For President: What I Think Now

Now that I have only Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to choose between, I have given a great deal of thought to what the differences between them are. There are good things about both of them, and on many issues they seem to agree with each other--in fact, it's not so much on issues that they differ, but character and personality.

Hillary is a person of great accomplishments and is obviously very good at getting things done. She is effective and efficient. But...; I have always had a persistent "but..." in my mind about her, especially when it came time to think about whether or not I would be happy to have her running the country. What was the root of my hesitation? What made me, and some others, get a twinge of uncertainty about her in spite of all she has done?

The fact that she has been able to accomplish so much, and to be so doggedly persistent in the face of difficulties, seems to put her in an almost superhuman category, and out of the realm of being a person who could understand the feelings and problems of ordinary individuals. I have begun to have the uncomfortable feeling that she wants to be at the top so much, she would be willing to do almost anything to get there, and that the desire to excel might lead her to believe that ends justify means.

I first heard of Barack Obama when he gave such an outstanding keynote speech at the Democratic convention. It was beautiful, and many others reacted to it as I did. It was not like the usual political rhetoric, but somehow more reasonable, more adult, more imaginative, and more compelling. I thought at the time, "This is a guy to watch. He has something unusual to give."

Now that I have had many chances to see him and hear him, my initial reaction has been confirmed. It is not just that he is a good orator, it's not just his delivery, but the substance of what he chooses to say and the way he says it. He speaks from an inner calmness and balance that is reassuring. He talks about what "we" can all do together. He includes us in a very fundamental way. On the other hand, Hillary tells us what she has done in the past, and what she can do for us in the future. She doesn't include us. She may care very much about regular people, but she fails to express that, and instead exudes an aura of superiority and emotional coldness. Barack, on the other hand, gives the impression of being human and empathetic, in spite of being an unusually brilliant and capable man. His humanness and his balance are apparent even when he is making points.

A person who believes they must do it all is not likely to be good at delegating. I heard a quote from Hillary on just that subject, saying that a president who delegates power would not be effective. I think Hillary runs the danger of making herself responsible for everything, while Obama strikes me as more likely to recognize his own limitations, to seek information and advice from others, and to have the judgment to be able to use that information well.

His judgment and his ability to think creatively make up for the lack of experience that Hillary so often mentions. Experience isn't everything. I can think of many experienced and knowledgeable people that I wouldn't want for president. I have confidence in Obama because he is so intelligent, so adult in his outlook, and such a creative thinker that he could weather any storm that arises better than most people could, experienced or not. I feel he is a man of principle, and does not believe that ends justify means.

Lastly, it appears that Hillary's campaign is not nearly as organized, nor running as smoothly as Obama's, and that provides an important clue as to which one would be the most effective in the oval office.

UNFAIR DEBATE and MEDIA BIAS

After watching Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton indulge in a nasty spat like two little kids in a school yard, I am completely turned off of both of them. The Clintons are playing "two against one", and I sympathized with Obama when he said to Hillary, "Sometimes I'm not sure who I'm running against." I wonder if others besides myself felt the unfairness of the situation, disgust with Hillary, and disappointment with Obama because he wasn't mature enough to avoid taking the bait. Once you do that, you lose control. Neither Obama nor Ms. Clinton came off looking anything but petty.

John Edwards, on the other hand, seemed like the only grown-up in the crowd. He made excellent points, even though he was overshadowed by the ridiculous barbs and accusations of Obama and Clinton, due to the moderator's lack of fairness . Why did Wolf Blitzer let them go on so long with their spat? Was that fair to Edwards? Or to the listeners who wanted to hear what all of them had to say? I am disgusted, because this sort of unfairness deprives us of the opportunity to hear enough from everyone to be able to choose the best person to be the democratic nominee, and thus (we hope) the president.

Just because the media is obsessed with the idea that the nominee will be either Obama or Clinton does not mean the voters agree. In fact, this obsession continues to make it more and more difficult for us to hear what Edwards has to say. Why is there not more fairness in handling the debates? Why should the media be telling us who we can listen to, and who we get to pick from in choosing our nominee or our president?

I'd like to be able to get the media to stop making up our minds for us, and to cover news about the candidates in an unbiased way. The media is supposed to be reporting what happens, not trying to make things happen.

If anyone has any answers to these questions, I'd love to hear them.