On the primary battle and comparison between Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton...

There is an excellent article in NYTimes on Barack Obama, and his (uphill) battle for Democratic nomination in the primary against, chief of all, Hilary Clinton.

It's excellent, not because of the subject itself since it's been done infinitely many times by so many other sources and reports; but rather, it's done from the vantage point on the Obama side. The hope, the support he's got from seemingly unlikely sources including ex-Clintonites during the Bill Clinton era, and the frustration that his message doesn't seem to get through still (when first primary is only two months away).

There was this novelty factor when Obama first came out, and it certainly a breath of fresh air (much like John Edwards had been in his "two Americas" talk during his 2004 presidential bid, even Howard Dean and outpouring of support to Dean from the web mostly in 2004). Fresh air aside, with the primary being pushed further up, the novelty factor can wear out quite quickly, and mostly potential voters are left with whatever residue they have in memory of any particular candidates.

I have watched most major candidates (both GOP and Dem) for a while. I must admit that Obama came out very interestingly, from the left field, mostly since I was never aware of this person before, and it's interesting/useful to find out what his views are, what he stands for, his integrity, and how much of a chance he has in winning back the White House (no, I don't want another GOP administration).

The Obama camp likes to paint (perhaps it is in fact so) him as having the fresh-eyed approach on things, everything. It's refreshing to see that someone like him is getting support. The Clinton camp likes to attack him like he's 8 year old, and doesn't know how the real world operates. Perhaps it could be true that an 8-year-old's approach can be effective, particularly in its surprised-factor. I'm not entirely sure if it'll work, in the long-winding bureaucracy of getting substantial changes in through the Congress and the world at large. I had had hopes that the health care reform that Hilary Clinton had tried to push through (but subsequently failed), but hers back then is the 8-year-old's approach.

To me, Hilary has lived and learnt and graduated into the real world, when she still has some ounces of idealism left in her. Her ascent to be the first female president would be very inspirational to future generations to come. As to Barack, his ascent as the first black president (with Muslim roots, no less) would certainly be equally inspirational. So, either one of them (as agent from a minority) to sit in the White House is good enough for me.

As to policies and procedures, it's easy talk for fresh approach from Barack, but I have the feelings that Hilary is careful enough these days (after seeing how the real world does business) not to promise something that she knows would fail. I see it as the same way I would do things, as compared to my 4-year-old kid, for example. He might want to do this in this way, but I would tell him, no it won't work and I would tell him how I would do it. Naturally, I do not expect my kid to copy every single thing I tell him (otherwise it would have killed all his imagination and creativity), but I equally do not want him to try things that I know are definitely harmful (eg. doing drugs). Going back to the Obama/Clinton comparison, I see Obama like my 4-year-old kid, and I see Clinton like myself. While I certainly do not want to come out and tell him "I told you so," I know what consequence is going to come out.

So, the question here becomes, do I value experience (Clinton) more, or do I value fresh approach (Obama) more. I would choose Clinton. It's not because I do not want or dislike the fresh approach from Obama, but I want Clinton to hit the ground running, at day one when she's in the White House, again. (And, having Bill Clinton on her side, it's certainly a big help.)

As to being a fighter and be mean enough to fight (and beat) the GOP in the general election, that gets me worried most about Obama. He would certainly look like an 8-year-old on stage if he's up there debating Giuliani or Romney (he'll probably win). When a Dem is up there fighting the fight, I don't need a Mr Nice Guy, as Obama has time and again wanted to portrait himself. I want the candidate to be mean and tough enough to fight back. During the past few Dem debates among the Dem candidates, I can't say I'm very impressed by Obama's performance. And that's BEFORE the primaries. What are his chances when he's up against GOP? I have most serious concerns about this.

Back to the article from NYTimes, when toward the end, Obama almost sounds bitter, and counters what kind of "experience" that Clinton has that he hasn't, and what kind of "crises" that Clinton has really handled, and so on. He might be glad to hear that there isn't anything concrete, so the answer is no (that's what you get from a poll). But the total package of Clinton (including Bill in tow) would tell us, everything is a resounding yes. While that might not be a fault on Obama in particular, it is something that he does not have, not even any chance of "improving."