Quote:
Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ
While I'm not really liberal, I'm far enough from conservative that I think I qualify to answer this.
Here's some of the reasons why Hillary is at least interesting:
Abortion: She's more moderate on this than some would think. She's for it staying legal (and has observed that making it illegal won't end it), but is on the record as wanting to minimize the number of abortions through sex education and birth control. She's fine with abstinance being one of the things taught, and has even praised religious groups for doing this.
Death Penalty: She's for it (I'm not), but has pushed for post-conviction DNA testing. As I understand it, Sam Brownback is the only candidate against the DP of the current crop (and he's against abortion too--sort of the old school conservative line).
Education: She opposes vouchers for private schools and I do as well. Also, we need to make our education system more critical-thinking based (and less, teaching-to-the-test based), and she has advocated this idea.
Environment: This could be a strong suit for Hillary. She's on the Environment & Public Works Committee and wants to find ways to fund alternative energy. Obama has been mostly on the "cap usage of the current sources" side of things.
Faith-Based Initiatives: She's less secular on this than Obama (at least, it seems that she is). She's OK with faith-based programs that address social problems.
Gay Marriage: She's not going to push this. She's on record as opposing Gay Marriage, but in favor of civil unions.
Health Care: This will probably be one of her centerpiece issues and perhaps she's learned from the debacle in the early '90s. If she hasn't, she's in trouble. This is an issue to watch her on.
Immigration: She seems sensible on this. I like how Richardson is talking about why so many illegals are here--corporate jobs in big food and the like--but Hillary's comments have been fine on this issue.
Iraq War: So far, I have more confidence in her ability to deal with this situation sensibly than I do in Obama. Obama seems a little too reactionary, and maybe, reckless. Hillary can get moderates on this issue where Obama won't.
Poverty: This ties in with her health care issues. I'm in wait-and-see mode here.
Stem Cell Research: She's sensible on this. Romney seems a little nutty.
From a strategic POV, I think the GOP trotting out a bunch of highly personal anti-Hillary stuff is a mistake. Republicans are better when they're putting forward ideas, and as a moderate I've had more than my fill of rants full of talking points and personal attacks. This actually might be what some Dems really like about Hillary; they believe the GOP might shoot itself in the foot running against her.
|
Most of these issues are emotional nonissues but interesting.
I don't see anything that distinguishes her from Obama. So far, you've about convinced me, if the moderates or Reps lose, we'd be better off with Obama as I imagine he's a younger Bill Clinton, more flexible and can learn on the job.
And I've participated in very sophisticated research involving the effectiveness of hit pieces. They are effective, even if an intellectual such as yourself may be turned off by that approach. For the general public, they are necessary to win. And a candidate with too many negatives cannot win. That's why, if you have two very siimliar candidates in terms of policy, i.e., Hillary and Obama, you're nuts if you select the one with high negative reaction.