--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > I just read most of the "deranged" thread. > > > > > > I avoid the political discussions. These days I think most about what > > > candidate is the one my group can best work with on health care > > > issues. Clinton is the most prepared and most focused on the issues. > > > Obama is aware of the issues and likely will have some focus on health > > > care. McCain is weakest, but he recently came around on some of the > > > HC issues I care about. I think we can work with any of them, but we > > > still truly hope for a democrat because HC is a democrat issue. I can > > > easily and happily live with Clinton or Obama. > > > > > > Now that disclosure is over, I must say that this campaign is filled > > > with blown out of proportion issues, much like the last campaign. > > > Give me an effing break--does anyone really think that Hill meant to > > > create the impression that she is staying in the race because Obama > > > might get whacked? Right, like that wouldn't backfire. > > > > I heard and saw the interview. She had the same tone as her oft used > > claim, "I don't know why they do it,I JUST find it interesting". To me > > it reeked of the oft used, unstated 'connect the dots' -- but I have > > plausible deniability if you do, wink wink. A slimy tactic used by > > many politicians -- but which she has tried to make into an art form > > (but she is a low grade B artist-- unlike Bill -- and I am not sure > > which skill level is more dangerous). > > > > But I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Lets suppose she was not > > pandering to her claimed hardworking white bigoted redneck > > constituency. Lets assume she was innocent as a lamb. Then clearly I > > to not want such a naive, insensitive loose cannon answering the phone > > at 3am. > > > > and btw, didn't it backfire? So add "not very street" to the list > > above -- and I worry that she is even in the Senate. > > > This is exactly what I mean. You put a lot of significance in what > she said so that no matter how you look at it, she f'd up. I just > didn't view it the same way, with the same <i>significance</i>. Keep > in mind, I can take either Clinton or Obama, it doesn't matter much to > me. >
If I get your point, its that you value policy over character. As a first level cut, so do I. But I recognize that policy morphs from campaign trail to office. And from office to what gets through congress and conference committee. Character at the high end, is fairly constant. Character on the lower end can be whatever it takes to sell a particular group on a particular day. Or simply a lack thereof. Character, and intelligence, becomes a strong differentiator for me, once policy thresholds are demonstrated. Two candidates with similar policies can be quite different in character. IMO, thats the case in the democratic race. Not a substantial policy dif between the two. But a huge chasm in character, grace under pressure, integrity, and vision. That does make a large difference to me.
