Thanks for covering both the campaigns after reading the platforms of both Obama & Clinton when I add up both their positives & negatives they come up even to me. Their only difference seems to be in their campaign styles.
Personally I think it's best if the GNB does not endorse either candidate, and only discusses the specifics of their policies, that is not something that I have seen discussed informatively anywhere and I think would make you guys really standout from the blogging crowd & MSM.
I personally would find it more helpful if more folks spent time covering the differences between both candidate's Iran policy or health care rather than the usual one sentance summaries that I get.
But then again if we did that it would prolly take more time and we might find out that they both hold the same positions.
What are your thought on the ease & efficacy of this approach Jesse & the other board maintainers? is this a bad idea? or just not anything very relevant?
The only thing that people need to understand is that right there:
It is clear to me after watching Senator Obama, one genuine advantage he has over Senator Clinton, is people are so inspired by him, that for the first time since President Kennedy, the best and the brightest of the Democratic Party may be attracted to government and public service jobs, because Barack Obama calls them to serve.
And that he's not Regan. So basically you've got a pretty decent person and politician who are scoring roughly the same on the issues (except the war) but one generates crowds of 1 to 2000 (which is respectable) and the other generates crowds of 21,000.
Which of those 2 do you think has a better shot of winning?
Better question: of the two candidates whose "supporters" do you think is more likely to vote for the other?
Obamamania, like it or not, is real. And it could either work for the Dems in the fall or work against. Really against.
Obama event in a nutshell: Rock concert & revival. You want to talk turned on? No one EVER sat down (except press.) The entire audience was on its feet the entire talk. 18,000+ people rose to their feet when he took the stage and when it was over, they could barely talk from yelling themselves hoarse.
Good times. I wish I'd had a lighter to hold up for the encore. Not as much in the way of substance as I'd have liked, but wow, does this guy know how to hold a crowd. I mean that in the most positive possible way. He's a genuine leader. He speaks, people follow.
This kind of reminds me of the snake-oil religion from "Stranger in a Strange Land."
Could Obama be a Fosterite?
But I remember that Foster did bring about change. that was overall not bad, it was just different. However, I read that book more 16 years ago.
My BFF in Seattle is very discouraged that both Obama and Hillary are "centrist" and so similar in their viewpoints and voting records (except Iraq).
Yeah, I was an Edwards supporter, too, but I'm also pragmatic - and I know that such massive inspiration among the public really does matter.
So my thought is, Okay, Hillary and Obama are both at the Center. Which one of them, then, is MOST likely to work for the highest public good once in office?
Commenting by HaloScan
