A Debate on Substance
by Setrak, Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 07:23:10 PM EST
Let me start off by saying that I will support the Democratic nominee, whichever one of the two that it is. The stakes are too high to let McCain bring in a 3rd term of the Bush era. I don't want flames or trolling in the comment section, I want a debate of issues and policy. Nothing more, nothing less. Now, let me list the problems I have had with Hillary Clinton.
Please, I would appreciate it if her supporters could respond in a civil manner with substance.
I'm kicking this off with the first issue that made me learn towards Obama.
I am all about national security. The NW Frontier is, essentially, a semi-autonomous region of Pakistan. The government has tried fighting the Taliban and militias there, and ended up agreeing to a cease fire with them. Obama spoke up about how we should target Al-Qaeda targets if the government of Musharref is unwilling to go after them. Remember, we give a lot of money to Pakistan to fight Al-Qaeda. Also, the Pakistani intelligence community was instumental in the Taliban's takeover of Afghanistan. Hillary Clinton said he was naive and rash for making that statement. I disagree. Infact, Benazir Bhutto(God rest her soul) was in favor of the U.S. going in with troops and taking the fight to Al-Qaeda. Her position seems to be similiar to Bush's; support Pervez and ask him nicely to bring about democratic reforms.
I don't blame her for her vote, I blame her for not reading the National Intelligence Estimate. It boggles my mind.
I don't like the idea of a mandate, but I'm open-minded. Skeptical as well. I live in Massachusetts. I've seen how a noble idea can only go so far, and can end up hurting people more than it helps.
First off, on the mandates. Where's the beef? How's it going to be enforced? I find it ludicrous that she can even have a debate on this without saying how a mandate would be enforced. If a mandate is central to the differences between her's and Barack's plan, than some substance should have been offered here and on the specifics of subsidies. This wasn't done by her. It leaves me with the impression that it's a cheap talking point.
Secondly, how are we going to get this through Congress? It may be popular in a Democratic primary, but we don't have nearly the votes in Congress to push it through. Hillary would have to convince the American people to go for this if she is the nominee, and I don't see that as a fight that she can easily win in a general election where most people don't want a mandate.
The Housing Crisis;
Many experts have been saying this, and I don't see much counter-argument on what I'm about to bring up. I hope someone here can indulge me.
Freezing Interest Rates, a Moratorium on Foreclosures.. the general sentiment of experts seems to be that this would only be good for the short term, and only for those who need the help the most. The consensus I seem to see is that interest rates for everyone else will sky rocket, and that it will only pro-long the problem. I don't want a band-aid solution, so the proposal doesn't yet appeal to me. Is there any dissent on this? Furthermore, it seems to play into the attitude I have grown towards her; it's a cheap talking point, that she's going to wave a wand and fix the housing crisis. It also irks me that Citigroup was one of her biggest contributors for some time now.
Tax Returns, Presidential Library Donors, WH Schedule;
I'm sorry, but I think everyone has a right to have these documents released. Why should I vote for someone that won't release this information until after the nomination? Is there anything to hide that may come up when she's forced to release her tax returns? I want to know sooner than later. I don't want buyer's remorse. The argument that she doesn't have time to release her tax returns is dubious in my opinion. How can she NOT have an accountant?
A lot of comments have been made downplaying their importance. They are vitally important. God willing, we'll be sending men and women from these states to the House of Representatives and the Senate. We need REAL majorities to bring about the changes that both of our candidates for the nomination are talking about.
Michigan and Florida;
She agreed to the pledge. There is no disputing that. Everyone except for her, Kucinich, and Gravel removed their names from the ballot in Michigan(unlike Florida, the Michigan Democratic Party chose to move their primary ahead of schedule). Now she wants the delegates seated after winning decisively. Ugh. We need a smart solution for this, and now it looks like Florida is on its way to a revote; should Hillary accept a revote in Florida? I certainly think so.
I genuinely want feedback. I like having debates of substance.