312 replies to this topic

[mike250]

Well in reality Hillary and Obama are essentially the same! They both care about party loyalties and lobbyist.

The only difference between the two is that one voted not to go to war and the other supports universal health care.

BOTH voted to continue funding the Iraq war

BOTH voted for the patriot act.

BOTH voted to continue sanctions on Iran.

and BOTH want war as last option with Iran on the table ... compared to Ron Paul and Mike Gravel who want NO war what so ever with any country.

I agree but I think he is the dems only chance, Hillary on her own will probably lose.

[missminni]

Hi Mike, I'm going to answer within your quote:

he might not be experienced enough or have a very impressive past but that does not make him any worse off. I honesty think that if Obama wins the Dem ticket, nobody will stop him (and he won't have Hillary on the ticket).
The Republicans will stop him. They didn't stop Clinton because they didn't have the kind of ammunition they
have to stop Obama. This time they will play the religious and ethnic angle.
This is very similar to 1992 where as much baggage as Clinton had, he represented change and people voted on that more than any other issue. Obama is getting a LOT of independent white vote, is picking up Latino vote, dominates African American voters, and attracts a ton of moderates EVEN though he is liberal.
Not true about Latinos. They are heavily for Hillary. That's why she won California. Latinos and Asians. They don't like Obama.
Hillary I don't mind her much, but she did vote for the Iraq war and the Patriot Act. She seems to want total control and is very determined to get that which, in a way is kinda scary.......
It's not scary if you look at her programs and what her goals are. It looks more like she will get them accomplished.
just my humble thoughts.

[missminni]

Well in reality Hillary and Obama are essentially the same! They both care about party loyalties and lobbyist.

The only difference between the two is that one voted not to go to war and the other supports universal health care.

BOTH voted to continue funding the Iraq war

BOTH voted for the patriot act.

BOTH voted to continue sanctions on Iran.

and BOTH want war as last option with Iran on the table ... compared to Ron Paul and Mike Gravel who want NO war what so ever with any country.

I agree but I think he is the dems only chance, Hillary on her own will probably lose.

That's really not the case. Hillary has a much better chance of winning the election than Obama. Up until
Oprah Winfrey got behind him, he was so far behind Hillary it wasn't funny. Like 20 points behind her. It was only after Oprah's
endorsement that his popularity increased. This country is very impressed by celebrity endorsements. It's pathetic.

[biknut]

I think Obama is going to win the nomination. Despite Hellary's best dirty efforts all she's been able to do is fight to a tie. Now she's out of money and Obama's money is rolling in record numbers. She's already shot her wad in east and west coast states. Most of the states left look good for Obama. She hoping for Texas and Ohio and that's about it. I live in Texas and I doubt she'll carry this state. We do have a large hispanic population in Texas, but there's also a large black population. I was born in Ohio and I know Ohioans like Illinois better than New York so It's doubtful she'll carry Ohio either. The way the democrats are splitting up the delegates even if she wins the popular vote in either state it's doubtful she'll get enough delegates to win anyway.

Obama's people are now calling Hellary's super delegates asking them to change their pledges because he won their state and district's vote.

The Clinton's effort to try and make it a black issue has backfired on them.

[niner]

Democrats don't hate Hillary. Just some democrats don't want a woman in charge. Everybody voted for the stupid war.

I can't let this one slip by. The MAJORITY of House Democrats voted AGAINST the war. Almost ALL of the Republicans voted FOR the war. Look it up.

House D: 81 yes 126 no
House R: 215 yes 6 no
Sen Dem: 29 yes 21 no
Sen Rep: 48 yes 1 no

Iraq is a Republican war.

[missminni]

I think Obama is going to win the nomination. Despite Hellary's best dirty efforts all she's been able to do is fight to a tie. Now she's out of money and Obama's money is rolling in record numbers. She's already shot her wad in east and west coast states. Most of the states left look good for Obama. She hoping for Texas and Ohio and that's about it. I live in Texas and I doubt she'll carry this state. We do have a large hispanic population in Texas, but there's also a large black population. I was born in Ohio and I know Ohioans like Illinois better than New York so It's doubtful she'll carry Ohio either. The way the democrats are splitting up the delegates even if she wins the popular vote in either state it's doubtful she'll get enough delegates to win anyway.

Obama's people are now calling Hellary's super delegates asking them to change their pledges because he won their state and district's vote.

The Clinton's effort to try and make it a black issue has backfired on them.

BTW, She was born in Illinois. And I beg to differ. The Clinton's didn't make it a black issue. The people who accused Calvin Butts, Charlie Rangle, Maxine Waters, Donna Brazil and any other black notable of being disloyal to their race for supporting a white woman instead of a black man are the ones who made it racist. You might gloat over Obama's un-ending funds, but that will certainly bite you in the butt if he is elected.

ETA~ I just noticed you are calling Hillary Hellary. Now why would you do that? Perhaps I should call Obama Osama.

Edited by missminni, 08 February 2008 - 08:43 PM.

[missminni]

Democrats don't hate Hillary. Just some democrats don't want a woman in charge. Everybody voted for the stupid war.

I can't let this one slip by. The MAJORITY of House Democrats voted AGAINST the war. Almost ALL of the Republicans voted FOR the war. Look it up.

House D: 81 yes 126 no
House R: 215 yes 6 no
Sen Dem: 29 yes 21 no
Sen Rep: 48 yes 1 no

Iraq is a Republican war.

That it is. I meant the candidates running. Obama wasn't in office at the time.

[biknut]

You might gloat over Obama's un-ending funds, but that will certainly bite you in the butt if he is elected.

I'm pretty sure if either one of them gets elected we're all going to get bit in the butt.

[Cyberbrain]

Everybody voted for the stupid war.

Mike Gravel and Ron Paul and Obama voted against the war ... and Ron Paul is the only one who actually continued to vote against it.

Overall, it doesn't matter who becomes president ... one person won't make a difference.

[missminni]

You might gloat over Obama's un-ending funds, but that will certainly bite you in the butt if he is elected.

I'm pretty sure if either one of them gets elected we're all going to get bit in the butt.

That's a given in any election. This last administration gave new meaning to
it, or perhaps another expression concerning what one might get in the rear would be
more appropriate in their case.

[missminni]

Everybody voted for the stupid war.

Mike Gravel and Ron Paul and Obama voted against the war ... and Ron Paul is the only one who actually continued to vote against it.

Overall, it doesn't matter who becomes president ... one person won't make a difference.

Obama didn't assume office until Jan. 2005 so he wasn't there for that vote.
I think one person can make a difference.

[Cyberbrain]

[Cyberbrain]

Hope the chart helps

[Lazarus Long]

For the record everybody did NOT vote for the war and the ones that didn't were not just eloquent in their opposition, they were correct on every critical point as to why not to go to war. 23 senators voted against the war and some like Robert Byrd and Russ Feingold tried to insert language that would have prevented much of the worst abuse of the resolution by Bush.

Hillary not only voted FOR the War Powers Act but voted against all the amendments to put checks and balances on the President and her defense (to counter the claims of experience BTW) was that she did not actually read the text of the resolution.

So she allowed this country to go to war with all her experience on such a crucial matter and did not actually read the resolution giving war powers to the President?

I do not trust her and I am quite sure she is competent. I also don't care a whit about her gender and I have no problem with women in positions of power. I do not think she can beat McCain if she is the Democratic nominee. She is my Senator and I expect her to be for a very long time to come.

Here is the general history of the war resolution vote.
http://en.wikipedia....Iraq_Resolution

Including Hillary's speech to the Senate floor on the matter in case you are interested in reading what she said then as opposed to what she says now about then.

On an interesting note both Ron Paul AND Dennis Kucinich voted against the war too and as an added small irony, Ron Paul beat Guiliani in the recent New York Republican primary.

[missminni]

Hope the chart helps

Thanks for the chart. It helps to see that Clinton, Obama and Edwards stand together on the issues. That indicates
the Democrats have a united front and will work towards the same goals. Then why would somebody who would vote
for Obama, never vote for Hillary? They have exactly the same policies.
Let me guess, because she is a woman?
Oh no, that's right it's because she is a Clinton. Clinton, the president who provided us with the most prosperous
8 years we had since I can't remember when. The president who left office with the government having a surplus of
funds. The president who was loved and respected through out the world and gave the United States credibility.
Handsome, a Rhodes scholar, charismatic, great speaker, loved by the
masses...why would they hate him? Oh, that's right, he wasn't from the right family was he?
He lied about a BJ (like who cares and who wouldn't). He had a wife who forgave
his infidelity, and let's see what else is there to hate about him...hmmm... sounds like a case of envy to me.
No, they don't want Hillary because she's a woman. Plain and simple. IMO They are not ready to have a woman for a boss.
Especially one who is married to somebody who can kick A$$.
Sorry, guys... as you can see, I love Hillary and I love Bill.

[niner]

Hope the chart helps

Thanks for the chart. It helps to see that Clinton, Obama and Edwards stand together on the issues. That indicates
the Democrats have a united front and will work towards the same goals. Then why would somebody who would vote
for Obama, never vote for Hillary? They have exactly the same policies.
Let me guess, because she is a woman?
Oh no, that's right it's because she is a Clinton. Clinton, the president who provided us with the most prosperous
8 years we had since I can't remember when. The president who left office with the government having a surplus of
funds. The president who was loved and respected through out the world and gave the United States credibility.
Handsome, a Rhodes scholar, charismatic, great speaker, loved by the masses...why would they hate him? Oh, that's right, he wasn't from the right family was he?
He lied about a BJ (like who cares and who wouldn't). He had a wife who forgave his infidelity, and let's see what else is there to hate about him...hmmm... sounds like a case of envy to me.
No, they don't want Hillary because she's a woman. Plain and simple. IMO They are not ready to have a woman for a boss.
Especially one who is married to somebody who can kick A$$.
Sorry, guys... as you can see, I love Hillary and I love Bill.

Well, there are some policy differences between Hillary and Obama, but they are not major. But I want to talk about Bill. Rhodes scholar, charismatic, great speaker, loved by at least some of the masses... Check. Handsome? Uhhm. Ahem. So, what is it with the Clinton Haters, anyway? I did always kind of wonder what the hell was the big problem. Gays in the military? That probably got a lot of people going. Even gay people were pissed at him because it didn't go all the way. It was lose lose for him. What else... Draft dodging? The same people who brought you AWOL Bush and "Five Deferments" Cheney care about Clinton's so called draft dodging? I guess that was then and this is now. I have long thought that one of the biggest problems Bill Clinton had with the right was his body language. They didn't like the way he walked. A little too "loose". He kind of walked like Richard Pryor. America's first Black president indeed.

[missminni]

Well, there are some policy differences between Hillary and Obama, but they are not major. But I want to talk about Bill. Rhodes scholar, charismatic, great speaker, loved by at least some of the masses... Check. Handsome? Uhhm. Ahem. So, what is it with the Clinton Haters, anyway? I did always kind of wonder what the hell was the big problem. Gays in the military? That probably got a lot of people going. Even gay people were pissed at him because it didn't go all the way. It was lose lose for him. What else... Draft dodging? The same people who brought you AWOL Bush and "Five Deferments" Cheney care about Clinton's so called draft dodging? I guess that was then and this is now. I have long thought that one of the biggest problems Bill Clinton had with the right was his body language. They didn't like the way he walked. A little too "loose". He kind of walked like Richard Pryor. America's first Black president indeed.

I do believe you hit the nail on the head! He didn't come from the "right" class of people, the ruling class.
How dare he challenge them and make it to President. They threw everything they could in his path, but he prevailed. They spent
the entire 8 years he was president trying to take him down, yet he managed to make it the most prosperous years we've ever known,
at least in my lifetime. He made America look good again. We hadn't look good in a long time. Carter tried but he was far too much
of a gentleman to survive those sharks. For most of my life Americans have been hated abroad. Only during Kennedy's brief
term were we admired and for a moment with Jimmy Carter we were looking good, but not until Clinton did we have that respect for
an extended period of time. Two terms of heaven.
As for draft dodging, it was the right thing to do at that time. It was to avoid fighting an immoral war. Just as
the war we are now engaged in is immoral. Only this time they have a mercenary army. How convenient. And when
they run out of poor hood-winked patriots to enlist in exchange for a paycheck and a free education, (which as Americans they
should have anyway), they always have Eric Prince and his Blackwater army to fall back on.
This has been the most shameful 8 years of American history that I've witnessed in my lifetime. We are truly the ugly
americans. Bush, and his supporters, "the haves and the have mores", as he himself described them, have taken us to hell. Of course they have lined their pockets on the way as they step over the hundreds of thousands of bodies they leave in their wake.
I wonder how the Carlyle Group has fared in the past 8 years. Mighty well from what I understand.
Oh, and let's not forget this is all done in the name of Christianity.
Whatever happened to separation of church and state? Isn't that part of our constitution? Do we even have a constitution anymore?

[Ghostrider]

BTW, I listened to Mitt Romney's speech today as he repeatedly took jabs at "Liberals". So much for him uniting the country. Good effing Riddance.

The guy lost about $35 million of his own money...I'd be feeling a bit down too.

[Ghostrider]

I'm not an American, but I hope that Obama becomes the president. But Clinton will be fine too. As long as its not republican

In the end, I am most for whatever candidate will fight aging and support science as much as GWB supports war. Everything else comes second. That said, I think the Republicans will have a hard time in 2008. There is a split in the ranks between those who think that Bush was a good/ok president and those who are wondering if they should still be a Republican. Then again, the Democrats did lose to GWB not once, but twice. How lame is that?

Yeah. Unbelievable, really. Well, as of today, the next president of the US will be one of Clinton, Obama, or McCain. If it's Clinton, we'll be in for four more years of vitriol, as the one thing the fractured GOP agrees on is their hatred of Clinton. If McCain wins, things will be slightly less vitriolic, but we'll probably still be fighting the tired old culture war that had its roots in the Vietnam war. If Obama wins, I think the US has a good chance of healing some of its long standing internal wounds as well as its damaged relationship with the rest of the world.

BTW, I listened to Mitt Romney's speech today as he repeatedly took jabs at "Liberals". So much for him uniting the country. Good effing Riddance.

Hillary Clinton is quite an extraordinary person, regardless of gender. They hate her because she's a woman.
They fear her because once she is in office she will actually make a change.
They prefer a man, any man, like Barak Obama with little experience and much
rhetoric and many celebrity supporters, like Oprah Winfrey, without whose support Obama wouldn't have had a chance of a snowball in hell. Oprah who is famous for supporting frauds and causes she knows nothing about. Also note that last year, Oprah made the top of the richest woman in the world list, while Hillary was voted the most popular woman in the world. Now Oprah can't have that, can she? And fat bloated Ted Kennedy, what do you think he's in it for? Yeah, everybody's got an agenda but nobodys got a plan. The Democrats are playing right into the hands of the Republicans. And the Republicans have a plan. Murdoch's paper is endorsing Obama. That should be a dead give away. He's the republican's choice because he'll be so easy for them to beat. They're holding off on the attacks now, in fact they're squelching them, until he gets the nomination. When he does, they have facts, not rumors, that will most certainly prevent him from winning the election. Barak Hussein Obama. It's the kind of stuff Republicans dream about.
What a lesson in misogyny.
See how black and white, democrat and republican can unite to hate a woman.

Democrats don't hate Hillary. OK, some are really ticked off at her war vote and the bomb Iran thing, but many dems don't think she can win, not because she's a woman, but because so many people on the right hate her. A large segment of the Right hates all Clintons. Male or Female. I think that the republicans would really prefer to run against Clinton rather than Obama. A lot of people on the right actually seem to like Obama. I'm not saying misogyny isn't a factor; it is, but not that big. Racism is a factor too, but not a large one, I think. Now, Murdoch endorsing Obama, that scares me. I hope you're wrong about that...

I don't see how supporting the war is change.

[Lazarus Long]

I respect your devotion to the Clintons Missminni but I do not share it. I do not think she can beat McCain and trust is a crucial reason. People who do not trust Hillary trust McCain even on the left. To quote someone else who said it succinctly here earlier, "Clinton will divide the Left and unite the Right while Obama will divide the Right and unite the Left."

You may adore her and expect Bill to function as an unelected and unapproved member of the Executive branch but that is not what most want. While this seems like a two/fer for some of you, it seems like a bad way to run a government to others. Many on the left don't trust Hillary anymore and aren't all that happy with Bill. He seems great now but that is the past and we must decide the future, anyway my dead dog looks better than Bush.

It's not about gender and stop fooling yourself, it is about the visceral hatred many in the middle of this nation feel for her and the lightning rod of passion her candidacy would instill in the right wing. Frankly Obama is more electable and many are beginning to see it. Does he have baggage?

Who doesn't?

Bill had Paula Jones even before Monica. I don't care about where he sleeps or leaves his mark, even if it is in the Oval office. It wasn't his lies to his wife that got him impeached, it was his lies to a judge about it and as a lawyer and Rhodes scholar, and President sworn to uphold the Constitution, he sure as hell knew better.

Everybody loves Hillary in my state but they love the Sopranos and would elect him too. Very few really trust her as honest as they associate her character with her husband's.

Like I said before I do not question her competence, I have no trust in her to make the right decisions under pressure.

Obama is a tabula raza and as a blank slate in many ways he is harder for McCain to beat. Moreover he makes for a real contrast with him more than she does.

The numbers are beginning to tell and Hillary is in trouble.

The NYTimes supported Hillary but their columnists are beginning to break ranks. Read Kristoff on who is more electable and realize these are her friends speaking.
http://www.nytimes.c...on/...&ei=5087

Oh and to put it all in a little historical perspective we can also thank Bill for helping to lose the Democratic majority in the House AND Senate as well as fomenting such hatred on the right that we end up with Bush, even if you think he was selected by Diebold and the Supremes.

Not to mention SUV's which was the Clinton response to the looming threat of Peak Oil.

Don't try and run on Bill's record, there is a lot there that many would rather forget and bringing back the whole specter of scandal is not really a good idea if the Democrats actually plan on winning this time.

[missminni]

I respect your devotion to the Clintons Missminni but I do not share it. I do not think she can beat McCain and trust is a crucial reason. People who do not trust Hillary trust McCain even on the left. To quote someone else who said it succinctly here earlier, "Clinton will divide the Left and unite the Right while Obama will divide the Right and unite the Left."

You may adore her and expect Bill to function as an unelected and unapproved member of the Executive branch but that is not what most want. While this seems like a two/fer for some of you, it seems like a bad way to run a government to others. Many on the left don't trust Hillary anymore and aren't all that happy with Bill. He seems great now but that is the past and we must decide the future, anyway my dead dog looks better than Bush.

It's not about gender and stop fooling yourself, it is about the visceral hatred many in the middle of this nation feel for her and the lightning rod of passion her candidacy would instill in the right wing. Frankly Obama is more electable and many are beginning to see it. Does he have baggage?

Who doesn't?

Bill had Paula Jones even before Monica. I don't care about where he sleeps or leaves his mark, even if it is in the Oval office. It wasn't his lies to his wife that got him impeached, it was his lies to a judge about it and as a lawyer and Rhodes scholar, and President sworn to uphold the Constitution, he sure as hell knew better.

Everybody loves Hillary in my state but they love the Sopranos and would elect him too. Very few really trust her as honest as they associate her character with her husband's.

Like I said before I do not question her competence, I have no trust in her to make the right decisions under pressure.

Obama is a tabula raza and as a blank slate in many ways he is harder for McCain to beat. Moreover he makes for a real contrast with him more than she does.

The numbers are beginning to tell and Hillary is in trouble.

The NYTimes supported Hillary but their columnists are beginning to break ranks. Read Kristoff on who is more electable and realize these are her friends speaking.
http://www.nytimes.c...on/...&ei=5087

Oh and to put it all in a little historical perspective we can also thank Bill for helping to lose the Democratic majority in the House AND Senate as well as fomenting such hatred on the right that we end up with Bush, even if you think he was selected by Diebold and the Supremes.

Not to mention SUV's which was the Clinton response to the looming threat of Peak Oil.

Don't try and run on Bill's record, there is a lot there that many would rather forget and bringing back the whole specter of scandal is not really a good idea if the Democrats actually plan on winning this time.

With all due respect,
I listened to a bunch of Republicans talking on Charlie Rose last night, and they pretty much sounded just like you. They talked about how much they would prefer to have Obama run aganist McCain, because it would be a more interesting, honorable race and how much everybody hated and despised Hillary and how a race with Hillary would be low and dirty. Over and over they repeated how the democrats could never win with Hillary and how they had a much better chance with Obama. All I could think was isn't that interesting. Now the Republicans want the Democrats to win. When Republicans start to decide who would be a better Democratic candidate, I know something is rotten in Denmark.
When the worst thing you can say about Clinton is that he lied to a judge about his sexual transgressions, I say bravo. Let's compare that to Bush lying about Weapons of Mass Destruction that resulted in the death of over 650,000 Iraqis, sleeping with the Saudi's and effing us all with the worst economy since the great depression. As I said before and maintain, Obama is the Republican's dream candidate. That's why they are pushing him. Believe me, it's not because they want him to win. But then again, it wouldn't be the first time Democrats walked into a Republican trap with their eyes wide open.

ETA~Re: your comment "It's not about gender and stop fooling yourself," may I refer to the article you recommended I read

http://www.nytimes.c...on/...&ei=5087
Another way of looking at electability is to wonder whether it’s more of a disadvantage to be black or to be female. Shirley Chisholm, the black woman who ran for president in 1972, argued in effect that there were more sexists than racists in America. “I met more discrimination as a woman, than for being black,” Ms. Chisholm once said.

And recent polling and psychology research seem to back that up.

I rest my case.

Edited by missminni, 09 February 2008 - 01:34 PM.

[Lazarus Long]

I helped get Shirley Chisholm elected to Congress and Bella Abzug as well. Bella was my congresswoman when I first earned the right to vote and I didn't suggest that racism and sexism weren't factors in the race as a whole, I said they are not a major or deciding factor in the distinction between Clinton and Obama. Anyway if you think sexism trumps racism as a negative then you have actually added another nail to the coffin of Hillary's campaign. The difference between them is not about sexism OR racism, it is about new versus old, clean slate versus excess baggage, division of your own party versus division of the opposition, ability to draw the independents, and ultimately, electability versus a symbolic candidacy. Who do more people *trust*: because that is what will decide the election.

More people trust McCain than trust Clinton.

Do you want Hillary to run as a symbol or to get elected?

The Republicans want Hillary to run because it will unite their side for McCain and they will likely win. They are willing to graciously accept defeat if it is Obama because they expect to be able to eviscerate him the way they did to Carter and use his actual Presidency against him and the Democrats. Obama is more politically savvy and with a better machine than Carter so I doubt they will.

Also what I find interesting is how the focus is on the Executive when the real problem is the tenuous control of the Legislature. The other specter that Republicans know is that if they get Hillary as a candidate then they might even win back a number of marginal House seats and if they don't win back the Senate they would be able to hold the line in both houses. Even if they lose now they will turn two years down the road into a County Fair Farce and rally support across the middle of the nation against her and win it back the way the did against her husband.

People who want real change had better start looking at the big picture. A President with a hostile or intractable legislature and a severely polarized electorate would be vilified, impotent, and end up a one term pres. If Hillary is through some sort of miracle elected, the Rightwing machine is already preparing to do to her what they did to her husband and worse. This country cannot afford another four years wasted in such mindless internecine conflict just so the media can have a field day selling paper and advertising. Especially right now.

This is politics Missimmi; who ever said it is fair?

The real question you need to ask is if it is Obama: will you support him or stay away from the polls?

Could you live with him as President?

[eternaltraveler]

People who want real change had better start looking at the big picture. A President with a hostile or intractable legislature and a severely polarized electorate would be vilified, impotent, and end up a one term pres.

sounds good to me. You just made a point for hillary.

the less the government accomplishes the better.

[missminni]

I'm going to answer within your post.

I helped get Shirley Chisholm elected to Congress and Bella Abzug as well. Bella was my congresswoman when I first earned the right to vote and I didn't suggest that racism and sexism weren't factors in the race as a whole, I said they are not a major or deciding factor in the distinction between Clinton and Obama. Anyway if you think sexism trumps racism as a negative then you have actually added another nail to the coffin of Hillary's campaign.
It's not what I think, it's what the public thinks. Polls have shown that to be the case.
The difference between them is not about sexism OR racism, it is about new versus old, clean slate versus excess baggage, division of your own party versus division of the opposition, ability to draw the independents, and ultimately, electability versus a symbolic candidacy. Who do more people *trust*: because that is what will decide the election.
The bottom line is nobody gave Obama such an edge until Oprah Winfrey got behind him. Oprah made him electable. Before Oprah's over the top endorsement of Obama, Hillary was very electable.

More people trust McCain than trust Clinton.

Trust McCain for what? He self admittedly knows nothing about economics, was at the bottom of his class in school, and wants to stay in Iraq for the next hundred years. Gimme a break. He was a POW. That's his claim to fame. Oh yeah, and he gets along well with talk show hosts.
Do you want Hillary to run as a symbol or to get elected?
I want her to get elected. She has the background, the experience, and the track record to prove she would
be an excellent administrator. What you suggest for President is a figure head that does nothing but create an aura of newness, change
and a false sense of trust because people don't know who the hell he is and they can project on him anything they wish him to be.
The Republicans want Hillary to run because it will unite their side for McCain and they will likely win.
Not the Republicans I hear talking. They want Obama to run so they don't have to deal with "low down dirty" Hillary and we
can have a fine upstanding election with two respectable candidates. It's reverse psychology and your
approach is promoting it.
They are willing to graciously accept defeat if it is Obama because they expect to be able to eviscerate him the way they did to Carter and use his actual Presidency against him and the Democrats. Obama is more politically savvy and with a better machine than Carter so I doubt they will.
Republicans are never gracious. They don't know gracious and they don't accept defeat. I don't think they are allowing for Obama to make it to the white house. I think they fear Hillary might.

Also what I find interesting is how the focus is on the Executive when the real problem is the tenuous control of the Legislature. The other specter that Republicans know is that if they get Hillary as a candidate then they might even win back a number of marginal House seats and even if they don't win back the Senate they would be able to hold the line. And even if they lose now they will turn two years down the road into a County Fair Farce and rally support across the middle of the nation against her and win it back the way the did against her husband.

Not if the economy improves and we successfully withdraw from Iraq. Anyway I'd rather have two years of Hillary and worry about what they are going to do down the road, down the road.

People who want real change had better start looking at the big picture. A President with a hostile or intractable legislature would be vilified and end a one term pres. If Hillary is through some sort of miracle elected the Rightwing machine is already preparing to do to her what they did to her husband and worse. This country cannot afford another four years wasted int such mindless internecine conflict just so the media can have a field day selling paper and advertising.
First of all, she is ready for any attack they send her way. She's an old pro. She's weathered that storm before and they made this country prosperous in spite of it.
And don't you think the Rightwing machine is going to blast Obama out of the water? He hasn't weathered the storm. What's going
to happen...is Oprah going to save him? I find it quite shameful that a screaming, ill-infomed, self-glorifying talk show host is the reason this
man is going to be president. Maybe she'll pay off the rightwing machine. She is the richest woman in the world.


This is politics Missimmi; who ever said it is fair?

We can make it fair by voting for who will be the best president, not who we are told by the polls is electable. That is pure propaganda and akin to self-fulfilling prophecy. I refuse to buy into it.

The real question you need to ask is if it is Obama will you support him or stay away from the polls?
Please. I'm a democrat. How could I not vote.

Could you live with him as President?
If I've lived with Bush, what could be worse? But I will tell you one thing, as a fellow New Yorker, I am getting the hell out of Dodge.

[eternaltraveler]

Hillary would only make a good president if we had a republican congress who she didn't get along with.

Then everything would be great because the government would accomplish nothing. Just like what happened under Bill. And it was fantastic. (of course he balanced the budget, he and congress couldn't agree on anything to spend money on).

As far as character goes Hillary is a slime ball. But that's not exactly unique in politics so you can't hold it that much against her.

[eternaltraveler]

Also I don't believe how people could possibly want to switch from one dynasty to another. After Hillary Clinton who's next? Jeb? Then Chelsea?

Give me a break.

We already made this mistake once of electing someone to office who's only qualification was being the son of a former president, now we want to elect someone else who's only qualification is that she is the wife of a former president? Give me a break. She was handed a senate seat for the sole purpose of running for president after having the appearance of some tiny modicum of "experience".

[missminni]

Hillary would only make a good president if we had a republican congress who she didn't get along with.

Then everything would be great because the government would accomplish nothing. Just like what happened under Bill. And it was fantastic. (of course he balanced the budget, he and congress couldn't agree on anything to spend money on).

As far as character goes Hillary is a slime ball. But that's not exactly unique in politics so you can't hold it that much against her.

Really? I saw her some years back at City Hall and slime ball was not the impression I got.
She was an incredibly lovely lady. In fact she positively glowed. And who is your candidate of choice? Just curious.

[eternaltraveler]

Also this whole notion of political experience is blown out of all proportion. The country was not intended for people to spend their entire lives in politics. It was intended for people who had been successful in life and gained some wisdom to then bring that into politics in their later years.

[missminni]

Also I don't believe how people could possibly want to switch from one dynasty to another. After Hillary Clinton who's next? Jeb? Then Chelsea?

Give me a break.

We already made this mistake once of electing someone to office who's only qualification was being the son of a former president, now we want to elect someone else who's only qualification is that she is the wife of a former president? Give me a break. She was handed a senate seat for the sole purpose of running for president after having the appearance of some tiny modicum of "experience".

Hillary is a lot more than an ex-president's wife and would have been qualified to run for office
long before her husband became president. You need to check into who she really is and has been her entire life.

Edited by missminni, 09 February 2008 - 04:26 PM.

[missminni]

Also this whole notion of political experience is blown out of all proportion. The country was not intended for people to spend their entire lives in politics. It was intended for people who had been successful in life and gained some wisdom to then bring that into politics in their later years.

Really? Where is that intention stated and by who? Not that it's a bad idea, but I never
heard of it as being intended. Of course, this intention totally knocks Obama out of the race and competely
supports Hillary.