brucemaples dot com

I have about the same feelings exactly. Since Edwards dropped out, I've been scrutinizing every debate, speech, interview, etc., I can get my hands on of Obama and Clinton. I have long despised the corporatist politicians, which Clinton definitely is. But, to be fair, Obama has pandered to the corporate interests just as much.

A few times a year I email each and every senator about three things: Iraq, universal healthcare, and impeachment. A few of the senators actually email me back, and a few years ago Obama sent a rather long email. I want to say it was about Iraq, but it might have been healthcare; but what I remember most was how he talked about taking baby steps and doing what was achievable, by working with people from both sides of the aisle and compromising. I remember feeling disillusioned upon receiving that email, because I had previously seen Obama speak at the Union Hall on Taylor Blvd, and he had seemed so fired up about bringing change (then, too, he used that terminology). So when I got that email, I realized that alot of what he says in speeches is just "hoo rah" stuff. I've never felt the same about him since. So I very much relate to what you're saying about his possible "weakness" as a leader.

I don't like either one of them, truly. But I think McCain is the likely nominee on the GOP side, and he terrifies me even more. I think he's "gone to the dark side" of his party, and no longer is an individual Republican, but a party loyalist. I think that's why he's supporting Bush on Iraq, now. How very fascist of him. Truly. And that's why he scares the bejesus out of me. He's old, there's something wrong with him mentally - sometimes he just gets that look that he's trying to remember what he's supposed to say, and he seems disoriented. He also has another bulge in his left cheek, if you've noticed. Something's just not right in Denmark there, although I haven't watched him enough to put my finger on it.

So, the question is twofold: Who can win and who would be the best leader? If history repeats itself, and it often does, a black man is preferable to a white woman when it comes to rites of passage. Witness the abolition and suffrage movements. They were fine working together until it came down to whether black men should take the vote first or whether they should hold out for women, of all colors. Well, we know what they did - they chose to take the vote. And we know what happened, with all the attempts at disenfranchisement that followed, well past the halfway mark of the 20th century.

If history repeats itself, the if Obama managed to get the nomination and even managed to win (which I think is possible but doubtful), then the radical right of the Republican party will try to strip him of as much power as possible, whether by manipulating him, stalling him, or whatever other method they decide to use.

Playing into that will be Obama himself, because he doesn't really have very specific, detailed plans. In that respect, he's alot like Bush. If you remember Bush's speeches from 2000, in particular, he talked incessantly about how we needed change, and he was the one to bring it. He also talked about how he was a uniter, not a divider, and that he would work with both sides of the aisle to accomplish change. Well, that's EXACTLY what Obama says. He always talks about change and hope - same as Bush - but he NEVER talks about HOW he's going to bring about that change, let alone what, exactly, the change is that he's talking about. SAME AS BUSH. Obama also talks about how he wants to cooperate and work with opposing views, etc. Bush said the same thing.

I don't trust that kind of language, regardless of where it comes from. So, there's a red flag for me.

Another thing that bothers me about Obama is his voting record. He's often absent when critical votes are being cast. Clinton is sometimes MIA, too, but not as often. It's easy for Obama to say he didn't vote for such and such when it's true - he just neglects to say that he didn't cast a vote against it, either. I find that duplicitous.

In the South Carolina debate, it was Obama who "threw the first punch" at Clinton. He started the contention that followed between them. I think he knows that all he has to do is say one little thing and Clinton will "bite". On the one hand that might mean that Clinton is too thin-skinned or it might mean that she won't back down and will stand up for herself, which is a good leadership quality. I know for sure that it means that Obama is sly. Much more sly than people are realizing. At least Clinton is more overt!

In the SC debate, both were asked their response to Romney's allegations that he was the best CEO to governm the U.S. Clinton responded first, by saying that she didn't feel that the U.S. should be run like a business because government's purpose is to serve the people. She added that we've all seen the disastrous results of Bush's efforts to run the U.S. like a business. She commented that "It took one Clinton to clean up after the first Bush, and it might take another one to clean up after this Bush." She might have a point.

Obama, I believe, truly blew his chance at convincing me what a selfless, dignified, benevolent leader he might be when he replied, "I have a better management style." Remember, he came after Clinton, not before. If he was smart, he'd have come up with a better answer. I don't know, I'm starting to see a certain arrogance about him. Again, that's so Bushian. Obama just manifests it in a more intellectual way.

I will say one positive result, though, and that is the engagement, finally, in the black community for supporting a candidate. My question, then, is: Will they come out enforce, if Obama is the Democatic nominee, to vote in the general election? And if they do, what does that say? All sorts of social questions arise from that, which are at the very least, quite interesting.

Like, once engaged in the voting process, will the community of color continue to engage in future political elections, regardless of the race of the candidate? Or will they only come out to vote in elections that has a person of color as a candidate? It would be interesting to see, purely from a social science pov, whether once engage, these voters would remain engaged because of the process itself, not just the candidate.

Second, what would the community of color expect from Obama, and more importantly, would be be able to deliver? I've heard Obama say repeatedly that one of the things he would address is the inequality of the ration of black to white arrests, and the disparity of white and black sentences. And those are both deserving issues to address. But I'm just wondering if Obama will really address it in a way that satisfies the community of color, or indeed, if he would address it at all. It could be a potentially explosive issue.

This goes back to Obama's not being specific when he talks about bringing change. If he does mention something that needs changing, he never comes out and specifically says that he will address it; if he does, he never says how. I understand that it says something about him - that he doesn't want or like to be pinned down. If he commits and then changes his mind later, or outright lies, he's either seen as a waffler or a liar. If he commits and sticks to it, he might fail...or succeed. Either way, he doesn't appear to like to commit to the specifics of much of anything. That makes me suspicious and very nervous. I'd much rather know what I'm getting into when the stakes are so high.

And that's a major point for me, I think. We, as a country, have traveled so far down a dark path that it is going to take a very strong leader to lead us back and forward on a path of restitution, resolution and leadership. I just, in my heart, don't think Obama has the - and I HATE to say it - experience. I think he's too green and naive in politics at the top. I think Clinton has been privy to so much information that even someone like Obama wouldn't have had access to, such as knowing the real reasons behind certain situations involving foreign leaders and govnernments.

But even above and beyond that, I do think that Clinton has the right heart for the job. I think she has put herself in a position of power because of how focused and passionate and committed she is to her goals - one of which was to be president. My guess is that that job title was always on her "to do" list. She has alot of enemies, but she also has a huge global network, which Obama could not possibly have. I also know that while she's a compromiser, and a negotiater, that she wouldn't back down unless she absolutely had to, if even then. I guess I believe that her strength of character is stronger than Obama's. I think she's probably a real force to be reckoned with.

And I can't believe I'm even saying these things, because I've not been a supporter of hers for years. She's a "politician's politician". I think the right wing is terrified that she'll get the nomination. I think they want Obama, and I say that because I heard that on FOX news only yesterday. So when FOX news supports Barack Obama, I have to give pause and ponder why. My guess would be that the radical right think they would have an easier time beating Obama than Clinton. And I have to agree. The radical right would play the race card, very covertly, and you'd have a free for all with KKK and Arian Nation people. And it would be fueled by the radical right ring of the Republican Party.

And then, they'd throw a dose of Obama being a Muslim on top of that. The RRR would plot and plan to disenfranchise as many black and other voters of color as they could, so you'd see tactics devised to accomplish that, which we've seen, also, in every election since 2000.

I also think that McCain will play the illegal immigration card, and this is what would lose Obama big time - Obama stated, and I heard him do it with my own ears and saw him with my own eyes - that illegal immigration has absolutely no impact upon American jobs or the economy, including the agricultural and construction industries. And that's where he's going to lose alot of poor people, especially those who are losing their jobs to illegal immigrants, or who live in close proximity and have to deal with the gangs, crime, etc. Not all immigrants are Ozzie & Harriet, with Dave and Ricky as their wholesome kids.

If Barack Obama is nominated, the GOP will focus on Iraq and Illegal Immigration in the Fall, effectively shoving Healthcare Reform into the background. And Obama will be hard put to do anything about it. He's already made the statement several times that he doesn't believe illegal immigration is a real problem in the U.S. That means he basically believes it's a made-up crisis, courtesy of ? The Republicans? Oh, I can just hear the debates, now.

And Barack Obama falters when he's caught. I've seen it happen on more than one occasion. When he really has to answer a question out of the blue, he often, not always, but most of the time, falters. You can see him searching for what to say, you can see that he's not got an answer. I see this as naive, and perhaps inexperienced. Certainly, unprepared. But I still say, anyone who doesn't take the illegal immigration problem seriously is someone who's either very naive, or who has a closed mind. But either way, it will cost Democrats, if he's nominated. Plus, it will effectively push healthcare into the background, where Republicans want it.

I don't see these problems with Clinton. Yes, she's hated by many, but I bet she's feared by some, as well. Especially people who wouldn't want to be on her wrong side. And I bet that includes REpublicans. I think Hillary Clinton could beat John McCain, maybe not by much, but I believe she would beat him. (I would have much prefered John Edwards, though). I think she's tougher than McCain, for all his talk about staying in Iraq 100 years, or even more. (I bet she could beat him up, literally, if you put the two of them in a room together and just let them duke it out for the presidency!)

She's clear, focused, goal-oriented. Next to her, McCain sounds like he's got Alzheimers.

McCain and Obama, they have similar "speech" problems, i.e., they both hestiate, fumble for answers, etc. They'll cancel each other out.

Clinton also has a better chance of winning against McCain on Iraq. BECAUSE she voted for the war, she can come off as the wiser person for having learned a valuable lesson - that there must be proper discussion (not last minute), at a proper time (not in the middle of the night), when it comes to matters of war. She can come off as the more "evolved" leader - "older and wiser", while McCain could be seen as unrealistic, following the ideology of the right wing faction of the Republican party, not being able to learn from our mistakes and vowing to follow an ill-conceived idea to the very end, no matter how many people die because of it - and last but not least, McCain could be seen to be suffering from a form of PTSD, in which he must have revenge on his captors of so long ago, replacing his WWII torturers with the Iraqis. Obama would never do that; Clinton would. And I personally think there's some truth to it, anyway. So from a clinical POV, he might truly be having some issues. There's alot of research that indicates that a current event can often trigger memories and unresolved issues from a past event, which then wreak havoc in present life. Maybe that's why McCain seems to "lose it" every so often, and seems disoriented. How many times has someone else had to answer questions for him? Especially on the economy.

Anyway, I'm leaning toward Clinton - something I never thought I'd say. But, since Edwards has dropped out and Gore has never signed on, I'm stuck with either corporatist Obama, or corporatist Clinton. I'm guessing that both of them made the best of a bad situation, but I'm now wondering which candidate is ready to do some serious damage to the corporate culture? Or which of them can broker the best deal which helps levels the playing field, but still leaves room for plenty of profit? I don't know.

On the one hand, Clinton has had the longest relationship with corporatist culture. On the other, Obama's not done a bad job in playing catch-up. I do think Clinton would hold out for the best deal. I do think she's stronger and less easily manipulated, although whether she's more easily blackmailed must be food for thought. lol. (Only half joking.)

I'm waiting to see what Wisconsin does. All the states so far that have gone for Obama have done so in a demographic pattern. Same with Hillary. They're not too far apart as far as delegate distribution.

As far as I'm concerned, both are still very viable and very much in the running. It's still anyone's game. What would be the best case scenario, though, is for them to agree to run together on a split ticket, regardless of who "wins" the nomination. That would really fuse the democratic party together in a united coalition for the fall. I believe that would be an unbeatable situation.

But until that happens, I'm just going to keep researching and see what I can find. But, as I said, at this point, I'm leaning toward Clinton.