How I’m voting for the environment on Feb. 5, 2008
My vote for President: Hillary Clinton
Let me preface this by saying I have nothing against Obama, and will not be upset if he wins.
But I think Hillary’s the better candidate.
Hillary’s experience — and relatedly, her long-time dedication to the issues I care about — is the deciding factor for me. Obama often gives me the impression that he’s making decisions on the fly, learning as he goes. Learning quickly’s great, but I’d rather vote for someone who’s already done more of this learning before entering the White house. Obama often seems to quickly take a stand — then qualify it later. On “clean coal,” for example, he first simply came out in support of it — then qualified it later to match Hillary’s stance.
At the CNN debate last week, Obama actually tried to make Hillary look like the flip-flopper, pointing out that she’s changed her stance on whether to give undocumented immigrants drivers’ licenses. Hillary then pointed out that he too had changed his stance on the issue — to which he could only nod in sheepish agreement. Why he even brought up the issue when he must’ve known he’d done the same position-changing, I don’t know. But his misguided tactic, to me, seemed like an example of his inexperience.
When it comes to health care, Obama’s platform seems extremely contradictory to me. Calling a voluntary program “universal health care” aside, Obama levels critiques against Hillary’s health care proposal that seem to even better fit his own proposal. For example, at the CNN debate, Obama said everyone who wants health insurance will be able to buy it because subsidies will be available for the poor. However, when referring to Hillary’s plan which also includes subsidies for the poor, Obama said “there’s still going to be people who can’t afford it.” Which is it?
Furthermore, he attacks Hillary’s plan, saying that mandating that people buy health care will require disciplinary measure for those who don’t comply. “Are you going to fine them? Are you going to garnish their wages?” he asks, arguing that the poor who can’t afford to buy health care will be unduly punished. But then when asked what he’ll do when people who haven’t bought into his voluntary health care plan show up asking for care, Obama says we can address that “By, for example, making them pay some of the back premiums for not having gotten it in the first place.” If that’s the case, Obama’s questions to Hillary about fining and garnishing wages of the poor who couldn’t afford to buy health insurance seems to apply to his program too.
In the end, I agree with Hillary’s assessment: “Now, in Barack’s plan, he very clearly says he will mandate that parents get health insurance for their children. So it’s not that he is against mandatory provisions, it’s that he doesn’t think it would be politically acceptable to require that for everyone.” I also think that Hillary has learned from her previous efforts to get a health care package passed, and has a better understanding of the negotiations necessary to get a package through this time around.
Of course, Hillary’s long-time experience means that she’s also made more visible mistakes — like voting to give Bush more authority to take military action in Iraq, which Hillary says was a decision made on the limited info available at that time. Since, Hillary’s actively and visibly critiqued the Bush administration‘s involvement in Iraq on numerous occasions. Obama wasn’t in the senate at this time, so it’s difficult to see what he would’ve done in the situation. At this point, both Obama and Hillary say they’re getting us out of Iraq; I think Hillary is our best bet for getting us out safely, as quickly as possible.
On enviro issues, Obama and Hillary’s platforms are very similar — though I like Hillary’s more qualified stance on nuclear power. More importantly, Hillary showed up for Grist’s presidential forum on global warming and energy and displayed her knowledge of the science and policy issues around global climate change (see top video). David Roberts of Grist says that his impression at this debate was that “Clinton had the best grasp of the political and policy details.” Obama was MIA.
I really do like Obama, but most of what I like about him is what he symbolizes, not what he’s done or what he has been able to — or will be able to — achieve. With Hillary, we’ve seen what she’s done — both her failures and successes. The low points of course leave her more vulnerable to critique, but I believe she’s the more capable and promising candidate for successfully bringing about the many progressive changes we need in our government.
I just got back from the Bay Area, and I was struck by how all the progressives there have really taken to Obama. I didn’t see a single Clinton sign or sticker anywhere in SF, Oakland or Berkeley!
Like you, I’m happy with either candidate.
Comment by Raphael — February 4, 2008 @ 10:37 am
While I won’t be voting the same way, I wanted to say that I enjoyed reading your post. I like the fact that you shared your vote and backed it up with well-thought out reasoning and facts. I particularly like the part about choosing Hillary because of her stance on issues you care about, and the examples you gave to illustrate that.
As a side note, all the wasted paper for the various mailers is just brutal! Especially since we often get one for my husband and one for me, meaning double the waste!
Comment by Chief Family Officer — February 4, 2008 @ 4:47 pm
Raphael — I have to say that some of the support I see for Obama — esp. among young voters — seems to be more driven by the the simplicity of marketing Obama as a progressive candidate that’ll bring about a new era — as opposed to any realistic evaluation of his vs. Hillary’s platforms. That’s not to say Obama’s all hype; my point’s that a lot of people seem more than eager to buy into the hype than to investigate who the best candidate might be.
CFO — Thanks for your kind words. I think its great that — while we may be voting for different candidates — we can both respect each other for our respective decisions. It’s def. the first time in a long time when the Dem party has had 2 v. viable candidates for prez –
Comment by Siel — February 4, 2008 @ 9:28 pm
As far as environmental issues go, I recommend taking a look at the League of Conservation Voters 2006 report. It appears as Hilary has a score of 71% for 2006, while Obama has a score of 100%. I was an Edwards supporter, and now that he is out I would be concerned as to who Hilary owes favors to (Corporate America!). She has already shown a willingness to take their money and shut up on issues. We need to change the entire culture of our government, and that starts with getting PAC money out, something both Obama and Edwards have done. Hilary and her husband, on the other hand, are basically Republicans with the way they keep their hands out and their willingness to give favors. While I dont expect that Obama would be able to get anything passed during his time in the Presidency to keep all PAC money out of government, it would be a good start to lead by example and, in the infamous words, “be the change”. From a completely political standpoint, I just don’t see a way that Hilary could win the general election. Outside of California and the North East, people can’t stand her.
Personally, I would actually prefer McCain over Hilary, but would never vote that way. If Hilary get’s the nomination, I’m voting Nader.
Comment by Jeff — February 5, 2008 @ 2:25 am
just to clarify:
clinton gets 90% at LCV.
http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/voterguide/clinton-page.html
obama gets a 96% at LCV.
http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/voterguide/obama-page.html
mccain gets a 26% at LCV. yes, that’s a 2. and a 6. if you vote for mccain over hillary, you do not care about the environment, even a little. same goes for those who throw their votes away on nader. PLEASE reconsider.
http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/voterguide/mccain-page.html
Comment by mk — February 5, 2008 @ 6:35 am
i think it’s both thrilling and excruciating to choose between Clinton and Obama for our democratic nominee.
thank you for your very thoughtful analysis … much needed today!
Comment by kenya — February 5, 2008 @ 6:39 am
mk,
For further clarification, I was speaking specifically about the 2006 %’s from the league of conservation voters, not the overall percentages of a career in the Congress. (Im concerned more with “what have you done lately?”) What has caused Hillary to go from a strong supporter of environmental bills to a sometimes supporter, especially in a year in which the environment and it’s causes have been getting so much help? one can only speculate…
Comment by Jeff — February 5, 2008 @ 7:05 am
Seil,
As an Obama supporter, I find the premise that the support behind him might be due to “buying into hype” rather than looking at the issues. Perhaps his supporters have looked at the issues and decided to support him based on the issues. Personally, I think the experience argument is not true. So where did Hillary get her 35 years experience?? Was it relevant to dealing with foreign matters?? Obama has 11 years in office, Clinton has 8 years in office. I don’t count her 8 years as First Lady.
Even if the experience argument was true, I vote for a fresh face who may not be so entrenched in the political machine, that he might actually be able to lead this country in another direction.
Comment by cindy — February 5, 2008 @ 8:30 am
If any body votes for Nader, they are wasting their vote, and supporting someone who has devasted his legacy and wiped out a lot of the good that he has done for the American people. He had no business running for President in 2000 and he helped elect the worst, most disastrous administration in American history, usurping power from the real winner of the election, Al Gore. Nader has no business to be involved in politics. The system does need improvement, and other good candidates like John Edwards, Bill Richardson, and Dennis Kucinich were marginalized and not given enough media coverage. If there was to be public financing of campaigns, big moneyed corporate and lobbyist interests would not be able to dictate who can become President.
Comment by Gill — February 5, 2008 @ 11:15 am
jeff,
another issue with averaging out votes on the environment that might have us see a tilt toward obama is the fact that he’s had fewer votes to cast over a shorter period. and hillary’s had fewer still than mccain. if you want to give honest assessments of all three, mccain hands down has the most experience. unfortunately, what he’s chosen to do with his votes almost eight out of ten times is the wrong thing. and that’s just his decision-making related to the environment. how does another 100 years in Iraq sound to you?
Gill,
Amen.
mk
Comment by mk — February 5, 2008 @ 11:39 am
Surely we can be as civil to each other here as Obama and Clinton were during the CNN debates? Most comments are indeed civil and constructive; I just hope we can move all comments in that direction.
cindy — I feel you’ve really misconstrued my words. I wrote, and I quote: “That’s not to say Obama’s all hype.” So I’m not sure why you seem to be saying that I claim all support for Obama is due to hype (your sentence there appears to’ve been left accidentally incomplete, so I’m guessing a bit to the meaning, but it appears that you intended to say that you disagreed with what you saw as my premise that support for Obama is all hype). Of course, if I really thought Obama was all hype, I WOULD be upset if he won. As it is, I do think Obama’s a great candidate — I just believe Hillary is a better one for the reasons named above.
Jeff — Again, I’d like to reiterate what I began this post by saying: I have nothing against Obama, and will not be upset if he wins. But I think the stats you’re citing, as mk pointed out, are a bit misleading and skewed. Obama has not at ALL had a perfect record when it comes to the environment. The front page story in the NYT yesterday about his watering down his own nuclear energy regulation bill due to pressures from the Republicans and the nuclear industry is a case in point. Again, that’s not to say Hillary’s record’s been perfect! I’m just pointing out that we are voting on two great, but imperfect, candidates. I believe Hillary is the better choice. You clearly disagree.
Comment by Siel — February 5, 2008 @ 12:27 pm
Siel,
Yes, left a word out and spelled your name wrong. Sorry. My post disagreed with the issue of Obama supporters buying into hype. Your post did not say all, it said “a lot of people”. Personally, I think that voters across the board are probably equally informed (or uninformed).
Comment by Cindy — February 5, 2008 @ 2:43 pm
Gill, Nader did not lose the election for Al Gore. I recommend you read “Crashing the Party” or watching “An Unreasonable Man”. Almost all exit polls showed that the overwhelming majority of people that voted for Ralph Nader would not have voted had Ralph Nader not been running. (Actually, everyone I know that voted for Ralph Nader were republicans, and polls also confirmed that the majority of people that voted for him that were registerd one party or another were Republicans) I personally voted for Gore, and felt that I sold my soul a little in the process. As far as ruining a legacy, Nader deals with that in “An Unreasonable Man” – basically he was never in this for a legacy, he was in this to make the country better, so if he ruins his legacy so be it. Let’s also consider the fact that Florida lost the election for Gore – well, every other 3rd party candidate won enough votes in Florida to have put Gore over the top, so it is really insane to blame it on Ralph. Perhaps Gore lost because he decided to, as the Dems overall seem to have, let the Republicans control the conversation and fought to the death over the few undecided voters, instead of saying something fresh and new and getting some of the 50% of eligible voters who don’t vote to vote. Don’t blame Nader for Gore’s misstep. How about we have some Democrats that are truly progressive in the mold of FDR and that have backbone – Howard Dean and John Edwards were good starts. Until then, I can never fully call myself a Democrat.
Comment by Jeff — February 5, 2008 @ 4:35 pm
I really enjoyed your thoughtful explanation of why you expect to vote for Hillary over Obama. The one thing that has soured me most on Hillary is her recent vote on Iran. Bush has been saber-rattling again and he again has been trying to set himself up to do another invasion. If experience is good for anything it is to learn and yet Hillary again votes in support of his demonizing. Didn’t her experience teach her anything from the first time?
I want a change in so many areas it’s impossible to count but one of the main areas is a change in our self-rightous demonizing approach to foreigh policy. I was very disappointed to see Hillary exhibiting the same mindset as Bush.
Again, I very much appreciate your thoughtfullness about this.
All the best from Houston ~
Comment by hank hauffe — February 6, 2008 @ 6:36 am