Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Kuros]

I'm sure you are all aware that I have been a Clinton backer, ever since the demise of Richardson's campaign.

I liked Richardson. He was the ideal candidate. He was serious about education, and he was economically conservative. I loved that about him, and I thought he had all the right experience, being a governor AND a diplomat. I was sad to see him go.

I hitched my support to Hillary, since I remain a great admirer of her husband. But there were always several things that secretly troubled me about Hillary.

Firstly, her position on NAFTA really bothered me. Here's a now defunct blog I would occasionally post on. You can see that I've not always been comfortable with Hillary's outlook.

Now, today, I look online to see this. My mind turned to thoughts of what Hillary and Barack each would have to deal with as President. Hillary's economic policies are a little too liberal, and Barack's are more closer to Bill Clinton's. It then dawned on me that Charlie Rangel was a big Hillary backer, and she would have full access to the purse strings.

Obama's campaign has alleviated a few of my fears about him (although I still doubt his readiness), while Clinton's trust in Mark Penn have cultivated a few fears of Clinton. Clinton is the master wonk, but Obama's team is no less able than she. A President is not a detail-master, but ultimately someone who manages a large task force to pursue the big picture.

Ultimately, when one sits alone and ponders these affairs, one cannot ignore that Clinton and Obama's policies are vastly similar. But Clinton would have greater support from a Democratic Congress, and that could lead to spending excesses. My guess is that Obama, despite his more liberal budget, has less obligations to manage the economy to immediately meet the demands of the poor, and is more likely to pursue a pragmatic Bill Clintonesque economic agenda. I also suspect that Obama would be less co-operative with Nancy Pelosi, and I think is more likely to pursue triangulation moderate policies.

I don't know if I support Obama, so much as I feel he might be a better fit. If I had to go to the ballot today, I don't know who I'd vote for. I'd probably look for Richardson on the ballot and place my vote there

All I know is, my concern for a balanced government is driving me away from Hillary. She's just . . . too liberal.

[mithridates]

[Kuros]

[stillnotking]

Don't look now, but Obama's been bashing NAFTA on the campaign trail too. I'm not worried; I don't think either candidate is a protectionist, this is just milksop economic populism for da masses.

I like Richardson too. And yes, you are correct, Hillary has surrounded herself with the most idiotic, venal, corrupt, blinkered, and useless scum from the "Democratic campaign adviser" cesspool. What is with these people? How do they get millions of dollars for coming out with cringe-inducing lines like "Obama hasn't won any significant states"? I want to see Hillary lose if for no other reason than to help actualize the free market in campaign consultancy.

[Ya-ta Boy]

I'm more or less in the same boat you are, Kuros. I flipped a coin to choose between Richardson and Biden. I thought Biden would give us more humorous quips than Richardson, so went for him. I still feel both would serve the nation well.

I think all the blather about change is just that. Blather. All new administrations embody both change and continuity. That is inherent in a system where 2/3's of the Senate is not even up for election in a presidential year. History teaches us that all but about 98% of the House will be returned. Where's the change?

I like Mrs. Clinton. I think it's crass of people to complain for 8 years that she's the co-president and then whine that she only has 6 years experience in the Senate as experience. Please. Choose one or the other or at least be more subtle in your anti-Clintonism. She's a smart woman and would bring back Bill into the political cockpit. I've said before that I'm uncomfortable with that. It's always been true that most presidents' wives have exercised power, but quietly. Hillary exercised power much more actively than we are used to (and the system intends). Bringing back Bill would create a unique situation where we had an ex-president actively exercising power. I was never comfortable with that, even though I like and respect him. She also brings with her the frenetic anti-Clinton baggage that I have always thought undeserved. I also think a good share of it has always been about her. Don't want no strong woman around.

Obama seems to be the man of the hour. I can live with that. I am inspired and delighted that I have lived to see the day when the Civil Rights Act that was passed when I was in high school finally delivering its promise. But I am nervous about his lack of experience. Effective presidents know where the levers of power are and know how to pull those levers. I don't know if Obama has that knowledge yet. He is certainly a bright man. I have my fingers crossed that he is a quick learner. Beyond that, though, his election, if it happens, holds great promise for closing a painful chapter of our history. Maybe that's enough.

I don't spend any time at all studying candidates' positions on issues. I think it's a waste of time. All the candidates in 'your' party are reasonably close to what you want. Enough. Second, presidents only propose. Congress disposes. Politics is the art of the possible. What I want in the White House is a person who can fight hard for something in the neighborhood of my view and then strike the best deal possible. It's never enough, but then unless you're the king, you never get exactly what you want.

[cbclark4]

I can see it now Obama as President, Biden as Vice President, I finally decided Colin Powell should be Chief of Staff.

That should settle any lack of experience fears.

Of course Colin stopped taking my advice after the UN thing.

[Shimokitazawa]

Many believe that she is fated to be the next President.

No?

[cbclark4]

[Kuros]

[jkelly80]

[wannago]

[Kuros]

[jkelly80]