At long last, I can start covering policy again. There was no point in covering candidate policy while the main race was between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama; other than foreign policy, there's really very little daylight between them. Stand by as I joyfully stop watching vacuous cable news coverage on the primaries, and instead dig into campaign platforms.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Stand by as I joyfully stop watching vacuous cable news coverage on the primaries, and instead dig into campaign platforms.
Ahem. Should be..
Stand by as I joyfully stop watching vacuous cable news coverage on the primaries, and instead dig into vacuous cable news coverage on the general.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama; other than foreign policy, there's really very little daylight between them.
Out of all 100 Senators, guess which two had the most similar voting records, by at least one impartial count.
That's why the contest between them has been so bitter. If you can't argue on the issues, you have to argue on the basis of the person, and/or a higher moral cause worth fighting for...
I am looking forward to your insights. This should make the issues more understandable than most panels we get on vacuous cable news coverage.
I’m not sure I follow the logic. It seems to me that if they held nearly identical views on every issue other than foreign policy, then that should make it easier to write an analysis of those views they hold in common and to contrast them with McCain who was the candidate that one or both of them was ultimately going to have to run against. A basic outline of some of those issues might look something like this:
Employer-sponsored Health Insurance – Obama and Clinton both support mandating it by law; McCain favors eliminating the bias in the tax code that favors employer-sponsored health insurance and giving those who buy their own health insurance the same tax benefit.
Consumer Choice in Health Insurance – Obama and Clinton both favor nationalizing health insurance regulation through the creation of a “national exchange” that would require all private plans cover whatever benefits are mandated in the new health insurance entitlement; McCain opposes mandates and favors allowing consumers to buy an insurance policy anywhere in the United States.
Medicare– Obama and Clinton both thought that the existing prescription drug benefit isn’t generous enough and want to expand Medicare to cover more people; McCain voted against Medicare Part D because it was too expensive and favors means-testing Medicare.
SCHIPs Expansion – Obama and Clinton both voted to expand a program that was designed to provide health insurance for poor children to cover both adults and children who already have private insurance; McCain opposes expanding SCHIPS.
Farm and Ethanol Subsidies – Obama and Clinton both support farm subsidies in general and ethanol in particular; McCain opposed the last two farm bills and goes out of his way to announce his opposition to ethanol subsidies while campaigning in Iowa.
Earmarks – Obama and Clinton both support and make extensive use of earmarks; McCain opposes earmarks and doesn’t use them.
Free Trade – Obama and Clinton both favor “renegotiating” our existing trade agreements to allow domestic special interest groups like labor unions to include more protectionist measures; McCain has a nearly* perfect record of supporting free trade.
And so on and so forth. It seems to me there was ample material for one to do all sorts of policy analysis just on the things that Clinton and Obama have in common and contrast them with the Republican nominee.
Assuming of course that one is planning to cast their vote in the next presidential election based on policy issues. ;)
* I say “nearly” only because the fact that I haven’t found a single instance where he didn’t support free trade might not mean that there was some obscure procedural motion somewhere he cast what could be considered an “anti-free trade” vote.
I know everthing's a big joke to you, Megan, but please explain the reason why you weren't able to cover "policy" until now--instead you had to watch endless "vacuous" cable news? You call yourself a journalist--did your editors tell you you couldn't report policy until the primary was over? Why didn't you cover policy until now? Others did. Please tell us why.
Also, if cable is vacuous, why are you watching it. As a journalist, it doesn't do you any good.
You should spend your time better.
Once someone has said that she will never, never, never vote for a particular candidate, of what value are her analyses of policy differences between that candidate and his opponent? You can count on me to skip any posts of that nature.
y81,
This would be true if we expected the positions of the candidates to appear out of nowhere tomorrow. But I don't think it really makes sense to ignore a history teacher just because they tell you up front that Hitler was a terrible guy.
Being impartial means being open to new information, not failing to process old information. If you evaluate a candidate and your evaluation leads to a decision, this is not a failure of your mental faculties, but rather their proper operation.
Thank you for admitting your level of willful ignorance - yes, a Ren & Stimpy reference is totally apropos here.
Ignoring ANY policy positions from either of the presumptive favorites for POTUS until 6 months before a General Election?
My my, how low can you go.