Other entertainers intent on attracting an audience include Keith Olbermann, Al Franken and Michael Moore. Is it verbotten to declare anything that they do “objectionable” because they’re simply pursuing their livelihood? I should hope not.
This is a better defense:
I think I just did. The counterargument offered is as follows:
I strenuously disagree that there wouldn’t be any meaningful policy differences between the two Democrats. The fact that one supported the war in Iraq and the other opposed it suggests that they do differ on large, consequential questions. One example, off the top of my head, that is certain to come up in the future: Senator Obama is likely to conduct one-on-one talks with objectionable foreign leaders, whereas Senator Clinton is more reluctant to do so, believing that such talks lend abhorrent regimes legitimacy. Another is the difference between health care with mandates and without — I’m against either plan, but I’d certainly prefer the latter, as should any principled backer of small government.
Nor do I think that policy differences are the only portents of how their presidencies might play out. These are people of different generations whose life experiences, advisors, temperments and supporters are all quite different.
Just as I don’t think it is obvious which is most electable, I don’t think it’s certain which candidate would perform better, or please conservatives more, if elected. Forced to state a preference based on one metric or the other, however, a risk-averse, tempermentally conservative voter ought to choose the latter.
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://thespectator.com/world.