<p>Valedictorian or not, I think Clinton is a very smart candidate and to me she seems smarter than Obama. Obama strikes me as wiser than Clinton which is quite remarkable if you believe that wisdom increases with age.</p>
<p>“Valedictorian or not, I think Clinton is a very smart candidate and to me she seems smarter than Obama. Obama strikes me as wiser than Clinton which is quite remarkable if you believe that wisdom increases with age.”</p>
<p>That’s a very interesting perception. I wonder if whatever emotional “baggage” (I hate that term) Senator Clinton carries with her has stood in the way of her gaining that wisdom. She was awfully good on O’Reilly last night, though, wasn’t she?</p>
<p>Zoosermom: Did the TheDad get banned? He thought Hillary was a lock back in the fall. I would be curious to see what he thinks now and will he support Obama.</p>
<p>“How can anyone make an informed decision if all they do is talk to or listen to people who think just like them?”</p>
<p>We do indeed need to hear the other side of issues, but this is not what OP kluge is addressing. Here it is again (since the point seems to have been missed):</p>
<p>“But now in the election year I’m seeing little but snarky, below-the-belt attacks and character assassination. Not a word about the positive characteristics of the candidates, while some posters can’t seem to refrain from posting snippy, sarcastic, spleen-venting attacks on the candidates they don’t support.”</p>
<p>Yes, discuss the issues, but leave out the name-calling and destruction.</p>
<p>I can’t speak for TheDad. However, the new FoxNews OpinionDynamics poll released yesterday shows that only 47% of Clinton’s supporters will vote for Obama in November. 32% say they will vote for McCain. 20% say they don’t know.</p>
<p>Clinton supporters are roughly half of the Democratic voters. So, this is obviously devastating to the Democratic Party’s electoral prospects in 2008, if not its viability as a national party.</p>
<p>I don’t know that a party only electing one President in 32 years and only re-electing one since Franklin Roosevelt can withstand that kind of voter exodus. </p>
<p>It’s not just the White House. There’s an impact on downticket races. A Clinton supporter leaving the Democratic Party to vote for McCain is unlikely to vote for many local Democratic superdelegate congressmen, senators, or governors.</p>
<p>Doctormom–asking people to be civil is not censorship.</p>
<p>Erasing other people’s posts would be, but I don’t think Kluge has that power.</p>
<p>What kind of smarts are we discussing? This is ludicrous. What is the criteria? SAT scores? IQ? GPA? Musical talent? Math acumen? Crossword puzzles? Spatial relationships? Social sensitivity? Style? I am positive that they each know lots about many things, though not necessarily all the same things, and they each can easily master most issues and topics. There is probably more diversity in their physical skills, i.e bowling versus basketball, sewing versus piano playing, etc., and those are harder to learn the later we try them. Regardless, enough is enough…they both know and understand quite enough!</p>
<p>I couldn’t agree more, Lorelei. I don’t know how anything I wrote about the candidates got construed as “deriding” anyone. I’m sure McCain is also really “smart” by whatever conventional standard you choose to employ, for that matter. Valedictorian or not, Yale vs. Harvard Law School vs. Annapolis - you say potayto, I say potahto. These folks really are the cream of the crop.</p>
<p>In terms of my personal perception of intelligence, I will say that I’m particularly taken with Obama’s approach to complicated issues - what I’ve seen of his comments has struck me as thoughtful, acknowledging opposing viewpoints and recognizing that there are legitimately conflicting values at stake. That kind of recognition of both sides of a question and rejection of a “black and white” view of the world <a href=“speaking%20figuratively,%20not%20literally%20here”>I</a>* is to me the mark of an intelligent person, and probably informs my opinion of his intelligence. You don’t see that much in politicians, even ones I think are really smart, probably because it will be used against them by the spinmeisters who will seek to portray an honest assessment of an issue as being evidence of being “weak” or “indecisive” simply because he has the guts to acknowledge that one side isn’t 100% right and the other 100% wrong. I’d like to see more of that from our political leaders, and less of the kind of cheap shot sound bites that are obviously designed to produce a predictable gut reaction. I doubt that I will, though.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh okay, if you’re talking about that kinds of smarts, then Clinton is clearly more intelligent. She has a more nuanced understanding of the issues or at least communicates this understanding better. Obama’s rhetoric is empty… they merely sound like a series of cliches.</p>
<p>
He’s the only candidate who has taken the correct stand on the gas tax holiday…I’ll give him that…</p>
<p>Gas tax holiday. Iraq war. </p>
<p>Two examples where Obama showed his willingness to resist the temptation to adopt a knee-jerk populist position.</p>
<p>You mean voting for a gas tax holiday twice?</p>
<p>And, voting for every Iraq funding bill until August 2007?</p>
<p>Where exactly is the heroic stances in Obama’s record? Voting “present” on abortion bills?</p>
<p>It seems that the worst thing an American politician can do is change her/his mind. Considering the nuances of issues and voting accordingly is ridiculed.</p>
<p>I don’t recall much willingness to cut Senator Clinton any slack for changing her mind on Iraq.</p>
<p>You set the parameters: Are we going to cut politicians slack for changing their minds or not? I’ll play it either way you choose, but let’s have consistent ground rules.</p>
<p>It bothers me when a politician is penalized for having the ability to learn and change and then have a different opinion. Obviously the voting public has had exposure to much of the same “instruction” which might lead to a different truth. Why should a politician not be allowed to respond to the evolution of knowledge and perception? Additionally, people change their minds based on their own personal experiences. Witness many of the conservative politicians with ill and suffering family members who have “evolved” to a position of support for stem-cell research. It is a good idea to elect government officials who are capable of growth and maturity!</p>
<p>I know Obama voted for a gas tax holiday in Illinois and that afterwards the analysis showed it did very little good. I assume that’s part of the reason he’s against it now.</p>
<p>Are we going to cut politicians slack for changing their minds or not?</p>
<p>I think that’s for each of us to decide. Some value consistent ideology and despise flip-flops; others are willing to rethink issues without worrying how it looks to voters. I’m in the latter camp.</p>
<p>In Clinton, McCain and Obama, I think we have three middle-of the-roaders who are all willing to consider each issue independently.</p>
<p>After the Dems settle on their candidate, I’m hopeful that McCain will force a more civil campaign. I really like and respect McCain; I just disagree with him on most issues, especially Iraq.</p>
<p>I agree with vossron. McCain vs Obama might set a record for the least amount of mud being thrown around.</p>
<p>I don’t recall much willingness to cut Senator Clinton any slack for changing her mind on Iraq.</p>
<p>Assuming that Clinton and Obama had access to the same info, I think Clinton was swayed by the majority; Obama wasn’t, and was willing to buck the majority. Since I think the war was a mistake, I credit Obama with the wisdom to see it that way at the time, and the courage say so.</p>
<p>So I credit Clinton (and not McCain) for changing her mind, but I credit Obama even more on this issue.</p>
<p>On the issue of health care, I’m with Clinton in that it must be mandatory to work; I think Obama is wrong in making it voluntary (it’s doomed to financial failure if the young and healthy are not forced to pay into the system while they are young and healthy, so that the money–their money–will be there when they’re old and sick). I don’t think McCain has a plan. None of them will get their way, but the Prez can lead Congress and perhaps have a mandate from the people.</p>
<p>“Assuming that Clinton and Obama had access to the same info, I think Clinton was swayed by the majority; Obama wasn’t, and was willing to buck the majority.”</p>
<p>Just a reminder here, but when the original Iraq war votes happened, Hillary was in Congress and Obama was in the Illinois state legislature. He had none of the same info as Hillary. None. He had no more than you did from the paper and the tv. Hillary had all that stuff the senators get, plus whatever extra she may have gotten as a result of senate committees she was on. Obama wasn’t privy to any of that info. He did not vote on the issue. He could not vote on it. He verbalized his opinion. Just like you did.</p>
<p>fwiw - I disagreed myself at the time, but I only had the info you and Obama had. Hillary had more and reached a different conclusion.</p>
<p>also, fwiw, I still to this day think it was a bad idea to invade Iraq, but that’s not to say that I might not have felt diff’ly based on info obtained if I was a US Senator at the time. However, in Feb 03 or thereabouts I read an article in Foreign Affairs magazine wherein Douglas Feith and Paul Wolfowitz and others discussed their real intent, their theory about installing democracy at gunpoint, getting a domino effect and stabilizing the entire middle east with democracy. I screamed in my chair, but Congress voted to go to war anyway. They didn’t listen to me.</p>