PDA

View Full Version : I prefer Gore/Obama... but...


jAZ
06-29-2007, 12:42 PM
I think Hillary is likely to win the primary.

The good news is that I think the more people see her, the more electable she is. On the issues, she seems to have taken positions that the public supports. The anti-Hillary push does cause her electability problems... and the biggest of those might be the "No my Bush-type family dynasties" pushback.

But on balance, she is quite impressive and geniunely seems to have her shit together. Plus she's got the most popular political figure in the last 50 years at every campaign stop.

I don't see Gore entering the race, and I see Obama being everyone's VP choice.

FD
06-29-2007, 01:04 PM
Plus she's got the most popular political figure in the last 50 years at every campaign stop.

JFK's corpse? gross

KC-TBB
06-29-2007, 01:11 PM
I think Hillary has tooo many neg reps...once the campaining really begins she will look like the evil witch she is. WHERE IS ROSS PEROT WHEN WE NEED HIM???

Cochise
06-29-2007, 01:12 PM
I think Dem voters are going to come to terms soon, which is fine. The guy coming out of the other side probably won't be the one I would choose.

I also predicted that it wouldn't be long before a lot of board liberals who stated their contempt for Hillary in the past started to reverse course... they are going to have to spend a year relentlessly pimping her, after all, no matter how much they dislike her.

Hillary really doesn't scare me, as a conservative voter. We'll find someone who will end up beating her. I don't think there are a shortage of people who would beat her once the campaign played itself out.

I thought Obama would get the nomination, initially, that the Democratic populace couldn't possibly really want Hillary, could they? Could they make the Kerry mistake again? But I guess they can.

Around the first of this year I was resigned to a Democratic president being next, but if Hillary gets the nomination, I'm not going to be worried. No one fires up the conservative base like she does.

dirk digler
06-29-2007, 01:16 PM
Don't give up on Obama yet. So far he has out-raised and out-donored Hillary.

I think when it gets closer to the primaries he will pull ahead of Hillary in the polls.

Baby Lee
06-29-2007, 01:31 PM
I think Dem voters are going to come to terms soon, which is fine. The guy coming out of the other side probably won't be the one I would choose.
Do tell.

mlyonsd
06-29-2007, 06:20 PM
If what I read Obama said last night about national health care and taxing the rich to pay for it is true he just lost me.

Bowser
06-29-2007, 06:25 PM
That won't be good for the Dems. Regardless of what you think of her politics, there are enough backwater, 19th century thinkers that would come out of the woodwork to ensure that a woman doesn't get elected president. Same goes for Obama.

If it's a Clinton/Obama ticket (or vice-versa), you'll see a turnout noone ever dreamed possible.

BucEyedPea
06-29-2007, 06:31 PM
All the top tier candidates in both parties are warmongers, unfortunately.
Hillary has only flip-flopped to a moderate dove. No way to really tell.

HolmeZz
06-29-2007, 08:38 PM
If what I read Obama said last night about national health care and taxing the rich to pay for it is true he just lost me.

I'm sure he had you to begin with. ROFL

jAZ
06-29-2007, 10:10 PM
I'm sure he had you to begin with. ROFL
Obama has had that policy publicly for 6 months now.

HolmeZz
06-29-2007, 10:28 PM
Obama has had that policy publicly for 6 months now.

I know, which is why I know he was never going to back Obama if any of that was a revelation to him.

WoodDraw
06-29-2007, 10:35 PM
How anyone can respect her when her views are all structured around getting elected, I'll never know. The last four years for here have been a carefully scripted play

Mr. Kotter
06-29-2007, 10:49 PM
How anyone can respect her when her views are all structured around getting elected, I'll never know. The last four years for here have been a carefully scripted play

And the people who really matter, even ideological soulmates, will be able to see through the ruse. Which means, if SHE is the nominee....her "electability" is out-the-friggin'-window. ROFL

Mr. Kotter
06-29-2007, 10:51 PM
I'm sure he had you to begin with. ROFL

Wanna bet that updated versions of the "Harry and Louise" ads....from 1993 won't be as successful in 2007 in sinking the idea of Universal Healthcare?

I'd love the Dems to make that bet....heh.

Logical
06-29-2007, 11:04 PM
If what I read Obama said last night about national health care and taxing the rich to pay for it is true he just lost me.
I remember one candidate, maybe it was Obama saying that the extra taxes would only be on individuals with incomes over $300,000, in all honesty taxes could reasonably raised on those income groups without them even feeling it as they are the ones with massive shelters that allow them to avoid income taxes.

That candidate also propose eliminating the AMT.

patteeu
06-30-2007, 07:39 AM
Obama has had that policy publicly for 6 months now.

I'd bet that Obama has a lot of long held views that many voters might not like but that they haven't discovered yet. Obama is getting by on his good looks and his smooth talk right now. The early groundswell he experienced was not about his policy positions for the most part.

Frankie
06-30-2007, 02:30 PM
Gore/Obama is my dream ticket too. But so far I haven't seen any reason not to vote for Hillary if she's the head of the ticket. I wonder who her VP will be. I'm thinking it will be either Wesley Clark or Richardson.

Frankie
06-30-2007, 02:37 PM
I think Hillary has tooo many neg reps...once the campaining really begins she will look like the evil witch she is. WHERE IS ROSS PEROT WHEN WE NEED HIM???
What is "Evil Witch" label that the Right profusely attach to Hillary? Any examples of her "Evil Witch"ery?! Anything even coming close to what Bush, Cheney, Rove, Delay, (etc.) are on the record for? :shake:

Is it because Hillary seems to be a strong woman? Or is it that the Neocons love to operate through sound bites and pathetic short labels like we witnessed in '04?

Frankie
06-30-2007, 02:39 PM
If what I read Obama said last night about national health care and taxing the rich to pay for it is true he just lost me.
Why? Are you the rich? :hmmm:

WilliamTheIrish
06-30-2007, 02:45 PM
Honestly, after the two terms of Bush II, I'll give every candidate the chance to earn my vote. Including Hillary Clinton, should she win the nomination.

WilliamTheIrish
06-30-2007, 02:53 PM
jAZ - or anybody else:

Tell me what makes/ would make Hillary Clinton a good choice for the Democratic nomination?

jAZ
06-30-2007, 03:30 PM
jAZ - or anybody else:

Tell me what makes/ would make Hillary Clinton a good choice for the Democratic nomination?
Sorry to be so simplistic, but...

Bill Clinton >> Dick Cheney

(I know... that's not anywhere near enough greater-than signs.)

Logical
06-30-2007, 04:18 PM
Sorry to be so simplistic, but...

Bill Clinton >> Dick Cheney

(I know... that's not anywhere near enough greater-than signs.)I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

Frankie
06-30-2007, 05:22 PM
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
I think he meant to type "greater-than" signs, rather than greater-than signs.

Logical
06-30-2007, 05:23 PM
I think he meant to type "greater-than" signs, rather than greater-than signs.

Being honest I would still not get his drift.

Frankie
06-30-2007, 05:34 PM
Being honest I would still not get his drift.
He means there not enough ">" signs to correctly indicate how much better Bill Clinton is than Dick Cheney. As the "Shadow President."

Logical
06-30-2007, 06:39 PM
He means there not enough ">" signs to correctly indicate how much better Bill Clinton is than Dick Cheney. As the "Shadow President."I understand that, but what does that have to do with William the Irish's question about Hillary?

go bowe
06-30-2007, 08:18 PM
I remember one candidate, maybe it was Obama saying that the extra taxes would only be on individuals with incomes over $300,000, in all honesty taxes could reasonably raised on those income groups without them even feeling it as they are the ones with massive shelters that allow them to avoid income taxes.

That candidate also propose eliminating the AMT.yeah, i think it was $200,000, and i'm pretty sure it was hussein...

Logical
06-30-2007, 08:35 PM
yeah, i think it was $200,000, and i'm pretty sure it was hussein...$200K interesting, possibly I did not even know for sure it was Barrack.

go bowe
06-30-2007, 08:48 PM
jAZ - or anybody else:

Tell me what makes/ would make Hillary Clinton a good choice for the Democratic nomination?well, let's see...

if all the other serious contenders flame out or lose too many primaries, then she would be a really good choice...

but i like dr.paul (on many issues) more than i like mrs. clinton...

i wonder, can the democrats kidnap ron paul and make him run as a democrat?

it would make for some great drama at the debates...

can you imagine having both ron paul and dennis k. on the same stage?

jAZ
06-30-2007, 10:06 PM
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
I'd much rather have Bill Clinton pulling strings behind the scenes than Dick Cheney. BTW, >> = Much Greater Than

Logical
06-30-2007, 10:10 PM
I'd much rather have Bill Clinton pulling strings behind the scenes than Dick Cheney. BTW, >> = Much Greater Than

Why would Dick Cheney be pulling strings in the next administration? That is what is confusing?

jAZ
06-30-2007, 10:13 PM
I understand that, but what does that have to do with William the Irish's question about Hillary?
Well, Hillary isn't my candidate... so I'm not that knowledgeable about her in detail... but the one thing I know about her is that she would return a heavy dose of Bill Clinton influence to our public policy. And even if he's not our president... he'd have a great deal of influence from a role outside the office.... much like Cheney does now.

And Bill Clinton >> Dick Cheney... so having Hillay as President would like be much better than what we have now.

jAZ
06-30-2007, 10:17 PM
To give a (barely) more thoughtful answer to the original question... I would suggest watching her give a public speech. I've noticed that she is far more compelling candidate on the stump... than she is when talked about by others.

Her positions seem to be calculated for genearl election electability, so her record seems to be centrist-progressive, rather than liberal-progressive.

jAZ
06-30-2007, 10:21 PM
Why would Dick Cheney be pulling strings in the next administration? That is what is confusing?
Than Dick Cheney is now... was my attempted comparison.

Logical
06-30-2007, 10:27 PM
Well, Hillary isn't my candidate... so I'm not that knowledgeable about her in detail... but the one thing I know about her is that she would return a heavy dose of Bill Clinton influence to our public policy. And even if he's not our president... he'd have a great deal of influence from a role outside the office.... much like Cheney does now.

And Bill Clinton >> Dick Cheney... so having Hillay as President would like be much better than what we have now.I guess I don't see how that answers the real question William was asking about Hillary. I think he was hoping to really learn what people knew about her.

jAZ
06-30-2007, 10:35 PM
I guess I don't see how that answers the real question William was asking about Hillary. I think he was hoping to really learn what people knew about her.
I understand.

The most I feel comfortable saying in response to the question is that she brings back Clinton (and I suspect the policy philosphy) of Bill Clinton.

Logical
06-30-2007, 10:45 PM
I understand.

The most I feel comfortable saying in response to the question is that she brings back Clinton (and I suspect the policy philosphy) of Bill Clinton.

Actually I doubt this severely. I think she is more strident and far more liberal than Bill. I also think Bill has about zero influence over her or with her. She tolerates him to get herself elected.

jAZ
06-30-2007, 11:34 PM
Actually I doubt this severely. I think she is more strident and far more liberal than Bill. I also think Bill has about zero influence over her or with her. She tolerates him to get herself elected.
While I'm not sure 100% what you are refering to (strident, liberal)... my comments earlier about hearning her speak about her views personally vs. hearing the media/others talk about her...

That is based on having heard a lot of generalized, non-specific comments.

My sense is that a Clinton WH is a Clinton WH. I see them both applying the ideological "triangulation" philosphy.... rather than a purely liberal philosophy. But like I said, that's admittedly conjecture on my part.

Ugly Duck
07-01-2007, 12:39 AM
I don't mind Ms. Clinton getting in cuz Mr. Clinton would be the real power behind the facade (much like Cheney is now). But she might scare off some folks.... ever notice that when she gets wound up & her voice gets real high she sounds like the aliens in "Mars Attacks!"?

http://datacore.sciflicks.com/mars_attacks/images/mars_attacks_large_01.jpg

patteeu
07-01-2007, 08:02 AM
I don't mind Ms. Clinton getting in cuz Mr. Clinton would be the real power behind the facade (much like Cheney is now). But she might scare off some folks.... ever notice that when she gets wound up & her voice gets real high she sounds like the aliens in "Mars Attacks!"?

I think it's more likely that Hillary was a "power behind the facade" during Bill's presidency than that Bill would be a "power behind the facade" during Hillary's.

stevieray
07-01-2007, 09:09 AM
jAZ - or anybody else:

Tell me what makes/ would make Hillary Clinton a good choice for the Democratic nomination?

because the dems guage it on popularity..in this case the "popularity" of lying slick willie...and because the boomers are unable to mature past issues from the 60's, therefore keeping us stuck in a vicious cycle..two families since 1988? sounds like the mafia.

or in simpler realm, women now have the power to do so...more women bought new homes than men, more new cars, and earn more on average...plus, in the last election where I voted , women outnumbered the men by 3/1 at the polls. Half of this country has been raised by single women, and coupled with the demonization of men through the media for at least ten years...it's a slam dunk.

I predicted that this day would come the minute I found out she was going to be Senator. i still think she will win the nomination.

jAZ
07-01-2007, 09:16 AM
I think it's more likely that Hillary was a "power behind the facade" during Bill's presidency than that Bill would be a "power behind the facade" during Hillary's.
I think the most likely is that it did and will go both ways. In nearly identical ways.

During Bill's term, Hillary had aspirations and he gave her a very public (but limited) role (and she surely had a more expansive private role). Same seems certain to be true with Bill. He'll have a very public role, but she'll put limitations on the public part... especially as she tries to form her own identity with the public... and he'll serve as a very powerful mentor.

Frankie
07-01-2007, 10:03 AM
I understand that, but what does that have to do with William the Irish's question about Hillary?
The point is if Cheney is the real president and Dubya isthe ceremonial one it's a hell of a lot better to have Bill as the real prez and Hillary as the ceremonial one. However, I'd think Hillary would be way less of a puppet prez than Bush is.

Frankie
07-01-2007, 10:05 AM
Why would Dick Cheney be pulling strings in the next administration? That is what is confusing?
He's just trying to compare the current situation with the Bush administration with the future situation with HC admin.

patteeu
07-01-2007, 10:06 AM
I think the most likely is that it did and will go both ways. In nearly identical ways.

During Bill's term, Hillary had aspirations and he gave her a very public (but limited) role (and she surely had a more expansive private role). Same seems certain to be true with Bill. He'll have a very public role, but she'll put limitations on the public part... especially as she tries to form her own identity with the public... and he'll serve as a very powerful mentor.

I don't disagree with what you are saying (except the identical ways part), I just think that Bill needed Hillary more than Hillary will need Bill. And while I think that Bill may indeed serve Hillary as a mentor, I think he will have limited influence on her in terms of pushing a personal agenda (to the extent that their agendas differ). He may not even care that much as long as he can continue to live a narcistic lifestyle.

stevieray
07-01-2007, 10:09 AM
He may not even care that much as long as he can continue to live a narcisstic lifestyle.

which is reflective of our society....that monster is growing everyday.

Frankie
07-01-2007, 10:10 AM
Her positions seem to be calculated for genearl election electability, so her record seems to be centrist-progressive, rather than liberal-progressive.
My kinda candidate.

Frankie
07-01-2007, 10:12 AM
I also think Bill has about zero influence over her or with her. She tolerates him to get herself elected.
Call me an optimistic sentimentalist. But I have a feeling that despite Bill's flaws she actually loves him.

WilliamTheIrish
07-01-2007, 11:50 AM
Sorry to be so simplistic, but...

Bill Clinton >> Dick Cheney

(I know... that's not anywhere near enough greater-than signs.)

While I certainly agree with the WJC >>>>>> Cheney, I was hoping I'd get to read what about her as a candidate appeals to you.

I ask this because what I want from the POTUS is an end to the war. That makes it difficult for me to consider most conservative candidates as I think they will likely be okay with the status quo.

HRC has been at one time or another:

1) A proponent of the war.

2) An opponent of the war.

That's why I asked.

Logical
07-01-2007, 02:22 PM
While I certainly agree with the WJC >>>>>> Cheney, I was hoping I'd get to read what about her as a candidate appeals to you.

I ask this because what I want from the POTUS is an end to the war. That makes it difficult for me to consider most conservative candidates as I think they will likely be okay with the status quo.

HRC has been at one time or another:

1) A proponent of the war.

2) An opponent of the war.

That's why I asked.

From what I have read I believe Hillary will perform a limited disengagement from Iraq but leave a somewhat significant presence.

patteeu
07-01-2007, 04:56 PM
From what I have read I believe Hillary will perform a limited disengagement from Iraq but leave a somewhat significant presence.

I have the same impression.

jAZ
07-02-2007, 10:47 AM
While I certainly agree with the WJC >>>>>> Cheney, I was hoping I'd get to read what about her as a candidate appeals to you.

I ask this because what I want from the POTUS is an end to the war. That makes it difficult for me to consider most conservative candidates as I think they will likely be okay with the status quo.

HRC has been at one time or another:

1) A proponent of the war.

2) An opponent of the war.

That's why I asked.
The position she's taken (and one with which I disagree completely... but give her credit for standing firm on)... is that she supported the war at the time (note: IMO because she was just trying to project herself as a strong-on-defense-woman)... and continues to say that she made the right choice at the time (note: even though it would help her now to back off of that position and admit it was a mistake).

She's also tried to balance out that position by taking the approach of criticizing the execution (duh) and IIRC, saying that given "what we know now" it was a mistake (double duh).

Point is that her position (however calculated you might judge it) isn't merely both "for" and "against" it. Her position is closer to something patteeu supports than any of the other Dems running: for the war, against the execution failures.

Baby Lee
07-02-2007, 10:56 AM
Help me with the math, if we get 8 years out of Hillary and 8 out of Jeb, Chelsea will be old enough to run, right?

patteeu
07-02-2007, 11:00 AM
The position she's taken (and one with which I disagree completely... but give her credit for standing firm on)... is that she supported the war at the time (note: IMO because she was just trying to project herself as a strong-on-defense-woman)... and continues to say that she made the right choice at the time (note: even though it would help her now to back off of that position and admit it was a mistake).

She's also tried to balance out that position by taking the approach of criticizing the execution (duh) and IIRC, saying that given "what we know now" it was a mistake (double duh).

Point is that her position (however calculated you might judge it) isn't merely both "for" and "against" it. Her position is closer to something patteeu supports than any of the other Dems running: for the war, against the execution failures.

The only problem I have with your analysis here is that you left out the fact that she disingenuously claims that the Bush administration snookered her with bad intelligence while at the time she claimed to have an opinion on Iraq that was based on her own independent assessment of the situation.

Otherwise, my issue with Hillary would be similar to my issue with John Kerry when it comes to Iraq and the GWoT in general. And that is, can I believe what they say and can I believe that in the end when their strong anti-war constituency gets done with them that they will continue to sing the same tune? And my answer is that I cannot. (And of course, the fact that they are both wrong, from my pov, on most of the other issues makes my support unlikely to begin with).

But getting back to WtI's concern, if his main issue is ending the war, he should probably look at someone other than Hillary. I'm not sure any of the viable candidates from either party will actually end the war completely. Maybe Edwards. At best (worst, from my pov), the rest will reduce the number of troops but leave behind a smaller force with a different mission, IMO.

jAZ
07-02-2007, 11:57 AM
The only problem I have with your analysis here is that you left out the fact that she disingenuously claims that the Bush administration snookered her with bad intelligence while at the time she claimed to have an opinion on Iraq that was based on her own independent assessment of the situation.

Otherwise, my issue with Hillary would be similar to my issue with John Kerry when it comes to Iraq and the GWoT in general. And that is, can I believe what they say and can I believe that in the end when their strong anti-war constituency gets done with them that they will continue to sing the same tune? And my answer is that I cannot. (And of course, the fact that they are both wrong, from my pov, on most of the other issues makes my support unlikely to begin with).

But getting back to WtI's concern, if his main issue is ending the war, he should probably look at someone other than Hillary. I'm not sure any of the viable candidates from either party will actually end the war completely. Maybe Edwards. At best (worst, from my pov), the rest will reduce the number of troops but leave behind a smaller force with a different mission, IMO.
I'm sorta at the outer edge of my Hillary knowledge here... so I'll take you at your (small grain of salt) word here.

I give you credit for not taking a hyperventilatio approach to describing the Dems position here.

Frankie
07-02-2007, 12:15 PM
The position she's taken (and one with which I disagree completely... but give her credit for standing firm on)... is that she supported the war at the time (note: IMO because she was just trying to project herself as a strong-on-defense-woman)... and continues to say that she made the right choice at the time (note: even though it would help her now to back off of that position and admit it was a mistake.
Help me out here,... wasn't the position of all senators and congressmen based on the "slam-dunk evidence" that the administration presented to the congress? If so, what's wrong with going along with it then and opposing it now that it is clear that this white House puuled the wool over our eyes in '03?