As we discussed at length what the school should be doing, we were mostly in agreement. We all agreed, for example, it would be great if the school tried to reduce its carbon footprint. But writing “environment commitment” into a vision did nothing. It made words, not action — without measurability, there’s no point in specific goals.

Fast forward a year and a half. As I sit here, watching the January 31 debate on my computer, I see a similar problem between Senators Obama and Clinton. Obama is more than happy to say, “I strongly support pink bunnies. Pink bunnies are core to me and core to America.” He’ll even say it in that wonderful “inspirational” voice. Clinton responds with specifics, she responds with measurability. She doesn’t say just say pink bunnies are dandy, she says that we should increase pink bunny spending by $25 billion by 2010. That in 1995, she chaired the Pink Bunny Coalition. That she supported fifteen bills that brought pink bunnies to kids in poverty.

There’s also the one major policy difference between Obama and Clinton. It’s what Patrick talked about in his post: healthcare. Clinton has a practical, attainable, universal plan. Barack Obama does not have this. He thinks health care (like pink bunnies) is a great thing, but he won’t put his money where his mouth is and say it needs to be government-run and mandatory.

I suppose to make inspirational, but ultimately meaningless statements is what Obama does best. As a citizen and as a first-time voter, I want substance. I want a president who says things that can actually be delivered. Hillary Rodham Clinton is that person.

Or to sum this up in a one-minute YouTube video:

Date: Feb 1, 2008 10:28 AM | subject RE: Supporting Hillary Clinton on Feb. 5 in Minnesota

Add Bob and I to those who support Barak Obama. Factors I add to the mix when I considered who to support were something Bob and I saw when we went to campaign events and the caucases here in Ames. 1) The number of young voters who were inspired to support Barak Obama are the future of the Democratic Party here in Iowa and in the nation. I, for one, do not take their involvement lightly. 2) The number of Republicans who were at Obama’s campaign events taking a serious look at him as a candidate and also dissatisfied with the choices in the Republican field speak much better for Democratic possibilities in November. Hillary has the added onus of galvanizing the Religious Right to get out and vote against her. They are not that excited about either Romney or McCain. When Bob was at a national meeting he met two people from Illinois. One was a conservative Republican male and the other a progressive Democratic female. Both of them voted for Obama for Senate and have been very happy with that choice. 3) While experience is something to look at, I realized when talking to women who were supporting Obama that he has a solid ability to pick good people and organize. In addition, he has the ability to inspire and lead people with his speaking ability. That’ll take us a long way in dealing with some tough issues.

STATEMENT ON IRAQ

hmm – her Iraq statement has never convinced me, Patrick. I see it now as I saw it at the time – a political decision. And that she continues to be unable to say “it was wrong” or “I made a mistake” reminds me way too much of George Bush.

The Blitzer baiting was disgusting – really tacky – good on both of them for resisting him.

I had more respect for her tonight nothwithstanding my basic distrust than in the past. Part of my distaste is from the emotional “dynasty” thing – and also that I don’t want a return to the Clinton years when NAFTA did so much damage to so many in this country.

Barack did say some cliche stuff – I agree. And Hillary got some good lines off which were humorous as well as on target.

I have made an emotional commitment to Barack. I might not have done that if I hadn’t known about Hillary’s lobbyist money. I guess most of us have an issue that we can’t get past. For me it is the war and lobbyist money. Hillary fails miserably on both of those. Edwards at least was able to say “I was wrong.” about the war. Edwards might have been my first choice had I not fallen in love with Barack’s larger message and his continuing focus on the fact that “we” the people have a responsibility.

We watched the thing on the web because we don’t have CNN.

P

Er, I would have preferred Al Gore.

But if I can’t have Al Gore, I would have preferred Edwards.

But if I can’t have Edwards, I would prefer Obama.

But if I can’t have Obama, I’d prefer whoever is left against any Republican.

Even if it’s Hillary.

Don’t hate me.

That’s a great article, Chuck, and I couldn’t agree with your comments on Obama and Hillary more. I was Terry’s partner on the fire department for his last year and a half or so, and I’ve known him for twenty years or more, so I’m able to forgive him when he has these lapses in judgment. I truly believe he will come to his senses. I, too, will vote for Hillary if she becomes our candidate, but I have much more faith in Barack and his ideas.

Sorry, Ter!

Mike

Hey, Terry.

I must say, that about 90% of the time, you and I are in agreement on issues. However, on the issue of Hillary, we couldn’t be farther apart. She scares me. I wouldn’t have said that a year ago, and almost jumped on her bandwagon. I could wax eloquent on the subject, but the following link says it much better than I could. But, it represents my feelings about Hillary (by the way, I was a strong supporter of Bill, but his recent campaign protocols have disappointed me immensly).

Read this article: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/013108K.shtml

As far as Obama is concerned, I don’t find it the least bit disingenuous for him to have been endorsed by Ted, Caroline and Patrick Kennedy. Yes, Ted is older than you and I (glad someone is) but Caroline and Patrick are younger. I find the fact that one such as Ted in his generation finds it refreshing to have someone such as Obama to endorse. He hasn’t endorsed candidates as a matter of course, so this is truly a significant event. I find Hillary to be supremely disingenuous. She has yet to apologize for voting for the Iraq War, and continuing to vote for funding, while talking about ending the war if she becomes president. Hypocritical, in my estimation. It was Hillary and Bill who first played the race card in this campaign (she also played the gender card claiming the “boys” ganged up on her because she was a woman). Give me a break. She is so beholden to the same corporate power brokers who funded George W that I can’t tell if she’s a Democrat or a Republican. If she’s elected, when will the quid pro quo begin? She is in the pockets of the War profiteers and lobbyists, and that’s scary. For one who truly wants this war to end, I cannot envision how that will happen with Hillary at the helm. That being said, I will vote for her in preference to ANY republican they can throw at us, but with Obama, I believe we have a new vision for the future, new hope for reconciliation, and the possibility that we may continue to exist on this planet. All good reasons to vote for him.

Anyway, read the article. I know you have it in you to see the light. I still love you, even when you are wrong.

So I mulled it over, and observed Hillary and Obama through the last four weeks since the caucus. I think Obama is an excellent orator but with no substance. I think he could become a great leader with time, experience, and some humility. Most of his draw as the great new hope is a very skillfully-developed image. I find it really galling that he purports to be above the fray when I can see he is deeply calculating and manipulative, and excellent at playing the victim. Hillary has done her share of dumb things, and Bill has not chosen his words as wisely as he should, so they’ve allowed themselves to be painted as playing the race card, as disparaging of Obama’s life experiences, and condescending as if it is their right to claim the mantle of leadership at this time in history. Many people are tired of first Bush the Elder, then Clinton the Suave, then Shrub the Snide, and now maybe Clinton the Calculating. But it really ticks me off when I hear Obamiacs say if she’s the nominee, they’ll sit it out or vote for McCain. That pushes me powerfully into her corner. I embrace an underdog, and I think she’s been abused by the media and the Radical Right so mercilessly for so long that it has to stop, and electing her would be the best way to force the rejection of sexism, and a repudiation of Karl
Rovian-type inuendo and decimation of your opponent’s strengths. Judy and have talked about all this at great length, and we are just put off by Obama’s self-righteousness, although again, I will support him in a heartbeat over any of the evolution-denying, global warming-denying, choice-denying, borrow-and-spend, war without end Repugnibums.

(A little aside: we found it disingenuous that Obama says we need to reject the past and move to the future, and to do it he calls on Teddy and Caroline Kennedy, the last vestiges of our American Camelot.) Ter