Log in

No account? Create an account
Decision at last - Riffs and Licks
Decision at last
I voted for Hillary. Obama may have a better chance of winning, but she'd be a better president. We don't need new ideas right now, we need old ones like competency, intelligence and morals. Hopefully I haven't made a Nadir choice. Whoever wins, though, I hope it's thoroughly decisive so we can get going on the real challenge.

(Oh, and the poll workers said turnout was surprisingly high, which is encouraging.)


12 comments or Leave a comment
mary_wroth From: mary_wroth Date: February 5th, 2008 04:51 pm (UTC) (Link)
I have to admit that while I will be excited to get on with the business of getting a Democrat back in the White House, I'll miss the excitement that is the primary season. It has been pretty memorable.
steelbrassnwood From: steelbrassnwood Date: February 5th, 2008 04:56 pm (UTC) (Link)
Yes, this has been the most interesting primary season in years.
From: (Anonymous) Date: February 5th, 2008 07:32 pm (UTC) (Link)

Decision at last

Amen to "competency . . . ." I also want to believe Hillary's already well-prepared to vanquish any challenge the right-wingers will use to try to slime her.
elissaann From: elissaann Date: February 5th, 2008 07:51 pm (UTC) (Link)
I like Clinton. I like hearing about policy. Preaching is great for church, but it didn't get me excited.
nyhamsterhouse From: nyhamsterhouse Date: February 5th, 2008 08:11 pm (UTC) (Link)
Oh, how well said!!
nyhamsterhouse From: nyhamsterhouse Date: February 5th, 2008 08:10 pm (UTC) (Link)
Hooray for Hillary!

It seems that our next President is going to be dealing with a HUGE deficit, disentangling from a war, the crap economy, and other large problems, before they can even THINK about tackling new, dreamy ideas. I really do believe that Hillary would be amazing at taking care of those types of issues--being pragmatic, and sensible, and having the know-how and intelligence to just take care of business.

Edited at 2008-02-05 08:11 pm (UTC)
rednoodlealien From: rednoodlealien Date: February 6th, 2008 12:05 am (UTC) (Link)
Wow. I was going to make an official rednoodlealien endorsement for Hillary Clinton, but I was afraid it would result in a two-page rant from you.
steelbrassnwood From: steelbrassnwood Date: February 6th, 2008 05:05 am (UTC) (Link)
It might have. I argued with everyone I talked to, whether they supported Clinton or Obama.
harrietbrown From: harrietbrown Date: February 6th, 2008 01:35 am (UTC) (Link)
I voted for Hillary, too! I love her! She's so gutsy! Not to mention competent and tough (able to withstand hideous sexist insults and not back down). Anyway. Yeah, I voted for her.

I love that icon. Did you take a picture in the voting booth?
steelbrassnwood From: steelbrassnwood Date: February 6th, 2008 05:06 am (UTC) (Link)
Yes, with my camera phone.
From: ext_82344 Date: February 6th, 2008 02:20 am (UTC) (Link)
We don't get to vote until next Tuesday, but I'm planning to vote for Hillary as well. The reason I'm for Clinton is threefold:
1) I don't think she'd do anything f-ed up internationally, whereas Obama has made off the cuff remarks about meeting personally with fringe leaders like Kim Jong Il and Chavez. The U.S. President is supposed to send people to talk to the crazies, not meet with them himself, because the crazies see that as legitimizing their crazy power. That's just one example, but in general I think Obama doesn't really fully understand the ramifications of presidential action on an international scale;
2) Obama's whole "change" thing makes me nervous -- he's only got a couple of years of national political experience. There are all these comparisons to JFK, but JFK had military experience and something like 12 years in Congress/the Senate at that point. From my perspective working with the government, yes, sometimes change is good, but when you make major changes to departments and agencies, it cripples them and the entities spend years -- literally -- trying to reorganize and not doing their mission (e.g. all the agencies now under Homeland Security). I don't see a lot of substance under his "change" banner so I can only guess what he's talking about. Meanwhile, Hillary has substance in her speeches and I feel confident that she would do things that make sense for the country, rather than just change for change's sake.
3) Hillary is the only candidate who has made a clear statement about supporting science -- I love this speech she made on the anniversary of Sputnik's launch. http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=3570
steelbrassnwood From: steelbrassnwood Date: February 6th, 2008 05:14 am (UTC) (Link)
Thank you -- I had not seen that speech. That's good, that's really encouraging, especially after eight years of faith-based policy. And your point about change-for-the-sake-of-change is important. It's like corporations that dream up new strategies to solve all their problems, rather than fixing basic problems with the business.

Clinton isn't perfect. I'm really disgusted with a lot of her positions, or lack thereof, on Iraq and the erosion of the Constitution. But she's a known quantity who knows what she's doing, which you can't say for Obama, and he doesn't have a track record to support the belief that he'd be any more progressive.
12 comments or Leave a comment