OPINION & EDITORIAL
Obama deserves your vote
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Badger Herald Editorial Board:
- Obama deserves your vote (February 14, 2008)
- Stick to the 'script (February 12, 2008)
- The Times they are a-changin' (February 11, 2008)
- Ante up (February 8, 2008)
- Just another day (February 7, 2008)
Related Stories:
- Obama message will unite, right nation's future (January 24, 2008)
- Obama's charisma essential to victory (January 29, 2007)
- Barack Obama: Political St. Nick (October 15, 2007)
- Recent polls reveal... absolutely nothing (December 4, 2007)
- Words can't say what policy will (February 3, 2008)
by Badger Herald Editorial Board
Thursday, February 14, 2008
In what seems like an endless march to a distant finish line, Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have converged in both poll numbers and delegates to an almost dead heat. Such a stalemate seems reflective not only of national opinion, but of their nearly identical policy positions. However, Mr. Obama’s rhetoric, demeanor and vision make him our preferred candidate in the Democratic primary.
Despite the similarities of both senators, there are a couple important differences that give Mr. Obama an edge in policy.
In the face of Ms. Clinton’s federally mandated universal health care plan, Mr. Obama is proposing a more rational health care plan that mandates children’s coverage but allows adults to choose for themselves.
We are also encouraged by Mr. Obama’s foresight regarding the war in Iraq. Although he was not in the Senate at the time, his opposition to authorizing the use of force in Iraq was laudable when a laundry list of lawmakers approved the Iraq war resolution, including Ms. Clinton.
Despite her vote, Ms. Clinton is not to be condemned where Mr. Obama garners praise. Ms. Clinton’s decision was based on intelligence given to Congress that later proved faulty — and her subsequent switch in position reflects that.
Yet, out of all their position points, those two differences seem to be the only major policy divergences — which brings the inevitable buzzwords “change” and “experience” into the equation.
Mr. Obama certainly brings a vigor to politics not seen since the days of Ronald Reagan or John F. Kennedy. His rhetorical ascendancy and visionary reach was enough to pack the Kohl Center with nearly 20,000 potential voters Tuesday night. But, like lofty goals and hope for the future, it means little unless backed with definitive action.
It is for this reason Ms. Clinton’s “experience” argument has convinced so many. While we cannot dispute that Ms. Clinton is the more experienced candidate, we do not find this to be a strong enough reason to elevate her above Mr. Obama.
Furthermore, her experience in the Senate has proven to be a mixed bag. While her eventual stance against the Iraq war and vote against the Federal Marriage Protection Amendment are commendable, Ms. Clinton’s leadership on the Family Entertainment Protection Act was a bizarre exercise in nanny state censorship that wasted even more time for an already anemic 109th Congress.
Given these issues on both sides, it comes down to an evaluation of each candidate’s capability in office given the polarization of legislators and the country as a whole. It is there that Mr. Obama has the edge.
Ms. Clinton’s one-time claim of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” lingers as a reminder of an acrimonious political schism we wish not to repeat. Mr. Obama, on the other hand, not only seems to have enough rational sensibilities in his tone that signal an ability to reach across the aisle, but Republicans also seem much more willing to reach out to him. For a nation divided, that may be the most encouraging sign of Mr. Obama’s candidacy.
Mr. Obama’s rhetoric may be criticized for its alleged “hopemongering,” but given his policy stances and initiative to put partisan bickering aside, perhaps change for the better is right around the corner.
Anonymous (February 14, 2008 @ 7:52am):
Obama's healthcare plan ignores the fact that the burden of uncovered healthcare costs in this country (totaling almost $736 million) is largely due to a lack of health insurance among adults. His plan does nothing to address this issue and is more of the failed system we have now. BadgerCarePlus also fails to address this problem, and we "invincibles" aren't going to buy in even if it is affordable unless we have to.
Hillary's plan (and Healthy Wisconsin), on the other hand, does mandate coverage. Ask any economist - a mandate is essential in order to prevent a majority from skipping out on their share. It's like the mandate for buying car insurance - it is a safeguard that protects the rest of us taxpayers.
I guess we can be comforted with the fact that, no matter who is President, their plans won't go through Congress without significant alterations.
Anonymous (February 14, 2008 @ 10:02am):
HOPE
Anonymous (February 14, 2008 @ 10:52am):
"This is an Obama campus!"
Anonymous (February 14, 2008 @ 3:46pm):
"It's like the mandate for buying car insurance - it is a safeguard that protects the rest of us taxpayers."
MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE AT ALL. Do I have to point out the logical fallacies or can I trust the majority of BH readers to understand the absurdity of saying that one person's unhealthiness can endanger the well being of others.
Anonymous (February 16, 2008 @ 8:44am):
One big correction --
You state that Clinton voted to use force against Iraq "based on intelligence given to Congress." Senator Clinton never took the time to read the NIE - the National Intelligence Estimate. We know this because it was a secure document. It was provided to read in two rooms in the Capital building and the Senators (no aides or advisors were allowed) had to sign in and out. She did not read it.
In her speech on the Senate floor (go to C Span) explaining her vote she stated that there was definitive proof that Saddam Hussein harbored and supported Al Queda terrorists within in Iraq. We know now this is nonsense and she would have known it then if she had done her homework and read the report. The redacted version available now is crystal clear - that intelligence could find no connection.
kevin larmee (February 16, 2008 @ 2:01pm):
Hillary voted FOR the war in Iraq!
Whether she did so because of bad judgement or because she bowed to the pro-war lobby: Does it matter?
...AND she voted to authorize Bush to attack Iran ("fool me once, fool me twice", etc.).
This country needs a change!
(get your friends to vote Tuesday for OBAMA, and if you can, help his campaign.....this Wisconsin primary is VERY IMPORTANT!!)
Patricia Melton (February 17, 2008 @ 2:54pm):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=p1ofQRam--g
The above video is one of the reasons I think you should vote for Hillary on Tuesday. She's the better choice for us. If you're worried about health care and student loans, check this out.
She knows what she's doing.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
