Obama and Clinton

Ok, folks. I was listening to NPR Saturday Morning Edition, and the story about the voters in Pennsylvania. It seems everyone seems to have an opinion on the candidates, but when you listen to their reasons, they all miss one point. Their views are solely based on selective information, the information they want to use to justify their view, and not express the greater issue and present other information.

For example, someone said she supported Hilary Clinton because she (the person) believe Hilary's experience as First Lady counts. For what? I'm not discounting it takes experience, knowledge and understanding to run the White House, but let's get real. She doesn't run the White House. First, she has a staff to help manage and administrate her time and work. Second, the White House has a staff who run the operations and management.

She was the like a visiting CEO of the White House. That's all, she directs her staff to work with the White House staff. To say it compares with Obama's experience in Chicago is absurb. They're different experiences. And her trips in the name of the United States is only as a courtesy or ceremonial representative, not anything more because she's not a diplomat nor has any authority or power.

Her work on issues, such as universal health care, does count for something, and this is where her experience does compare to Obama's because it requires being involved and working with many others toward a goal with a plan. That I'll give her, not her First Lady experience. It's useful but not that relevant to being President.

Another example, another said Hilary would have Bill Clinton to assist her work and be good "breakfast partner." I'll give Bill credit for having been President, but he'll be the First Gentleman, which isn't the same as President. It's the same as First Lady, nothing more.

And for "breakfast partner"? Ok, I'll give some room there, Bill would be good. But let's not discount Michelle Obama's help and partenership with Barrack. I've listened to interviews with her, and she's terrific. She's smart, wise and a good partner to Barrack. I have no doubt she's been an outstanding "breakfast partner" too, and for their own reasons on par with Hilary and Bill.

So, in the end, the arguments don't hold water in comparsion. Both the candidates are excellent, still not my favorities, but the Democrats have two excellent choices. And I think the campaign is excellent for the party and people. It's showing our democracy and republic are alive and well. And the "fight" within the party isn't a fight as the pundits say, it's a family argument, and in the end, they'll be ok and ready for the Presidential campaign.

And the conclusion? Like I haven't said it? Ok, Obama and Clinton are personal choices. That's it, neither better or worse, just different. And personally, I'm still hedging to Obama. Why?

I'm not doubting Hillary would be a good President. And her views and policies are and wouldn't be much different the Barracks'. It's the difference in the individual that echoes people preferences, personalities and campaign strategy and tactics. Right now I prefer Obama's. As I've said, I'm not interested in specifics, but perspectives. And Hilary hasn't said much about hers.

It's not about faith or belief, but perspective, their general view of things and issues, the foundation of their thoughts, ideas, attitudes, etc. I want them to espouse their world view, how they would translate it to reality and what they would do to accomplish it. Anyway, that's what I want to hear from them.