After Obama’s unexpectedly large victory over Hillary Clinton in South Carolina yesterday, I’m leaning toward voting for him again.
Bill Clinton’s been pissing me off lately. My opinions of him have changed over the years. When he first started running in 1991 and into 1992, I thought he was a big slimeball. This northern Jew would never vote for a slick Southern small-state governor. And then somehow things changed; was it when he picked Al Gore as his running mate? Was it when Ross Perot dramatically dropped out of the race mere hours before Clinton gave his stirring acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, allowing him to make a fresh appeal to dissatisfied voters and catapulting him into the lead with the greatest post-convention poll bounce in 50 years? (This article sums up that crazy week in which Bill’s fortunes changed.)
At any rate, I fell in political love with Bill Clinton. He was incredibly smart. He knew everything about everything and could talk about all of it. On top of that, he loved the New York Times crossword.
I winced at all his missteps in early 1993. I felt personally hurt when the Republicans took back Congress in 1994. I supported him for re-election in 1996, even if I cringed at his bland, substanceless “build that bridge to the 21st century” claptrap. I supported him wholeheartedly during the impeachment crisis, even though I was disappointed at what he’d done to cause it.
I was sad when he left office. I missed him whenever I watched George W. Bush give an Oval Office speech or a State of the Union address. I was impressed with the Clinton Global Initiative. Bill Clinton seemed to have turned into a real statesman.
But in the last few weeks he’s gone down into the gutter. I don’t like it, and I don’t like how Hillary is letting Bill do her dirty work for her. It just seems — well, unfair. Not only that — it also gives the Republicans great ammunition for the fall if Hillary gets the nomination.
I like it when Bill attacks Republicans. I don’t like it when he attacks Democrats. He won’t be attacking any more Democrats if Hillary gets elected, but if she does, is she always going to have to pull him out of her pocket when the chips are down?
This is sort of odd, because I’m making a judgment based on what I think other people are going to be thinking about. If it turns out that the majority doesn’t mind Bill having a high-profile role in a Hillary presidency, then, good. But if the majority does mind, then, that’s not good. The problem is, I don’t know what the majority thinks. If perceptions are going to create reality, and we don’t know what the perceptions are, then things are murky.
But if I had to vote today, I might very well vote for Obama.
Have you read Frank Rich’s piece in today’s Times? It really makes me wonder about Hillary and her electability.
The California primary is on Tsunami Tuesday, and my absentee ballot is on my desk waiting to be marked and mailed. John Edwards is my real choice, but after coming in third in his own home state I think he hasn’t got a snowball’s chance in Saudi Arabia. I would not be surprised if he dropped out by the end of the month.
I really don’t like either Billary or Obamanation. But after reading Rich’s piece, I suspect “Barry” might be the most viable prospect for putting a Democrat in the Oval Office. On the other hand, anyone would be a significant improvement over Bush.
I can’t vote for him right now and the primary reason for that is he’s a politican riding around in non-politician’s clothing.
He went on a religious radio show and pulled the electability card, implying that HE could take in Clinton voters but she’d never get his voters if she wins the nomination.
It’s one thing to say you’re not the same old, same old. But not only IS Obama the same old, same old, he’s somehow managed to convince the media to ignore it when pulls a stunt.
And that makes me VERY leery.