Something else I'm betting we will see much more on, similar to this Washington Post article:
Three differences and three similarities will define the contest between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.
The most important difference lies in where their respective political journeys began. After her early work as an advocate for children, Clinton came to political maturity in the South as part of her husband's efforts to rescue the Democratic Party from its low point in the 1980s. She was shaped by her party's need to win back moderate and conservative voters who had strayed to Ronald Reagan's banner.
Obama, by contrast, began his political life as a community organizer in inner-city Chicago. His earliest experiences were of a bottom-up politics mobilizing the poor and the marginalized. This had the paradoxical effect of giving some of his ideas a decidedly progressive and activist tilt and others a more conservative tinge.
And of course the almost requisite paragraph on the "firsts":
And the woman who would become the nation's first female president and the man who would become its first African American president know how important the men and women of the white middle class will be to the outcome of the next election. Such voters will probably determine if either of them gets to become a national trailblazer -- and also if any other Democrat can find a way to get in the middle of their fight.
9 comments:
These candidates represent some great choices. I would love to see Hillary as Prez and Obama as VP. Then Obama will become prez in a few years.
I don't think either of them can win. I don't like Hillary, but she is probably qualified. I do like Obama, but he is a fairly new face. If Al Gore doesn't run, I will have to support John Edwards unless someone else comes along I like better.
I posted this on a eariler post of Lisa's and it bears repeating:
"All I have to say is that if these are the two top runners for the Democrats in 2008, the Republican party will win the White House again, even with the crap job that Bush has done. Most of this country is not ready for a black or woman president yet. I would vote a black and/or female president, but not these two. I would rather vote for Hitler than that power hungry poltical climber Clinton. And I will not vote for Obama just because he reads off a telepromter very well. This country needs a leader, not an orartor. Looks like the American people will lose in 2008 no matter who is elected. Yuck."
I agree with your comment here and on the last thread as a valid concern C. I'm not sure the country will accept either as President. I know if I were forced between the two would I would support but I also remember what happened last time around and whoever starts out as the front runner doesn't necessarily end up that way. It also really depends on who the Republicans put out there. There are a few that I would probably seriously consider Obama over...
I still like Edwards but I'm also looking closely at the other candidates like Richardson.
The last Democract that made sense, whom I voted for, was Bill Bradley. If we had more moderates on both sides of the aisle in Congess then maybe things would get done for the better for the American people. Silly idealistic me.
I'd have to go back to Jimmy Carter...every other presidential election I've voted for either an independent or third party candidate.
Of course I voted for Jimmy when he lost...I wasn't old enough to vote for him the first time.
Since I have never voted for a presidential candidate that won, I am voting republican next time
I almost did that last time, but I was afraid that would be the one time the person I picked won...
:-)
Lisa,
"I almost did that last time, but I was afraid that would be the one time the person I picked won...
You forgot:
cynic alert, cynic alert, cynic alert!
:-)
And, I'm guessing that neither Obama nor Hillary will be the candidate when the dust settles.
On the "r" side, I haven't a clue either. . .
Post a Comment