huge accomplishments and maybe some astounding failures.

Ultimately it just depends on what you think would serve this country best at this time. What type of change are YOU looking for? What type of change are the people you know looking for?

Answer that question, and you'll figure out who the next president will be.

[Yael]

1. And yet, some of us still support John Edwards

What!? He's still running!?

*yawn*

[THUNDER HANDS]

2. I'll give Edwards all the respect in the world

when he wins his second primary in the last 5 years.

[depakid]

3. Neither one of them appear to have the fortitude to deal with macroeconomic issues

as FDR did.

And, despite many peoples' hopes to the contrary, that's what the next president will be faced with- contraction or collapse of the US economy.

The only viable candidate who might stand up to the entrenched interests that have led America down this path is John Edwards- which is why, through process of elimination, he's the one we should support.

[thunder rising]

4. Well put.

I feel that his ability to confront without being confrontational applies to the international issues as well. In fact, he has the best chance of bringing sweeping changes to the world. The key is to not condemn first and then try to negotiate ... just negotiate.

[spin]

5. Hillary could be a great President, however

she acts like a programed android and to some degree reminds me of my ex wife.

I fear that if we don't break out of this Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton cycle we seem to be stuck in, the next President might be Jeb Bush followed by Chelsea Clinton.

I'm so tired of Bushes and Clintons, I could scream. I want CHANGE!!!

[Bread and Circus]

6. Very, very interesting analysis. Much smarter than what the idiots

talking heads on TV conjure up.

I kind of liken politics to a tug of war. There's a different ways to go about it. One way, is the Clinton / Bush doctrine which is to "fight" and just pull hard. The problem is that force is met with equal and opposite force. Another way, which hopefull would be the Obama doctrice which is gentle persuasion. Get more people on your team so naturally you have more force and the resistance to oppose the change is lessened.

Unfortunately and mistakenly, this is considered as contrition and sleeping with the enemy but that's actually what the fighters are forced to do because they can never get a true majority. However, when you win over the people and truly popularize your ideas, then the media follows suit, and people on both sides of the isle listen. Hence, you get things done.

What I don't like about your post is that somehow Clinton is the "do-er" and Obama is the "dream-er". This is the meme, narrative, and canard that the Clinton camp promotes. I just don't think that's true. Both Clinton an Obama are do-ers. The difference lies in how they handle people.

I think Bill Clinton is a good example of someone who fell into the trap of being inable to bring people to his side. He was popular to be sure. However, the right gained considerable power in his 2 terms and halted any lasting change he could bring.

His legacy is NAFTA, a Bush rather than a Gore Presidency, a bubble economy that was on it's wane even before he left office, and a lack of a good response to the fall of the Soviet Union (he presided while Al Qaeda gained strength) and an ineffectual response to terrorism which led in part to the 9/11 disaster (although Bush deserves as more blame), and a Republican Congress (which has been reversed because Bush was another polarizer and drove people back to the other side of the tug-of-war rope).

People on DU are usually very heavily partisan and are fairly limited in their understanding of Conservatives (at least from what I've read here) so I know my comments will fall on deaf or hostile ears. I know you want to "FIGHT" and essentially payback all the bad stuff that has been going on for the past 30+ years and I share the sentiment of righting wrongs and promoting justice.

However, you can't just make 30% to 40% of the population just disappear or disenfranchise them. And you can't force the 20 to 40% of the population that are generally less party inclined to adopt your views. You have to make people like, trust, and respect you and then persuade them to see your view and work on solving problems.

I think this last tact is one of the main reasons I support Obama. Right now, we are in a civil war. I see folks like Clinton who while continuing that civil war with her style, method, and tactics would actually be forced to cop the views and policies that currently enable the corporatist and MIC owned to control and command unfairly so much wealth and power.

At the heart of this all is Edwards message who is spot on as the U.S. is evolving to into a soft form of fascism (aren't we already there?). But his approach right now (which is loud and confrontational in order to get him noticed b/c otherwise he is on media blackout) is again the "bull in a china shop approach" and will likely help prevent him from getting elected, let alone nominated and I doubt he would be able to "bring the corporations to their knees".

This is especially so since he's not that far removed from being a DLC'er and a beneficiary of the corporate revolving door of money, power, and access himself.

Don't forget Edwards was the darling of the media 4 years ago and since then he's campaigned more than anything. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Edwards is preaching the gospel right now, but it's the fire and brimstone sermon type of preachin' and that's something he and his supporters have to square with. Maybe someday we will be ready for a revolution, bloody or not, but that's not now. We just aren't suffering enough.

Even the ones that suffer the most, the poor and uneducated, went heavily for Clinton in NH, and she is the Establishment elite DLC candidate. So consider that.

Obama is the blank slate but he is not dumb nor empty nor bereft of substance or policy. His tact has been to play the "grand communicator" and the uniter. The one to elevate and transcend.

On practicaly grounds, 2 things are true:

1.) Clinton, Edwards, and Obama all have similar policy proposals. The differents are either trivial or semantic.
2.) None of them will be able to get much done other than a few things and maybe nominate a SC justice or two.

It's my opinion though that of the 3, Obama would have the best chance at getting big things done because he seems to be able to inspire and unify people (in other words, he has leadership quality).

We'll see.

If Clinton wins, I will be sad because I don't like her and I think she is power hungry and lacks a core compass to always do what is right. However, I can rejoice in that we will have a woman President and Bush will be gone for good.

[THUNDER HANDS]

8. kick

just for this reply, i love it.

[CK_John]

7. You're assuming the world is static, and that the FED can bluff our way out a total meltdown.

What if things are so bad by the convention that the winner of the primaries is afraid(or honest enough) to take the job? We will need another FDR and LBJ together and only Hillary is ready for that.

The next POTUS will not be able to do anything except save us from total collapse.