Clinton or Obama?
In past weeks, when asked if he would run for president of the United States in 2008, Barack Obama said “maybe.” According to many political observers, this development shakes up the current slate of potential Democratic Party contenders and creates some unique problems for Hillary Clinton (the presumed frontrunner) as well. So here is the question and this blog’s first poll:
Who makes a better Democratic Party candidate for President?
Feel free to explain your reasoning in the comments.
Hillary Clinton is the better candidate, and I think she would make an excellent president. Nonetheless, I think Barack Obama is more electable. This country’s racism, though pervasive, is probably less of a hindrance to electing a black man than its sexism. I don’t see this ever-more-conservative country putting its support behind (gasp!) a woman.
Do you really mean who would be the better candidate? Or who would be the better president?
The evidence points to Obama as the better candidate (although I think Hillary will prove to be a better candidate than most give her credit for). But I have no idea how good president he would be. I’ll have to see who he surrounds himself with before I make that judgement.
Sorry, of course, I meant she would make a better president. I have no comment on who would do a better job campaigning, although I think Hillary would certainly hold her own on that end as well.
I think I’ll just let the question stand as it is and let those who respond decide what question they are answering.
Last Lemming asks a really good question. I just don’t want to answer it because I think in a sense it’s a reader-response issue. Some people might feel that they want to vote for the best person (the one with the best personal values and characteristics). Other people might feel that they want to vote for someone who will take the party to victory.
I hope it isn’t impossible for a single person (whether Democrat or Republican) to embody both those qualities.
I’m a little bit intrigued by Christina’s idea that in a presidential election, sexism trumps racism, and that Obama vs. Clinton will be the proof of that principle. I’ll have to think about that for awhile.
Clinton is unelectable. If the Democrats put her up, then the Republicans can nominate whoever they want, and they will! Someone more mediocre than GWB will become president. The only silver lining of a Clinton nomination is that the resulting general election between candidates no one wants could attract a more impressive independent than Ross Perot.
John, you may be right about Hillary Clinton not being electable.
My instinct though, after all that we’ve seen from her, is not to count her out.
I’m not saying I think she’s the best candidate and I know she polarizes the country’s voters. However, she’s very intelligent and gutsy enough to work through a very difficult campaign. If the right circumstances arose, I think she could win an election.
Mansfield,
I think you underestimate the sway she holds in many minds. To many, she actually makes sense. This isn’t the view I hold, but I think she is a force to be reckoned with. Remember: many conservatives thought Bill never had a chance.
Obama all the way. Clinton is the consummate politician, and would pretty much do or say anything to get elected.
Obama strikes me as real, and actually got me excited about being a Democrat again. When he speaks I remember why we have a duty to our society, why each of us is our brother’s keepers. I truly hope he runs.
That said… I think that race will be a factor for some, but I think his name is even more of a drawback unfortunately. I can’t imagine a lot of Americans voting for someone whose name sounds like Osama.
To those negating Clinton’s chances of being elected: Do you recall similar statements made when she first campaigned for Senate in New York. So many people laughed at how preposterous it was for an outsider like her to even dare to think she could get votes from New Yorkers—though not nearly as many people laughed at her as voted for her.
I am from the south and would argue that racism trumps sexism. But I would also argue that a Obama or Clinton primary would not exactly mirror that prejudice. Clinton has experience in governing, even if it was only as first lady. She has been in on the action, knows heads of state, and already has an international reputation. While Obama may be new blood and a fresh face, it won’t be his blackness that holds him back. He had very little experience, is still yet very young, and to the extent that he has experience in DC, his voting pattern during this first term as senator may come back to bite him. He is a liberal and if Clinton moves fast enough she can define him as the more liberal candidate. Chances are not good for Obama.
On a different note, I don’t see either of them as electable. Clinton has a better shot at the nomination, but the general election is a whole different story. Senators make for bad presidential candidates. Why not go with Bill Richardson, one of the nations most popular and productive governors and also a minority?
Interesting poll. I think it’s much too early for Obama to run. I’d like to see him get some seasoning–then run. He would make a fantastic candidate and president in the future. We already have a president who had essentially no real political experience prior to his election. Though Obama I think would do a much better job than Mr. Bush has–I’d like to see him wait until he does have more experience.
Hillary is a good candidate. She may be polarizing; but, she is a shrewd political operative who is learning from the master himself. I too say, don’t count her out if she decides to run.
Whether or not we like what he’s done, it’s a bit ignorant to say that Bush had no experience in politics before getting elected. Let’s remember that he governed the second largest state in the union which is no small accomplishment. No, he didn’t have a lot of foreign experience, but not many politicians do until elected to the big seat. The saddest part of the whole thing is that I would feel better knowing that he had made tremendous mistakes as president because he didn’t have prior experience. But because he has, it saddens/sickens me.
Keith wrote:
Well Keith, I don’t know if the “ignorant” reference was to my preceding comment; but, just to clarify, that’s not what I said. I said:
This is true–Bush had essentially no real political experience prior to being appointed president. In 1978 he ran for and lost a congressional election.
He was then elected as Governor of Texas and served from 1995 until 2000, a little over five years. This was his only political experience prior to the 2000 presidential election.
The governor of Texas is actually quite a weak political position. See the Handbook of Texas Online, which describes the office of governor thus:
See also Wikipedia which describes the Texas Governorship:
I think it fairly safe to say Mr. Bush, had essentially no real political experience prior to his presidency.
I’m thinking that Obama knows he needs “seasoning” as many have said and that he will determine that part of gaining that experience will be running for president in 2008. Even if he doesn’t gain the candidacy at the Democratic primary, running could help him be better positioned for the next presidential election.
I also wonder if he would be interested in being vice president to Hillary. Of course a white-woman-president/black-male-vice-president ticket might tick off both the racist and sexist constituencies that people keep talking about.
I honestly wonder if America is still really that sexist and racist or if the country’s voters would be enthused about the opportunity to vote for two firsts in 2008.
Come to think of it, is there any chance Hillary would be interested in being vice president to Obama? My first thought was that wouldn’t be possible … but if that became her best option, maybe she’d consider it.
Either way, a ticket like that would draw a HUGE amount of attention. It would be a challenge, I think, for Republicans to come up with a ticket that was as interesting.
I second the nomination of Richardson. He could plausibly make Obama his running mate (as could John Edwards and Al Gore). Bayh and Vilsack could not, coming from neighboring states, nor could Hillary because it would result in an overload of “nontraditional candidates.” She would probably pick Richardson or Wesley Clark as her running mate. (Richardson doesn’t count as “nontraditional” because of his Anglo name and light skin. Sorry to sound so cynical, but that’s how it is.)
I stick with my position that sexism trumps racism in the context of a presidential election, although I may not be exposed to the worst of racism, as I don’t live in the South. My perception is that although unspoken and unconscious biases against blacks and women persist, the people of this country continue to feel justified in believing that women are not competent leaders, and this bias is a spoken and conscious one, unapologized for in many circles, including the church.
It would be a challenge, I think, for Republicans to come up with a ticket that was as interesting.
How about Mitt Romney/Condoleeza Rice. Aside from being Mormon, Mitt’s connections to Mexico are arguably as close as Richardson’s.
Christina, being who I am, I don’t have much personal experience with sexism or racism. My observation is that blacks experience a sort of collective racism from all other ethnic groups.
It’s trickier, I would think, to compare racism against blacks to the bias experienced by women. It sounds to me like you’ve given this topic quite a bit of thought. I’m not sure how the bias against blacks would be measured against the bias against women (whether you are talking about biases in the world in general or about bias/prejudice that exists in the church).
Last Lemming, I considered the possibility of Condoleeza Rice being added to a Republican ticket. I still think a Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama ticket would be more far “interesting.” Hillary Clinton is such a political heavyweight and Obama is a rising star.
Despite her accomplishments and influence, I don’t think Condoleeza Rice gets the same kind of attention.
Daniel, I’m not saying racism against blacks is any less pervasive in society than sexism against women. What I am saying is that in the specific context of a presidential election, women experience a terrible handicap. They are perceived as incompetent leaders and unfeminine women. I don’t think that the racism experienced by a black candidate would work as strongly against him or her as sex would against a woman. People may have prejudices against a black candidate, but those prejudices don’t necessarily translate into a belief that the candidate is less desirable or vote-worthy.
What I am saying is that in the specific context of a presidential election, women experience a terrible handicap. They are perceived as incompetent leaders and unfeminine women.
Christina, I think in the case of many woman leaders you have a good point in what you wrote here. Strong women are often viewed as “unfeminine.” That’s probably a nice word in comparison to what some would say.
However, in the specific case of Hillary Clinton, I’m not aware that anyone considers her to be incompetent. Unfeminine? I’m not so sure either. That might be quite arguably not be the case.
I think the real fear of her arises from what many (of her opponents) consider to be her radical liberal perspectives and that she’s more than capable enough to push them effectively.
–> Hopes upon hope John Mansfield’s comment # 6 is right.
Last Lemming, Romney can’t mention that his father was born in Mexico without opening the door to discussion as to why his ancestors moved to Mexico, so he won’t do that. It must depress him terribly whenever he is courting hispanic votes.
I’m less impressed then most with Hillary Clinton’s political skill. Winning a seat in the Senate is a small thing compared with winning the presidency, and she got lucky to accomplish that: Moynihan retired in the one of the few states where she would have a chance. Giuliani withdrew due to prostate cancer leaving her to face lightweight Rick Lazio. All those breaks, and she still pulled in only 55% of the 2000 NY vote.
As for Barack Obama and all this hand wringing that America is to racist to elect a black man: Does anyone like him for any reason other than that he is a black man?
“Does anyone like [Obama] for any reason other than that he is a black man?”
What? He’s black? Seriously, there are several reasons: he’s charismatic, he sounds like he knows what he’s talking about and also that he knows not to talk about what he doesn’t know about (try that, Bilbo), he states his opponents point of view without distorting it, and so on.
Re: Clinton’s 2000 win: yes, Lazio is no Giuliani, but Clinton still did surprisingly (to me) well in Western New York, which has always been very Republican.
Daniel, you’re right that the main criticism of Hillary these days is not incompetence (although it used to be – remember health care reform?). But she has certainly been called unfeminine, butch, lesbian, shrill, etc. I think that perception is alive and well. Moreover, I really don’t think she is that liberal (not enough for my taste, at least). Do you really think that is a big criticism of her?
Christina, I think many dislike Hillary because they fear her agenda or the perception of an unseen agenda that is much more liberal and ambitious that she would admit publicly.
My personal impression is that Hillary is very liberal but that she has moderated her views and image in order to be more palatable to voters. While she fits in very well in NYC, I’m less sure about how she’ll go over in someplace like, um, Arkansas. (whoa … wait a second here …)
I think Hillary has done an excellent job of achieving the right ‘look’ for a woman politician (who is trying to appeal to today’s America) … she comes across
as strong and feminine. At least that’s my take.
I should say the one thing that really interested me was how wildly her views changed on the Palestinian issue once she decided to settle down here in NYC. Back when Bill was president, she shocked everyone when she openly supported the creation of a Palestinian state. However, once she came to NYC she completely flipped over (at least the way I remember it) and has adjusted her views to appeal to the Jewish constituency here. I’m not saying this because her new perspective bothers me so much … I’m just describing what I saw. I guess I should concede that kind of political pragmatism makes me a little bit suspicious.
But she has certainly been called unfeminine, butch, lesbian, shrill, etc. I think that perception is alive and well.
If Laura Bush dressed and behaved exactly like Hillary Clinton, but maintained steadfast support for her husband’s policies (instead of Bill Clinton’s policies) she would never be called those names.
John(#24),
Barak Obama is amazing in the fact that he is remarkably respectful, thoughtful, and genuine. He has a podcast and having listened to it I have to say he is absolutely amazing in the way he discusses issues, breaks them down to their elements, lets you know where he stands without hedging. He is a total anti-politician politician. Try listening to him sometime.
Regardless, Obama has a liberal voting record in the senate. This will certainly help him if he was to go for the nomination, but would be detrimental when it comes time to the general election. And like Pres. Bush, Obama has little political experience. I see this upcoming election cycle as a means for him to grow a base of support, much like John Edwards did in 2004. He will run and he will not succeed. But like Edwards, he will not be cast as a ‘loser’ or unelectable…as John Kerry has (in my opinion).
But that then raises the next problem…timing. Who knows where the country will be in 2012 or 2016. In 2012 we may have a Dem president running for reelection…meaning Obama is out. In 2016 there may be party fatigue…meaning Obama is out. So, he must consider that 2008 is his time and hope that little experience and liberal voting record will not stand in the way.
A few thoughts:
Is this country ready to elect an individual who is of minority status? When former Utah governor Mike Leavitt left mid-term, he was replaced my Olene Walker. When it came time for elections, did the Republican party even give her a thought of a chance to become governor for another term? I say no. Colin Powell was asked once to run for president, and he refused, stating family reasons. Were there other reasons? Maybe he knew of the challenges he would face and did not like the possible outcomes.