Primary day here... my view

[jay]

(reposted from a comment I made elsewhere)

After 7 years of George ("I'm a uniter, not a divider") Bush, I think the country needs competence first and foremost. While Clinton is tagged as the less-cool candidate, I think she has vastly more of a notion as to how to actually make the levers work.

I came to that orientation fairly recently, having swung from supporting Obama a month ago, to Edwards (after not seeing much substance in Obama's proposals, and becoming uncomfortable with the cult-like air around his campaign). And both Edwards and Clinton had reasonable space policy proposals, while Obama has promised to kill the lunar/Mars program and use the funds on other domestic spending. [My Saturday LJ post has a much longer discussion with links to each candidate's space policy.]

Once Edwards dropped out, it was clear that I'd be voting for Clinton. To me, too many feel-good platitudes from Obama and not much else there leave me seeing him as a left-wing version of GWB... albeit with better elocution. I prefer a more-hard-nosed, capable, less flashy candidate, myself. As well as believing that Clinton has much better space policy and a somewhat better healthcare plan. My 0.05. :)

Comments

[radven.livejournal.com]

One thing I found interesting was learning that Hillary did not have a full security clearance and was thus not even privy to all the foreign policy details and diplomacy under Bill's administration. The way she pitches herself now, she pretends like she spent eight years as co-president. But in that time she never was part of any of the national security briefings.

Obama's real world cross-cultural life experience for me counts nearly as much as Hillary's pretend "time in office".

- Chris

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

YMMV, granted, but she undoubtedly has had more exposure to the *process* of how the Executive Branch is steered and managed, regardless of whether she read every classified brief on {country name}.