AS writes:
So give Peggy a few minutes of your time today:
o.k.
Summary: Obama is the freshest, best candidate in a long time up against the best run, most planned campaign in modern history.
Clinton has ... political excellence with the issues that are under her belt, so to speak. Obama, I'd hazard, shows the clear intellectual capacity and political courage to tackle issues that are not so much 'under-the-belt'. Come to think of it, he's like Bill Clinton the scholar, in that respect (without the Southern politics overtone, for good or for ill), although without the f.o.b. support network (Oprah doesn't count). He's missing Bill's honed talent for 'selling' his conclusions, from the little I've observed.
So, can I trust Bill to be the intellectual capacity behind a new Clinton administration? I'd like to hope so, but I'm leery of basing a decision on that. Afterall, people said that "W", despite his "C" averages, would be o.k. because he had good advisors around him, a position that I wholly rejected at the time.
Would I vote for Bill of 1992 over the Hillary of 2007? Gosh, what a choice.
p.s. the "dynasty" complaint doesn't hold water coming from someone who endorsed George the Second, right?
