« What's more difficult than being a pollworker? Being a sick pollworker.2007 ACCURATE Annual Report »

6 comments

  1. § Ping Email said on :
    On your other post, I asked "What makes you think Clinton is the more honest of the two?" and you replied "I don't know if I'd classify anyone I've seen running for president as 'honest'."

    While looking that over just now, I realized that you didn't answer the question. It's not about anointing a particular candidate as having perfect integrity. I'm just talking about which one is a better choice. Looking at the way they've run their campaigns, I see that Clinton's campaign has pulled a number of dirty tricks, and Obama's has not. If you have other reasons to believe that Clinton is the more honest of the two candidates, I'd certainly like to know what they are.

    On the experience issue: I don't think it's as simple as most people make it out to be. True, Clinton has been First Lady, and Obama has not. But Obama has spent more time in elected office (11 years) than Clinton has (7 years). They have different kinds of experience.

    There is no doubt in my mind that Obama's technology policy is much stronger and better thought out. Have you seen the summary by Popular Mechanics? Check out http://www.popularmechanics.com/geekthevote08
    -- click the two check marks under the "Digital/Tech" column for Clinton and Obama and let me know what you think.

    Finally, I recently came across the following sentence, which I think summarizes the situation effectively:
    Clinton divides the left and unites the right. Obama unites the left and divides the right.

    This isn't just about electability. I see real substance there. It just happens that this time, fortunately, the candidate with good policies happens to also be more electable against the expected Republican contender.
  2. § joe® Email said on :
    You'll notice in that last post that I never claimed one was more honest. In fact, I consider both of them to be holding back in their honesty in a typical campaign-strategic fasion, much like what rendered Al Gore useless in 2000. Notice how since Gore is out of the limelight, he's doing good work... because he's not worried about polls and living in a perceptual fantasy. I think both Clinton and Obama are living in perceptual fantasy, and I fear Obama's delusion is deeper than Hillary and that he's better at packaging his delusion.

    To me, dirty tricks are all in the game... I don't endorse them, I don't like them, but I'm not surprised by their use and what I've heard about the Clinton campaign hasn't approached the level that would affect my votedar.

    Thanks for the popsci link, I'll take a look; obviously, technology policy is in my top short list of issues. This is definitely an area where I feel I can be suaded.

    However, I'm just no longer persuaded by the division/electability argument. I think Clinton would be the better president, and that she had better focus on spending the time between now and November with some serious work to change what she can. Like the dirty tricks charge, I don't feel this issue has gotten to a point that affects my vote. That is, I feel the compelling need to vote for who I think would do better once president; to me, that's Clinton (right now).
  3. § Ping Email said on :
    I'm puzzled by your comments on "delusion" -- how do you judge that a candidate is deluded? What gives you the impression that Obama is deluded, and more so than Clinton?
  4. § joe® Email said on :
    That's a good question. I'm home sick and shooting from the hip here, so I may not be terribly precise.

    Obama seems (to me) to have made some calculated decisions a while back that winning the primary and general would be about attracting a majority of democrats to his personality and platform. In order to attract them to his personality, he's emphasizing certain aspects of himself, instead of being himself. (For example, the "consistency on the war" message is pure bullshit to me. If one had access to classified intelligence (correct or not), one's decisions would be remarkably different.) He seems to think that this version of himself is what will win the nomination and attract the votes he needs to be president. I feel like Hillary has been more true to herself and pragmatic reality rather than simply winning an election.

    Not to mention the "Hope" and "Change" messages that he's been championing... I'm sorry to say it but idealism, to me, is just not appropriate in presidential campaign politics... and when someone does bust it out, it should be used carefully, not bluntly and with such a broad brush. It cheapens idealism to me and renders a large part of his surface area phony.
  5. § brooke Email said on :
    Joe - you seem pretty set on voting for Clinton. I won't try to dissuade you since I think Clinton is solid, battle hardened and very clever politician. If she's elected, she'll do a fine job. And if she wins the primary, I'll support her without pause.

    I will say however I'm surprised by your support for Clinton over Obama, and especially your reasoning. My impression of the two candidates is somewhat opposite of yours - Hillary seems much more inclined to say things that will get her elected, whereas Obama has been singing the same tune all along.

    On the 'hope and change' mantle, it is authentic coming from a young, smart and transcendent figure, whereas when the Clintons co-opted it, it became pablum.

    I highly recommend Michael Chabon's editorial here in the Post.

    I've more to say if you care to read here: http://www.brookemaury.org/2008/02/04/my-case-for-barack-obama/

    Best,
    Brooke
  6. § joe® Email said on :
    Thanks much for this... I'm not as set as I may sound. I'm going to wait until the last minute to cast my ballot, so I appreciate your comments.
Contact / Help. (cc) 2020 by Joseph Hall. blogsoft / webhosts.
Design & icons by N.Design Studio. Skin by Tender Feelings / Evo Factory.
And a few words about the structure of the eye . Everyone " retina ". Especially often we hear it buy clomid online in the phrase " retinal detachment ." So what is the retina ? This - the front edge of the brain, the most distant from the brain part of the visual analyzer. The retina receives light first , processes and transforms light energy into irritation - a signal that encodes all the information about what the eye sees . The retina is very complex and in their structure and function . Its structure resembles the structure of the cerebral cortex. The shell of the retina is very thin - about 0.14 mm.