Political musing (feel free to skip)

[flewellyn]

Following the primaries, I'm still very much undecided whether I want to support Obama or not. Both my first choice (Edwards) and my second (Clinton) have come out in support of him, and that says a lot to me.

But then I hear about stuff like this, in which protestors and dissenters at an Obama rally were systematically excluded and dismissed by his campaign's operatives. And it makes me wonder...isn't this Bush stuff? If Obama means to unify the party, how come his campaign's actions seem geared toward unity through purge?

Very discomfitting. If Obama turns out to be Bush Lite, then my choices at the ballot box will be Bush Lite or Bush Redux. Not much of a choice, is it?

Comments

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

It's always struck me as odd that, in politics in America, we think it's bad when someone has experience with the system.

Any other job, we'd say "experience is good! More is better!" But no, we want our politicians NOT to know the workings of the system, NOT to have experience with moving and shaking things. It's just so totally bass-ackwards.

[cacahuate.livejournal.com]

There are good arguments for either side, IMO. Personally I prefer a person who has moving-and-shaking experience but who has had a limited amount of time to become corrupted by the political system. Washington experience isn't the only kind of experience that matters (or else Clinton wouldn't be able to claim everything she's done since law school as experience—which I think is perfectly legitimate, just a bit hypocritical when she won't accept other people's non-Washington experience).

[randallsquared.livejournal.com]

The reason is that most people looking at politics in America, right and left, realizes that the system is corrupting. The longer someone has been successfully using (or being used by) the system, the more corrupt they are, all else being equal.

Someone with more experience at using power on others is not necessarily preferable to someone with less experience oppressing. :)

[randallsquared.livejournal.com]

Changed wording midstream; result: bad grammar. Oh, well.

[cacahuate.livejournal.com]

Yeah.

[lucretiasheart.livejournal.com]

Exactly! Thank you!

experience vs. corruption

[lucretiasheart.livejournal.com]

It's not experience that is the issue to me, it's that the woman is a documented sell-out. She's tied to so many lobbyists and PACs (unlike Obama) that her so-called "experience" is just a quaint euphamism for "corporate puppet."

It's not that I don't comprehend the importance of knowledge and experience, but entrenched corruption completely trumps my respect for people such as Hilary. Generally speaking, you don't get the choice in an election-- most candidates are in "debt" to lobbyists and political action committees-- but Obama IS different. Nearly all his fund-raising is from many small individual donors all across the nation. This frees him from implied "obligations" to cow-tow to the big-money men who run everything in this country, and it's why I'm feeling enthusiastic about a presidential candidate for the first time in my entire life. His hands are not tied, there are no puppet strings coming out of every possible orifice in his body.

And another reason I really don't like Hilary is that she doesn't even fight to be independent, she is only too thrilled to become a puppet-- as long as she gets the accolades for it. Her ego is monstrous.

Re: experience vs. corruption

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

Documented by whom, though?

Remember, the Hilary we see in the media and the Hilary that actually exists are not the same thing. The media HATE her, and have done everything they can to demonize her.