Vote

[kmusser]

Tomorrow I'll be busy working as an election judge for Brunswick, Maryland - so locals are getting your reminder early - don't forget to vote tomorrow.

I'll be voting for Obama because, well thankfully I have friends more eloquent than I . . .

what animadversio says here

what boztopia says here

and because I think he has a significantly better chance against McCain than Hillary does - and I really don't want McCain.

Comments

Election Judging

[mohnkern.livejournal.com]

Is a fun job, I may do it in the fall, especially since my polling place is across the street.

[citabria]

I'm still not seeing it.

The current status of his health plan has me terrified. As someone who's spent most of her adulthood self-employed, I'm familiar with not having health coverage -- and my officemate still doesn't have insurance. He has said that for various reasons, it is virtually *impossible* to make health coverage that's inexpensive enough for him to afford. A MA-type penalty might offset that enough to get him to finally get coverage. The Obama "plan" on the other hand, would guarantee him a fucking -- he'd still not get it, and then have to pay a premium. I'm not sure who that sounds good to, but not anyone I know.

As for everything else, I don't understand why people are assuming that he'd be able to get the bipartisan train rolling, or that he'd be free of influence and backbiting. I don't see any evidence that that would be the case. If he were to do the "outsider" route I suspect he'd be just as successful as Jimmy Carter.

I keep trying to get it, if only to feel better if he were to win the nomination. But so far, every time I hear more I become even more frightened.

[zammis.livejournal.com]

good points- however, I don't think Hilary would do any better in bipartisanship. At this point, the only way I see a Republican winning is if Hilary gets the nomination. I don't think we as a country can afford the GOP for another 4-8 years.

The ehalth coverage thing is something I'm playing around with- luckily, Maryland has a program where, if you are turned down for regular health insurance, or they add a bunch of pre-existing condition waivers, you can get coverage at a reasonable rate. A lot of states have similar little advertised programs that he/she might want to explore.

[citabria]

Oh, I have no illusion that Clinton would do better -- I just think people are being unrealistic in believing that Obama would somehow come in with The Magic Wand of Bipartisanship and Make Everything Better.

Oh, that's right -- we're supposed to just *believe*.

Okay, I'll try to can the sarcasm, but I think you get my point.

I wish I disagreed with you more about the general election, but I'm not sure that I do. The problem is that I continue to see an Obama presidency as a *huge* mistake ... which puts me in a conundrum that I still haven't been able to find a way out of. I keep trying, but I keep getting more and more strongly anti-Obama.

I'm almost positive that NY doesn't have that sort of health coverage thing -- it does for children, but that's it. My officemate's problem isn't about pre-existing conditions, though -- my health coverage costs me about $650/month, as it would for *anyone*. I could probably get it as low as $600 with higher deductibles, but that's about it. That's a lot of money, especially when you're self-employed and also covering your own contribution to Social Security via the self-employment tax.

[kmusser]

I think Clinton's health plan is better than Obama's, but I don't think either of them will be able to implement their plans without them getting massacred by Congress.

I don't think Obama will be able to deliver all that he promises, but I do believe that he is basically trustworthy and will try - which sadly I can't say the same for Clinton.

I think McCain would essentially be a continuation of the Bush presidency. I already know what a Clinton presidency is like. While there's a door #3 that's what I'm going for. That I think a Clinton nomination has a good chance of handing the general election to McCain clinches it for me.

On a personal note you should check out http://www.nase.org/ and see if you qualify - I'm self-employed and buy my insurance through them and have a premium of 147 (granted it's a high deductible plan, but still).

[citabria]

I'm curious. Seriously.

Why do not not think Clinton is trustworthy? Why don't you think she'll try to do what she says she wants to do?

I also think you're mistaken about what a Hillary Clinton presidency would be like. I don't think it would be the same as her husband's, she's too much her own woman with her own political views (beginning before Bill ever went into politics).

I don't like the idea of a McCain presidency, but I'm not sure it would be the same as Bush. Maybe Bush I, in some ways, but not at all like Bush II.

I'm very serious about wanting to know why you distrust Clinton, by the way. I've heard a number of people say that, but they back it up with only vague handwaving, not pointing to any specific actions that she took that were contrary to what she said she would do. (Even so I'd question what other things were going on at the time, behind the scenes, but at least there'd be some specifics to look at.) I haven't seen or heard anything to lead me to distrust her, so I'm really curious what -- other than a general distrust of politicians -- would lead you to this conclusion.

And I'll definitely check out that link. :)

trusting Clinton

[kmusser]

It is hard to define, as it is an impression or judgment of character rather than any specific thing she's done. In a way it is the general distrust of politicians, just taken a notch up. I have always had the impression that her goal is to gain personal power - and nothing else - that she will do or say whatever it takes to go up the next stop on the political ladder - that she bases her policies on what people want to hear, not any conviction. I don't know of anyone else that has had their eyes so firmly and obviously set on the presidency for so long. So considering that, I'm not at all sure what she'd do with presidential power once she had it. One thing I'm pretty sure of though is that she would not roll back any of the unitary executive crap that Bush has pushed through, I just can't imagine her voluntarily giving up any power (granted I'm not at all sure Obama would either, but I don't see him fighting congress tooth and nail to keep it should congress try to restore some civil liberties like I think she would). She also seems to have some sort of machismo thing going on, a need to prove herself more manly than the men, which makes me worry about how she'll really react when it comes to military/security issues.

Re: trusting Clinton

[citabria]

How much do you actually know about Clinton's background? I ask because it doesn't read like someone who's looking to gain personal power; it reads like someone who found worthwhile things to fight for, and set her sights on fighting for them.

Maybe it helps that the head of my social work program -- who I had two 16-person intensive classes with -- was Clinton's roommate at Wellesley. That the two of them have stayed in touch over the years, and that Connie continues to see the driven, inspired Hillary that she went to school with. Connie's a good judge of character, and the fact that she continues to see Clinton working for the good of all is worth a lot to me -- more than anyone's political analysis or commentary.

As for anyone having their purpose set on gaining high-level public office ... well, that's the way it's been for decades now. Most people who end up in politics haven't just "ended up" there -- they've been inspired to public service relatively early in their lives, generally no later than college, and have made their career and other life decisions based on that career path. It's okay to decide, in college, that you want to be a great neurosurgeon or heart surgeon, why not decide you want to help the world by holding high political office? Why not choose that path to effecting change? If I hadn't made some wrong choices coming out of law school, I'd be on the path to (or in a) policy-making position. Would that be wrong?

I think that, once she held power, she'd use it to undo the bad that Bush has done and work to restore hope and dignity to millions of people in this country. Children are important to her, and I suspect she'd implement at least one initiative focusing on kids. I don't know how she'd do -- Bush has done a lot to royally screw up years of well-run programs -- but I know she'd try. And not for her own sake; she'd try because she thinks it's her duty to do so.

I disagree with your view on the unitary executive. I'm pretty sure she's publicly stated that it's not a good idea, and I'm pretty sure that she would go back to a more traditional presidency. I say "pretty sure" because I know, from personal experience, that the convenience and expediency of having more power than you think you should have is difficult to give up, even when you think it's unwise. She's human, too, so it might take her a while to turn that back (I think she would definitely do so before leaving office, however).

As for civil liberties, I don't think there's a need to worry.

The machismo ... I've seen it, too, but I have faith that she'll act with deliberation when addressing military and security issues. I think she cares too much for this nation -- and the world -- to let herself be driven that way.

[dikaiosunh.livejournal.com]

I know you're asking kmusser, but I thought I'd chime in quickly as someone who has a *little* more than a vague hand-wave:

She voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment (see http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00349) designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization - an amendment that was widely understood as giving Bush more leeway for an attack on Iran - after declaring herself in favor of diplomacy (http://www.cfr.org/bios/8211/#15).

In many ways, similar her decision to vote to authorize Bush to attack Iraq, which she still maintains she did only because she expected Bush to go through with careful inspections, etc. (see, e.g., http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary/) - which, if maybe not precisely an issue of hypocrisy, an example of being either extremely disingenuous (probably) or extremely naive (doubtful).

To be fair, Obama elected to miss the vote on Kyl-Lieberman.