Wednesday, February 06, 2008

Refreshingly Honest (A Beaujolais Moment)

I told my wife I would vote for Hillary yesterday out of respect for and deference to my wife, and my wife said that was ridiculous and unacceptable, though she was going to vote for Hillary, in part because she sees very little substantive difference between the policy ideas of H. and Obama but also because of the enormous empathy she feels with a middle-aged woman who has received at least some of the criticism she has received just because she is a middle-aged woman.

(Saying I'd vote for H. and voting for O. No.)

Thus, I voted for Obama not because I felt he is superior on policy or more likely to achieve the implementation of his policies but because I felt down in my gut that he was riding a wave and was going to get the nomination, and the quicker somebody clinches, the better for the Dems.

But my gut was wrong. Now, my gut tells me that Obama has crested, and at the end of the day Hillary will have more delegates, though with all those Super Delegates out there, who knows what that will mean?

I suppose the analogy is that, like the groundhog, my gut should go underground for the next six weeks, and let nature take its course, for all my Malcolm Gladwell "blinks" so far have been consistently wrong.


Anonymous said...

How ya gonna keep Bill from dipping his fingers in the bowl if Hillary's in the Oval Office? (And who knows where those fingers have been?). He's made all the money he needs from crooks and dictators bribing him for past and maybe future favors, not to mention the speechifyin'. Hillary will keep him under control him this time? Hee hee. Tell me another.

Sara said...

The Dems would have to screw up in royally to lose the coming election, and choosing Hillary as their candidate is the first step to another GOP president. Obama won the primaries in a majority of the swing states, and he is the candidate that can win those states in the general election.

As a woman, I would love to support Hillary. But I don't agree with her on some of the issues, and I don't think she can win in November. Go Obama!

....J.Michael Robertson said...

No harsh words about anybody. All I want is for the kids to play hard but play nice.

Peter Moore said...

An argument that's more or less being replayed in my own home.
My side comes down to this,
/Users/petermoore/Desktop/Remember This.jpg

....J.Michael Robertson said...

Oh no I didn't like that now or at the time. Certainly her commitment to getting out of Iraq seems to rachet up according to the political necessity, and that's worrisome. But McCain is ready to stay another hundred years, and HC understands that, if elected, a strong majority of those who vote for her will expect her to get out quickly. Would Obama be preferable on this issue? I think so, though his charismatic/conciliatory approach sometimes leaves me uncertain about exactly what he would do. That is the challenge: What would actually happen differently if it's O instead of H. If I accept the idea that electability is simply unknowable and thus a diversion, I'm for O. At this point (primary is over) what does it matter -- unless, as in matters of alcoholic consumption, I drive the actions of others through my example. (The day after we sent Edwards money, he got out.)

Anonymous said...

You might have a lot of gut to listen to, judging from the photographs, but you have to weigh the possibility it's creating only gas instead of good advice.

Peter Moore said...

You seem to have attracted an intestinally-obsessed troll

....J.Michael Robertson said...

a remora