Email From Indiana

Got an email recently from an Indiana voter with some questions on the two Dem candidates. This voter was trying to make a decision and asked questions about where the candidates stood on 1) alternate fuel sources, 2) mortgage crisis, and 3) the Iraq war.

With some minor modifications, I’m pasting my reply below. I am very interested in the IN primary and have been following it closely. With the tough time that Obama has had recently, I expect Clinton to be the choice for Hoosiers (that seems so weird to say!!) but there is still a chance Obama could surprise there, or that it could at least be close.

Anyhow, I would be VERY interested to hear from other Hoosiers or North Carolina residents on what the primary campaigns have been like there and any thoughts they may have on the candidates. Most of you have my email address, or you can leave comments here…


So, what follows is my reply:


I'll start by saying both candidates are, in my opinion, very well qualified and will probably bring some good people in to work on these problems. Sen. Clinton is very smart and I think she would do a great job. I just like Obama better, I think he can do a better job of bringing people together, creating consensus, improving our standing in the world, etc. He's had to endure a lot of attacks and controversies in the past month from the media and his loose-cannon ex-pastor, but he's continued to keep his cool and keep pushing forward, and I think that's a good sign.

Clinton, in my opinion, is kind of an old-school Democratic who is not as likely to be innovative and not as likely to build consensus. I could be wrong. But that's how I see it.

Specifically on the questions you raised:

The energy question is not an area I'm an expert in. However, I do know Obama went to Detroit and told the automakers point-blank that they needed to make more efficient cars with higher mileage standards. I'm sure Clinton supports that in principle too. If we look at Bill Clinton's term, we see a President who was OK on the environment, did some good things as far as designating national parks, etc., but didn't really make the environment a top issue. He also didn't do anything too memorable in the area of energy policy. (At least not that I remember.)

I think the next president is going to have to make the environment and energy (the two are closely linked of course) a top priority. That means fighting some very powerful interests. I believe Obama is better positioned to do that. He makes the claim that he doesn't take money from lobbyists, which is true, with a caveat—he has taken individual contributions from people with who work for oil companies--as opposed to the firms that lobby for oil companies. But he is in general not as beholden to special interests as Clinton and McCain would be.

In the area of financial issues/home mortgage crisis, I think both candidates have good ideas on some possible solutions and would be a lot more proactive than the current administration, or McCain. The whole issue is an example of why free markets are not a panacea. People are losing their homes and their savings; it's not enough to stand back and "let the market work." Because sometimes it doesn't. My guess is that Obama, as a former community organizer, would have a much better feel for how these problems affect working people. But that's just a guess.

On the war in Iraq. Both Dem. Senators now oppose it, both are committed to bringing troops home as quickly as possible while still doing it in an orderly fashion, both say they want to emphasize diplomacy and minimize any upheaval caused by a US withdrawal. Both may be underplaying the difficulty of doing that. That war is a horrific mess, and anything we do to end our involvement is going to come with some very big risks. The only worse thing than doing something, though, is doing nothing and letting the anti-American hatred continue to fester there and in other parts of the Middle East. That's just my opinion, of course.

So both have pledged similar strategies. But they come from different backgrounds and will likely have different approaches overall in the foreign policy area. Clinton has shown herself to be a mainstream, maybe even slightly conservative Democrat when it comes to foreign policy. In my opinion, she has made a classic Clintonian calculation that voters see Dems as "weak" on military and foreign policy matters, so she has to appear more conservative to counter that. In a way, that's smart. And I don't think it's even as calculating as it sounds—many old-school Dems are pretty conservative when it comes to foreign policy. Bill Clinton's foreign policy was not really significantly different than that of previous administrations.

Obama, I believe, is charting a slightly different course, with a big emphasis on diplomacy and multi-lateral cooperation. I think we do need to improve our image overseas, and nothing would send a stronger signal that we are going to re-connect with the world than to elect an African American with a funny name. Now, some voters are not particularly interested in the idea that America has to get along with other countries; they prefer being the superpower and throwing our weight around. I don't think that's possible anymore, and it certainly hasn't worked out well for us in the past 7 years.

Who will do a better job of getting us out of Iraq? I don't know. I think Obama will do more to improve our image and bring other nations to the table to work on the problem, but can he be tough, I think is the question that skeptics will ask. Aside from the point that "being tough" may be part of our problem, I can't answer the question. We all have to take our own measure of the man.

I hope that helps. I believe either candidate is deserving of your vote.