Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Re: Risky Business   [Stephen Spruiell]

Thanks to everyone who wrote in with answers to my question. Based on this completely unscientific survey, about 55 percent of you would rather see Obama elected in November than risk a 66-percent chance of Hillary becoming the president. I agree with the majority, for the reasons you laid out in your e-mails. Click "keep reading" for a sample from both sides.

UPDATE: Offsetting votes for Hillary and Obama rolled in as I was writing this post. Readers are pretty evenly split on this question, which I find interesting. I'd say I'm only 55-45 leaning toward Obama myself (in this scenario, obviously). There are good arguments on both sides.

UPDATE II: Forgot to mention: At least five of you said you'd vote for anyone but McCain. C'mon people, this was a make-believe scenario, and (I would have hoped) a sobering one. I'm relieved that we don't actually have to choose between these two. Aren't you?

The number-one reason why most of you would rather guarantee Obama four years in the White House than risk a Clinton presidency is simple: The Clintons are divisive and corrupt, and you would rather see anyone other than Bill and Hillary in the White House for the next four years. Here's a response on that note:

I'll take Obama over Hillary. I can't stomach having to look at the Clintons any more than I have to. Look in the encyclopedia under "criminal politicians" and you'll see their portrait. 8 years as co-Presidents, and a few years as my Senator (until I moved to Jersey) were more than enough. After 2 years of Obama it'll be time for 1994 redux.

Another common theme was that an Obama presidency might hasten the end of race-based politics:

... Obama would really represent a turning point for maybe kinda’ sorta’ getting past race in this country — not that we haven’t gotten there in many legit ways, but this would be a huge symbol. Plus it would (or should) make the racists and race hucksters (e.g. Sharpton) look particularly silly once and for all. I think we can withstand any presidency, however bad, for 4 years, so I’m in for McCain for nat security reasons — but Obama if we have to have a dem.

Finally, here's a long e-mail that touches on almost all of the reasons you (and I) would rather see Obama win than risk a return of the Clintons:

To take you up on your question let me say first that as a Californian who has been a conservative since Regan was my governor, I’m not eager to see a McCain presidency for reasons that have been very well outlined in the Corner by some of your esteemed colleagues. John McCain was heroic as a naval aviator several decades ago. As a senator, less so. As a presidential candidate, even less so. Given his many vulnerabilities as a candidate, I don’t think he has a very good chance of winning the general election so given Spruiell's Choice, Obama is preferable over Clinton II.

While Obama is simply wrong on almost every issue, his presidency would be good for the country. Another four years of a Clinton in the White House would be four more years of the corruption, scandal, sleazy politics and acrimony that characterized the previous Clinton administration. Say what you will about Obama, he's not corrupt or sleazy. While an Obama presidency would not be much different from a Clinton Presidency in terms of policy, there would be a dramatic difference in tone. The feel good cotton candy rhetoric that has buoyed Obama’s campaign would carry over and give him a honeymoon period that would be a welcome respite from the years of Travelgate, Whitewater, impeachment, fundraising scandals, not to mention the endless onslaught of (mostly contrived) controversy that has plagued Bush since he angered the Beltway/Manhattan establishment by successfully defeating Al Gore’s attempt to steal the election in Florida. The country needs a chance to catch its collective breath and Obama may be the only candidate who can bring that about.

I know we’re not supposed to say so out loud, but Obama is a black man and black men cannot be criticized in modern America. It’s a pernicious form of political correctness to have people afraid to speak the truth for fear of being called a racist, but would it be so bad if we had a moment where people thought twice about criticizing the President of the United States? Sure, not taking our leaders too seriously is part of a healthy democracy, but it can be taken too far. Bill Clinton’s immoral behavior brought justified ridicule, but the office of the President was diminished as a result. Much of the grief George Bush has experienced has been a crude form of payback for the Clinton impeachment but also because he made himself such an easy target. Obama is an under-qualified, empty suit who often says silly things yet he remains beyond criticism. How fun would it be to see David Letterman and Jay Leno and Jon Stewart try to put together a nightly monologue in an environment where calling Barak Obama “eloquent” is considered a racial slur?

Obama is also preferable to Mrs. Clinton on policy grounds. Not because there is much difference in their policies, but because Mrs. Clinton knows how to play the game. She may be a divisive figure, but with her unelected husband working behind the scenes she will be cutting deals (probably with Sen. McCain) to get her program through congress. Obama, on the other hand, while admittedly a skilled politician, is inexperienced and naïve to the ways of the world. He will start off with an abundance of goodwill but will soon learn that getting things done is quite different from giving a good speech. Neither audacity nor hope will move the bureaucracy and his considerable charm will be lost on the Jihadists.

As conservatives we may need four years of Obama. Had Gerald Ford won the election in 1976 we would not have had the Peanut Farmer and without those four years of malaise we probably would have never had the Reagan Revolution. If we had not had the early overreaching of Clinton we probably would have never had the Gingrich Revolution in congress. Four years of McCain will only dilute the conservative brand that is already suffering from eight years of "Compassionate" Conservatism. I hate to say it, but Obama is the candidate of hope. He may be the best hope of ever again having a truly conservative president.

Definitely take the 66% for Hillary. At least there is a 34 % chance of a Republican in the White House, and just about any Republican is better right now than just about any Democrat. At least because it's not just the Democratic President, but all those other Democratic political appointments in the Executive Branch and the Judiciary that you get with a Democratic win.

Also, the Clintons are desperate for history to judge them as great co-Presidents. What better way than winning the war on terror? No matter what they say on the campaign trail, they would try to do that, and I doubt that Obama would. I'm not saying they would do a great job on it, only that they would try and that is a crucial first step.

And:

Hillary won't want to go down as America's female Neville Chamberlain.

02/13 09:11 AMShare