* Senator Joe Biden of Delaware x/y * Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut x/y * Former Senator John Edwards x/y * Former Senator Mike Gravel x/y * Representative Dennis Kucinich x/y * Senator Barack Obama of Illinois 12/22 /2 * Former Governor Tom Vilsack x/y * Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton 1/22 * Governor Bill Richardson 1/22/2 * Retired General Wesley Clark 1/22 * Reverend Al Sharpton of New York x/y
x/y being the x (numCandidate) and y (Total_Votes).
a z rank will also be there for vp votes.
Republicans:
* Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas x/y * John H. Cox of Illinois x/y * Representative Duncan Hunter of California x/y * Michael Charles Smith of Oregon x/y * Former Governor Jim Gilmore of Virginia x/y * Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani of New York 1/22 * Former Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas x/y * Senator John McCain of Arizona 1/22 /1 * Representative Ron Paul of Texas 1/22 * Former Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts x/y/2 * Representative Tom Tancredo of Colorado x/y * Former Governor Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin x/y * Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia 1/22 * Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska x/y * Radio talk show host Michael Savage of California 1/22
In about an hour ill be in bed but I think we can close the polls by midnight tomorrow.
Independants: Blayne Bradley 1/22 / 1
Update: Obama so far with 54% of the vote.
[ February 11, 2007, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: Blayne Bradley ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I can't not vote for Obama.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
There are just too many of them to pick apart! If you put a gun to my head right now and said CHOOSE! I'd go with Obama on the D side and McCain on the R side.
I *really* hope Clinton and Brownback don't win.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Let me clarify vote for one party at a time please but aside from that ya vote for who yould like as VP as well.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
In a perfect world, we would have a ticket of Barack Obama as President and Bill Richardson as VP (or even better, Richardson as President for 8 years and then Obama president for 8 more), but I dont see that happening. If it did, I would quit my job and go work for the campaign because I think those guys are the real deal. And finally its not going to be about the lesser of two evils, but more the team that really can do some good. And that makes me excited for the first time in a long time...
I have a feeling that we are going to get a ticket of Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama as President and VP respectively, and I would vote for that pairing.
On the Republican side, I would consider McCain and possibly Guiliani but many of the others are far too socially conservative for me.
Overall, its probable that any ticket with Barack Obama will garner my vote.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Obama for the Democrats, Giuliani for the Republicans.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I will personally hunt down and kill the next person who polls a magicians trick and votes for 2 parties.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I just don't know enough yet, and I suspect nobody else here does either, yet. We'll be voting for whoever sounded cool so far.
That said, I'll very very tentatively say Gingrich/Romney in '08.
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
And I will personally hunt down whoever pairs Clinton with Obama.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
This is so hard.
First black, (or African-African American) president?(see my thread) Extremely cool
Woman for president with an ex-president I loved being the first "first man?" Priceless.
Posted by Fusiachi (Member # 7376) on :
Too early to tell. And if you haven't personally looked into any of the candidates' policies, way too early. Please vote responsibly.
(Unofficially, I'll vote for Barack Obama, with Blayne for VP. Not in the primaries, though--registered Republican).
Posted by Survivor (Member # 233) on :
Don't they allow voting in both primaries in some states?
I don't know if I'll be voting next election. Maybe I'll vote for whichever one promises to stop trying to have me killed Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
My heart is with Newt, but I'll proabably vote McCain, unless it becomes clear the Rudy can consolidate the right, i.e., gain the trust of the evangelicals. A GOP nom can't win without their support. In other words, the candidate that's better able to build a solid base of support is the the one that'll get mine.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Has Newt thrown his hat in the ring then? Had not heard that.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
This is hard, but if I had a gun to my head:
Hillary for President on the D side, and either Barrack Obama or Bill Richardson on the VP spot. (RunningBear: I'm right here, come get me!)
On the Republican side, frankly none of them are really satisfactory. McCain is nowhere near as centrist as his image suggests. Giuliani was a bad mayor, and nice speeches after a disaster don't make him a great leader and such. If he can't run a city, I don't want him running my nation, no matter how much I might agree with his social policies.
Colin Powell would get my vote, and Lincoln Chafee with him, well, it's the only Republican ticket that might lure me away from the Democrats.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: Has Newt thrown his hat in the ring then? Had not heard that.
Not all the names on that list are officially running, or even unofficially. Newt has publicly stated however, that if he sees that there are no good Republicans running, that represent the values he holds dear, he WILL enter the race, and he expects he'll win.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Radio talk show host Michael Savage of California x/y
I would pay a lot of other people's money for Savage to be in a primary debate with the other Republicans.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Thanks, by the way, Lyrhawn.
Posted by jlt (Member # 10088) on :
Can't vote yet, but in a lot of ways I think it's too early to tell. There haven't been any debates yet and the list of possibles is very log. But, at the moment, I like Obama. I especially like what he said in a speech about trying to get rid of corruption and giving the country back to the people, rather than the lobbyists. Idealistic? Yes.
In the end though, I'm not sure who I would vote for. If I could vote I'd vote for someone who had a real step by step plan to end the war in Iraq (and not start one in Iran) and improve the U.S.'s foreign relations. I'd also want that candidate to be concerned with protecting people's rights here at home. Yep, that's definitely asking a lot.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Barack Obama, with Bill Richardson as VP. My ideal ticket would actually be Gore/Obama, but I'm almost certain at this point that Gore isn't running.
Posted by jlt (Member # 10088) on :
I forgot Gore (it's late). I think that Gore/Obama would be good. But,Gore has basically stated he won't run. I think that he got fed up with politics in the the scandal in 2000. Still. I think that makes him all the better as a possible president because he doesn't desire power. George Washington didn't want to be president, but everyone else wanted him to be. I think at least that Gore would be excellent to deal with oil/energy problems.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
I will not and cannot vote for Obama. That's all I know right now.
Posted by jlt (Member # 10088) on :
stihl1- Why?
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
Ron Paul for president. Condi Rice for vp.
Posted by jlt (Member # 10088) on :
Just read up on Ron Paul (I hadn't heard of him). I wouldn't vote for him (if I could). On some of his stances I agree. But for one thing, he is against the U.S. bing part of the U.N. and he supports a gold standard while investing in gold companies. Seems suspicicous and makes him untrustworthy in my eyes. Also, while I support states rights, I feel he is too extreme on his proposals for limiting the federal government.
Rice has stated that she isn't interested in Presidential campaigns, so there that goes.
As a general request, when people post on this board please give a "because" as to why they support/do not support someone. Otherwise I will probably become very annoying by constantly posting "why?".
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
I'm leaning towards Bill Richardson. However, I've never backed a winner yet, and throwing my support behind a candidate in the primaries pretty much guarantees he'll be out of the running soon thereafter.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
My mama always said "Voting is private. I will tell you my political philosophies and I may even sport a bumper sticker, but don't ask me who I voted for or will vote for. We have a secret ballot in this country for a reason." I tend to agree. So I'm not telling you. You can take your best guess, though.
Posted by Lavalamp (Member # 4337) on :
Blayne,
1) Why do you care whether people given an opinion in both parties?
2) Has anyone heard which big-name independents might make a run?
My personal view on candidates is that almost any of them would reduce the level of divisiveness in this country. There are exceptions and I would hope that neither party backs a truly divisive candidate.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I can't remember the guy's name (not much of an endorsement, huh?), but a buddy of mine was telling me about a prosecutor up in New York who went after big business. He had investigated the guy's dad's company and didn't find anything wrong, so he didn't hassel them. He only went after actual bad guys.
First of all, I'm impressed with anyone who can tell the difference between good guys and bad guys nowdays. Second, I think big business is setting America up for a dangerous fall if we don't get them under control. CEOs need to be reigned in and Boards need to be held accountable for them.
I like this article about how Boards still don't know how much their CEO really makes. They think it's important, but they aren't doing anything about it. As a pro-business Republican, I can't think of many scarier statements.
I will tenatively back anyone who will crack down on the destruction of Fortune 500 companies from the inside, see the war through to a sucessful completion, and be nice to migrant workers and illegal immigrants. I know that's asking a lot these days, but those are my issues and I'm sticking to them.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Reader, I think you're alluding to Rudy Giuliani. He gained the national spotlight when he was Mayor of New York on 9-11.
As a local, I remember his career before he was in the national eye, and I doubt that he is electable.
New York has a history of voting in the most liberal Republicans around. I wouldn't mind seeing a liberal Republican on the ticket.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
It wasn't Giuliani. It was a name I didn't know. It might be Eliot Spitzer, current governor of New York, but I'd have to check.
If it is, there's not much chance he'd run in 08, having just got the governorship. I like some of his work as Attorney General, but some of it bugs me. Plus, he's pretty liberal, and I'd have a hard time voting for a liberal.
If most Americans are in the middle of the road, I'm walking on the right hand sidewalk. Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Well, Spitzer is a popular guy in NY, but I don't think he's running in '08.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Rudy for Prez, and McCain for VP.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Mitt Romney - the only electable Conservative (even if some question that qualification) on the Republican ticket.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I'll be old enough to vote for this election. Two words. Woo and Hoo.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I will personally hunt down and kill the next person who polls a magicians trick and votes for 2 parties.
I'm sorry, but if you told me I had to pick a party I would have abstained. I have never and will never align myself with a political party. I vote for people, not platforms.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
As a Kansan, I can tell you I hope Brownback doesn't get it. He's extremely conservative. I'm guessing he'll try pretty hard to disguise himself as a moderate.
I honestly don't know enough of those Republicans to even pick one. Of the Democrats, I'm hoping Obama does well.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Obama for me.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Obama. Part of me thinks he's too good to be true, but I'll vote for him. Hoping really bad that they do not pair him up with Hillary. Not because I particularly dislike her, but I know a lot of people do.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
I'll be honest, any Democrat pretty much garunteed.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I'm definitely thinking Obama.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I have my leanings, but so much changes in a presidential race that speculating on who I would vote for right now seems rather boring to be honest. I'd much rather just discuss what the candidates are doing as they campaign, and deal with who should win the primaries before I start talking about the prez.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Did anyone see that article in Rolling Stone suggesting Al Gore run again? I can't find a link. I think the article was entitled, "Run Al, Run!"
Edit:
I've thought all along that a Gore/Obama ticket would be great. And after Gore's presidency Obama could run for Head Honcho.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
What are Obama's views on issues?
Posted by PrometheusBound (Member # 10020) on :
"What are Obama's views on issues?"
Um, well. I'm told that he has them and I am sure that he really does, but they havn't exactly been the basis of his campaign thus far.
I would gladly vote for Gen. Clark, Gov. Richardson or Al Gore. I would vote Sen. Obama over Sen. Clinton and either over John Edwards.
I do think Sen. Obama would be a pretty good choice for VP.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Um, well. I'm told that he has them and I am sure that he really does, but they havn't exactly been the basis of his campaign thus far.
Heh, he's been officially in the race for like two days, and a YEAR from the closest primary, you're being critical of his lack of planks on his platform? Wow.
Rudy Giuliani will never get the nomination, and if he does, he'll hand the election to whatever Democrat is running.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B: What are Obama's views on issues?
I will vote for you, dear Blayne, if you update this title so that it is grammatically correct.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
If Obama does lack planks in his platform, then yes, I'm critical of that. Why should I support him, if he doesn't stand for anything? Are empty words really the best foundation for a campaign?
I'm not saying his words are empty; perhaps he gave details in his speech that were omitted from the articles on it.
I tend to agree with Lyrhawn about Guliani. Republicans won't vote for him because they think of him as too liberal, and Democrats already have plenty of liberals to choose from. The exception would be if the public want someone Republican on foreign policy but Democrat on domestic policy, but I'm not sure that's the case. (If they did, surely Bush's numbers would be high.)
Addendum: Thanks to Amanecer for the link.
Looks like Obama is for a non-immediate withdrawal from Iraq, and stricter drug laws, which puts him on the side of almost every Republican and Democrat. His other positions are a little hard to pin down, to say the least. I've read them all, and as far as I can tell he supports sound policies and quality services, which is a little hard to argue with because it doesn't say anything.
To be fair, I haven't seen statements on the issues at other candidates' web sites. They could be just as empty of content.
[ February 11, 2007, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: Will B ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
ack was asleep, will update shortly.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:If Obama does lack planks in his platform, then yes, I'm critical of that. Why should I support him, if he doesn't stand for anything? Are empty words really the best foundation for a campaign?
From what I've seen, the answer to your last question is yes. If you've seen a candidate deliver more than pretty words then please, point him or her out to me.
Sounds bites...it's all about the sound bites.
Posted by seven (Member # 5367) on :
quote:Originally posted by RunningBear: And I will personally hunt down whoever pairs Clinton with Obama.
Why?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Alright looks like Obama has a clear majority by 4%, I am content with my 1 vote. *glows in the dark*
The reason why I'ld like people to stick to 1 party is because I actually wanna see how close we get if Hatrack is an accurate enough sample of the USA (excluding Canada, since were not USA)
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
Hatrack is an absolutely inaccurate sample of the US. It's chock full of people who are interested in candidates' positions (see above) and WATCH THE STATE OF THE UNION address. Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
Obama.
Posted by Lavalamp (Member # 4337) on :
Blayne,
There's no point (other than idle interest) in comparing Hatrack's position in Feb 2007 to the election outcome (or even the party nomination process). As large as Hatrack is, it is demographically shallow, includes non-voters, and can't be expected to be anything near representative.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Not without a questionnaire anyway. You'd need everyone to tell you their location, race, gender, voting history, income and their candidate, and then compare that data to the final results.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I have to agree...this is in no way going to be a representative sample of the US next year. The best we can do is discuss the options and see where/why we all stand.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by jlt: stihl1- Why?
If you vote for Obama, the terrorists win. Literally, he's most likely a sleeper cell agent.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
For who? Libertarians?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:If you vote for Obama, the terrorists win. Literally, he's most likely a sleeper cell agent.
I'm not sure whether to or .
Regardless, I think that I'll probably be hearing crap like this for a while. I can't wait to read the email chains which will be circulated in order to scare white people in exactly this manner. I'm sure they will be posted on Snopes.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I think you can . When people say things like "Obama is a sleeper cell agent," they *want* you to .
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by stihl1:
quote:Originally posted by jlt: stihl1- Why?
If you vote for Obama, the terrorists win. Literally, he's most likely a sleeper cell agent.
Come on. A sleeper agent with a name like Hussein? That's absurd.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by stihl1:
quote:Originally posted by jlt: stihl1- Why?
If you vote for Obama, the terrorists win. Literally, he's most likely a sleeper cell agent.
Pshaw. Here's something that'll really blow your mind: Dick Cheney is a sleeper agent, too. Only not for al Qaeda... nooooo, it's for something far worse. It's for those darned homosexuals. He's just biding his time until he can install his daughter as Dyke Queen of the Universe, and rip the institution of marriage asunder like a balding, bespectacled Samson.
If you voted Bush/Cheney, you voted for TEH GAY.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Obama may or may not be a terrorist, but Hillary is the real terror.
Any way, based on what I know now, I would vote in this order for:
(1) Sen. John McCain--I actually contributed to his campaign for the 2000 election.
(2) Former NY Mayor Rudy Guilliani--if only because he has national notoriety.
(3) Mass. Governor Mitt Romney--mainly because his father George was governor of my state (Michigan), and was well regarded. He even seemed like a credible presidential candidate at one time. Hopefully Mitt will avoid using the word "brainwashed." My only reservation about Mitt is how could any politician from Massachusetts not be a flaming liberal? That is the state (commonwealth, whatever) that keeps re-electing John Kerry and Edward Kennedy to the U.S. Senate.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Hillary was "lucky" enough to have John John crash his plane just before he was going to announce his plans to run for the NY seat Hillary got. I hope Obama has his insurance paid up.
That said, I'd take Hillary over Obama any day. She's a blatant opportunist. Obama is an idealist, but with bad ideals.
Still, with any luck, Rudy will beat them both.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
It is to early to know for sure.
Right now I am leaning towards Romney. I really wish that Powell could be convinced to run, because I would really prefer him to anyone else.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Leaning toward ParisHilton for the Party Party!!!
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Catholics need to get a special dispensation to marry second cousins?
(referring to the Guilliani link)
Posted by jh (Member # 7727) on :
It is virtually impossible for me to vote for the Republican nominee. Among the Democrats, I really don't favor any of the big three above the other two. Time will tell.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Still, with any luck, Rudy will beat them both.
He'd need a miracle of untold precedence to make that happen. Half his politics are too Conservative for Liberals, who will gladly for for REAL Liberals, and the other half of his politics, his social policies, are unforgiveably liberal for Conservatives. The Christian right is NEVER going to vote for someone who openly supports gay marriage. Giuliani as the GOP candidate means a loss of millions of Christian Right votes, who'd rather stay home than cast a vote at all. To say nothing of the fact that his personal history, and his early tenure as mayor will all come out into light in a real campaign, and he'll get rocked for that.
He'd have a better chance running as a Blue Dog Democrat.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Still, with any luck, Rudy will beat them both.
He'd need a miracle of untold precedence to make that happen. Half his politics are too Conservative for Liberals, who will gladly for for REAL Liberals, and the other half of his politics, his social policies, are unforgiveably liberal for Conservatives. The Christian right is NEVER going to vote for someone who openly supports gay marriage. Giuliani as the GOP candidate means a loss of millions of Christian Right votes, who'd rather stay home than cast a vote at all. To say nothing of the fact that his personal history, and his early tenure as mayor will all come out into light in a real campaign, and he'll get rocked for that.
He'd have a better chance running as a Blue Dog Democrat.
See, that's why we need Guilliani. Standard Democrats are going to be leftist to their core, and standard Republicans are going to be rightist to their core. The polarization is sickening. Both parties are heading towards irrelevancy if they don't at least make an attempt to move back towards the center.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Hillary was "lucky" enough to have John John crash his plane just before he was going to announce his plans to run for the NY seat Hillary got. I hope Obama has his insurance paid up.
::literally choked in an attempt to avoid spewing water all over my keyboard::
Lisa, do you seriously believe that Hillary Clinton had Kennedy killed? If so, do you have even a shred of evidence to support the belief?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Interesting little exchange in school the other day. Somehow in an American Lit class we got on politics, and someone asked my professor if she would vote for a female presidential candidate. She said she would, if the candidate were the best candidate, but never would she vote for someone "just" because they're a woman, or a certain color, or what have you. Then someone asked her point blank would she vote for Hilary.
She said, and I'm loosely quoting:
"I am a native of New York. I am an unashamed liberal. I'm a feminist, whose area of research and study is feminist literature.
And it would be a cold day in H*** before I ever gave that woman my vote. If it comes down to Hilary vs. a Republican, I might just have to stay home for the first time on an election day since I was old enough to vote."
I don't know what to make of that, maybe nothing, but I should point out it's not the first time I've heard something like that. Last semester, the president of the campus Young Democrats called Hilary the "spawn of Satan." Now, as a conservative, I never considered voting for her anyway, but I'm curious why such outright distaste for her from people who ordinarily would vote democrat?
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Belle, I've heard that sentiment before as well. My own opinion of Hillary is mixed, primarily because of her equivocations on the subject of the war. I do think that she is probably unelectable, not because of her gender, but because too much of the electorate has already made up their minds about her, and those who are inclined to vote for her don't seem to have any of the passion necessary to even retain the marginally undecided, much less make the necessary inroads into those who already dislike her. The same is not true of Obama's or Edwards' supporters.
What really confounds me right now is how Hillary is polling so well, considering how few people seem to actually like her more than the other Democratic candidates. Admittedly, my data for the latter is primarily based on anecdotal evidence, but I honestly haven't met a single Democrat IRL who can state without reservation that Hillary is his or her top choice for the nomination. I hear lots of Obama, lots of Edwards, some Gore, and a smidgeon of Richardson or Clark, but absolutely no enthusiasm for a Hillary candidacy. So how is she dominating the nationwide polls? My best guess is name recognition, but that seems odd, considering that her strongest opposition are the biggest political rockstar since JFK and the previous round's VP candidate.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I would vote vote for Senator Clinton...but I wouldn't be happy about it.
I would be over the moon voting for Obama.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
She's a military hawk (take a look at her military ratings here: http://votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=WNY99268 ) and she's been extremely effective at partnering with conservatives in Congress to push her legislative agenda (she's widely considered one of the most effective Senators, particulalry young Senators). She's also viewed as cold and calculating, but I don't think she's any moreso than other Senators. She's somewhat more conservative than most Senate Democrats on a few economic issues, also.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
She's my first choice, for the moment.
Belle, I've yet to be able to find a source for that kind of ire she gets, at least, not for why she gets it and the rest of the Democratic party somehow escapes it. Some of it I think is leftover from her time as first lady. I support most of the decisions she's made as a senator, and I like everything she has to say, pretty much.
Lisa -
Then you should vote Hillary or Obama. They aren't the Liberals that everyone makes them out to be. Hillary is disliked by the far Left for being too hawkish, and for playing bipartisan peacemaker too many times with the Right. I honestly believe that Hillary, and Obama, are the best thing that could happen to this country in 2008. Strong leadership, good ideas, and a desire to do what's best for the nation, not just personal ideologies and partisan tinkering.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
It comes down to the fact that she is too conservative for a lot of people, and too liberal for others. Basically, she's too middle of the road, so she gets the worst of both worlds.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Hillary was "lucky" enough to have John John crash his plane just before he was going to announce his plans to run for the NY seat Hillary got. I hope Obama has his insurance paid up.
::literally choked in an attempt to avoid spewing water all over my keyboard::
Lisa, do you seriously believe that Hillary Clinton had Kennedy killed? If so, do you have even a shred of evidence to support the belief?
Well, I didn't actually say that. Maybe she just has an "angel" looking over her shoulder. It sure was lucky, though, wasn't it?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Lisa -
Then you should vote Hillary or Obama. They aren't the Liberals that everyone makes them out to be. Hillary is disliked by the far Left for being too hawkish, and for playing bipartisan peacemaker too many times with the Right. I honestly believe that Hillary, and Obama, are the best thing that could happen to this country in 2008. Strong leadership, good ideas, and a desire to do what's best for the nation, not just personal ideologies and partisan tinkering.
Obama is bad news. I'm on the record as saying that, and I really think that it won't be too long before people are saying, "Wow, you sure pegged him." He makes my skin crawl.
Hillary is an honest fake, but Obama is pretending to be the real deal.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
And yet she's still wildly popular. In the end though, if she gets the nomination, everyone on the Left is still going to vote for her, as the alternative is 4 more years of Republican nonsense, and they know that. The alternative is Nader, and they know how voting for Nader has worked in the past, 2000 wasn't THAT long ago.
She's centrist and bipartisan enough to snag votes from the Right while protecting her base. And she really doesn't have to steal all that much to win. Republicans already have amazing voter turnout records, if Democrats can match that, and steal a few votes, it won't really matter much how hated she is on the right. I know it's speculative, but I think you're going to see a bit of a turnaround in public opinion about her in the next few months.
I know it's hard for the frontrunner, but despite all the contenders in the field, I think this is an Obama/Clinton race, and assuming one or both of them is willing to, we'll see their names on the ticket in some order. Obama I think would be willing to be VP, but Hillary might want to head back to the senate and pursue her way up the leadership there.
Edit to add:
Where does the general feeling that Clinton is a liar and all her actions are motivated by greed and powerlust rather than her actual opinions and desire to do good? Is this just some general groupthink FEELING, or is there substance to it? It won't matter much in the long run if she can't beat it anyway, but I'm curious.
As for Obama, you've said that before, I remember the thread vaguely, but I think his popularity has only risen since then. What makes you think he isn't as honest as he appears?
Posted by jh (Member # 7727) on :
I think Clinton needs to be less calculating and infuse some more passion in her ideals and speeches, but she would make a good president. She knows the ways of Washington, has experience, and from what I hear has done well as a junior Senator. She also seems to be moderate, not hard left or hard right which is what the country needs right now. Besides, if she's the Democratic nominee, plenty of Democrats will vote for her if only to avoid another Republican rule. And so far, she's solidly ahead of Obama, Edwards, and McCain. I definitely would not vote for Romney, the flip-flopper whose ideals seem to change on the basis of which office he's running for.
Obama seems to have enthusiasm and charisma on his side much like Clinton (Bill), and so far Edwards seems to be best of both worlds ... he's sort of new without Clinton's baggage, but not as new as Obama because he has more experience, he's solidly come out against the war, has firm resolve, and he's developed his health care proposal ahead of everyone else. Other than that, over the past 4 years, I think he's gained a lot of perspective and knowledge since he ran in 2004, partly because of his wife's illness. I would have no problem voting for a combination with him on the ticket.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Again, where does this calculating image come from? I've seen several speeches that she's given this past year, and they sound more energized than most other speeches I see given at any given time, certainly more passionate and energizing than Bush or Cheney.
And what difference would it make anyway? If her image is that bad, they'd just see her passion and ideals as more caluclations.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Again, where does this calculating image come from?
She stayed with a philandering womanizer. Clearly this could only be for political reasons. Posted by jh (Member # 7727) on :
You would think conservatives would like a woman who put "family values" first and stayed with her husband to work things out instead of divorcing him.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
And some do. But I've also heard tripe like the above, many times.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
My favorite candidate is not on the list. And that is:
JACK BAUER!!!
Jack Bauer would be the best president ever. If the president of Iran didnt want to disarm his nuclear research? He would use his teeth to rip out his jugular!
Ok fine. Ill go with a Newt/Romney ticket for the republican side, or a Lieberman/Obama ticket for Dems. I think Lieberman is more in line with old school democrats. I just couldnt bring myself to vote for the candidates that are far to the left but tell everyone they are centrists.
Newt/Romney: Newt is alot like Reagan in many ways. The country could use another Reagan. Romney looks like he would be a good candidate as well, but dems and reps alike will grind his abortion history into the ground. He was Pro-choice but is now Pro-Life.
And Hillary? She couldnt even control her husband. I wouldnt want to see what she did to the country. I just dont think that she has what it takes to be president. In fact, I dont think that ANY of the democratic candidates have what it takes, with the exception of Gore or Lieberman if they chose to run.
The republicans are pretty weak too unless Newt decides to run. Then its all good in the hood!
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: My favorite candidate is not on the list. And that is:
JACK BAUER!!!
Jack Bauer would be the best president ever. If the president of Iran didnt want to disarm his nuclear research? He would use his teeth to rip out his jugular!
Chuck Norris could dribble Jack Bauer like a basketball. And Jack Bristow could make them both cry like little girls.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
The image of H Clinton as liar, criminal, etc., comes from her Whitewater dealings, and from her labeling the White House travel staff criminals to justify replacing them with cronies. But mostly from Whitewater.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elizabeth:
Woman for president with an ex-president I loved being the first "first man?" Priceless.
My vote is for Hillary.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sounds like he has some pretty ambitious "planks".
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Lisa -
Then you should vote Hillary or Obama. They aren't the Liberals that everyone makes them out to be. Hillary is disliked by the far Left for being too hawkish, and for playing bipartisan peacemaker too many times with the Right. I honestly believe that Hillary, and Obama, are the best thing that could happen to this country in 2008. Strong leadership, good ideas, and a desire to do what's best for the nation, not just personal ideologies and partisan tinkering.
Obama is bad news. I'm on the record as saying that, and I really think that it won't be too long before people are saying, "Wow, you sure pegged him." He makes my skin crawl.
Hillary is an honest fake, but Obama is pretending to be the real deal.
I dončt understand this gut feeling of yours, per chance you can give solid reason like this confuses me.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What'd she do during Whitewater?
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I don't have time to lay it all out, but there are some books about it. High Crimes and Misdemeanors is one -- although most of the book is about B Clinton, there's enough about H Clinton. Someone may be able to recommend a book more targeted to her activities.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I've read HER book on the matter, and his for that matter. I don't know why I'd give any more credence to what an outside opinion is on the matter than the two accused, not without some hard evidence. A lot more than Republican hatchet jobs anyway.
Posted by Abhi (Member # 9142) on :
I'd vote for Bayh.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I picked High Crimes and Misdemeanors because it's heavily documented.
Posted by jh (Member # 7727) on :
Given that High Crimes and Misdemeanors is written by Ann Coulter and the rest of title reads, "The Case against Bill Clinton," I find it highly doubtful it is an objective work.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
I don't get the Hillary thing at all. I thought the Democrats would have some qualms about electing someone mostly based on good memories of their family members ..? Do we need more dynasties in the White House?
I'm split between Obama and Romney. Recent statements from both about the future of the war in Iraq have me leaning Romneyward, but I've gone back and forth several times, and probably will again.
Hillary, though, is a bad idea. I mean, if the Democrats want to lose, or to squeak by by a bitter, angry margin the way Bush has in the past, she's an awesome choice. But she is NOT the figure that is going to rally an enthusiastic majority and start to heal the country's partisan divisions. I think Obama or Romney could both do that quite well, given the chance. Which is why they both top my list. But Hillary ... too many people hate her, and far too deeply. Electing her would help no one but her.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Obama is the only big league name I see with a chance of winning who I think will succeed at healing the rift we have. Hillary would certainly try, I believe that much about her, and she might even succeed herself, once Republicans realize they don't have anything to hate about her more than any other Democrat, maybe even less where she agrees with them.
But I'm personally divided on what I want for this nation in the next four years. I think we have more immediate problems that need to be fixed than some elusive unity goal. There's legislative issues that need solving, and for that, Hillary is my top choice. Obama is simply the more wildly palatable version of Hillary. I guess given that, I should vote for him and cross my fingers, but I've yet to decide, and thankfully I have a year of watching them make speeches to decide what I really want.
Hillary would wipe the floor with a few Republican contenders, but McCain looks like he has a real shot of beating her. Ah it's all so complicated guessing who can beat who this far in advance. But I should say, for fixing the problems the Republicans have created over the last seven years, Hillary is pretty much my top choice. For fixing the partisan divide they've created, well, I don't know if anyone can do that in one term. The first two years of the next president's term are going to be spent doing damage control. If they manage to win a second term, it won't be until then that we see any real effort made toward change, especially on the scale of some sort of partisan healing.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I dončt understand this gut feeling of yours, per chance you can give solid reason like this confuses me.
<shrug> I don't know. I know that my gut impression of people generally turns out to be accurate. Maybe it's his body language; I honestly don't know. But there's something really wrong with him, and I think it's only a matter of time before it becomes apparent.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by A Rat Named Dog: I don't get the Hillary thing at all. I thought the Democrats would have some qualms about electing someone mostly based on good memories of their family members ..? Do we need more dynasties in the White House?
FDR?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Obama is the only big league name I see with a chance of winning who I think will succeed at healing the rift we have.
And how do you think he can do that? He's as far to the left as Bush is to the right. At least.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Maybe farther. He talks in the middle, but he votes to the far left.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Obama is the only big league name I see with a chance of winning who I think will succeed at healing the rift we have.
And how do you think he can do that? He's as far to the left as Bush is to the right. At least.
Yes, but unlike Bush, he has a proven track record for working with his opposition- and importantly, doing so by finding common ground rather than betraying his own convictions. This Post article does a good job of summarizing his bipartisan record in the Illinois state senate. In the United States Senate, he's successfully introduced prominent bills with Republican senators Richard Lugar and Tom Coburn, and spoke with Sam Brownback at an AIDS conference for evangelicals.
I disagree with Lyrhawn that unity is some ephemeral goal distracting us from more pressing concerns. On the contrary- I think that there are enormous problems facing our government, and all of these are only being exacerbated by mudslinging and mindless partisanship. I do believe that the Republicans have done far more to escalate the level of lockstep partisanship than Democrats (in many ways, I wish the Democrats had been MORE partisan in the years immediately following 9/11), but neither side is innocent. Obama offers, in my opinion, the best of both worlds: a strongly principled man with a proven ability to cross the aisle and work with his opponents to make things happen.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Interest group ratings of the senator's voting records. Here are some:
2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Planned Parenthood 100 percent in 2006.
2005-2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 0 percent in 2005-2006.
2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the National Taxpayers Union 6 percent in 2005.
2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the FreedomWorks 6 percent in 2005.
2005-2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 83 percent in 2005-2006.
2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the National Education Association 100 percent in 2005.
2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the National Organization for Women 100 percent in 2005.
2002 Based on lifetime voting records on gun issues and the results of a questionnaire sent to all state legislative candidates in 2002, the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund assigned Senator Obama a grade of F (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F).
2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Alliance for Retired Americans 100 percent in 2005.
H Clinton's numbers are similar but not identical.
Unfortunately, this site doesn't collect ratings on the office of President, so we can't see how far to the right he is that way. However, someone who does faith-based funding, prescription drug entitlement, NCLB, and never saw a spending bill he didn't like, can't possibly rank anywhere close to 100% conservative.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Will: excepting once, Bush never saw a bill of any kind he didn't like as President, and his record as Governor was similar. When campaigning for President he's used this to his advantage, as no matter who he's talking to he can talk about how he signed a bill doing something or other they like into law, even if he spoke out against the bill when it was actually being considered.
Posted by jh (Member # 7727) on :
Of course Bush never saw a bill he didn't like except for stem cell research, he had a rubber stamp Republican Congress who offered no oversight and instead supported the Administration in everything it wanted to do. Even today, the Republicans are trying to stop debate on a war that has gone on too long and cost too many lives. Pathetic.
By the way, his opposition to the stem cell research bill after it was sent to him by a Republican-controlled Congress just shows how out of touch he really is.
[ February 14, 2007, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: jh ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The Republican congress was by no means rubber stamp. Even the normally-compliant House frequently rebelled, and the Senate was almost constantly opposing him on some issue or another.
Also, he did the same thing when Democrats had significant power in the Texas legislature.
His signing of bills isn't because he's out of touch, its because he's politically canny.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Or because he doesn't object to spending tremendous amounts of tax money.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Well, darn. I can't use that site to get interest group ratings on Romney, or Gingrich. McCain ranks as conservative, but with way fewer 0's and 100's than I saw for Obama and Clinton.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Obama, and Hillary for that matter, I think have a chance to heal that rift because they've shown not only an interest in, but have done so in practice, actually working with the other side of the aisle, and co-sponsoring bills with people who previously were considered enemies.
We don't necessarily need someone who is centrist in their policies to bridge that gap, it's always going to be there, as both sides will always have something to disagree about. That healing is an end to the rancor and vicious partisanship, not to bring the nation together into one giant party, that, if ever, won't happen for a century or more.
Lincoln Chafee is the only Republican that comes to mind that I'd trust to heal that divide.
As for it being less important, I'm sorry, but I think it is. If I had to choose between a candidate that supports the policies I believe will fix this nation, and someone who will bring us all together in a new era of good feelings, I'll pick the first one. Fixing the partisan gap in our country is not something one person can do, it's something everyone needs to do, therefore I think it's more important to fix things that can be taken care of by legislation, rather than speechifying. We're at too important a crossroads.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Going for the extremist angle, are we, Will?
Posted by jh (Member # 7727) on :
I read this news article this morning that Clinton and Guiliani's lead over the other people running in their respective parties has increased. Interesting.
Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
That's easy... Nobody. I can't vote yet.
I crack myself up...
I can't really vote, even if I was old enough. I don't vote for anybody who is pro-choice, and I only vote for Indepedants and Libertarians, unless it's Oprah. But I don't think she's running.
The only person who meets that criteria is my county magistrate.
Woo hoo. That's one.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I don't understand the comment, Saxon.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
One day Martin Sheen will run for president with the writers of The West Wing as his cabinet. Oh how I will vote for him.
For now, with the information that I have now, I will cast my vote for Obama.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B: I don't understand the comment, Saxon.
Just seemed like you might be trying to say that because Clinton/Obama had a bunch of 100s and 0s, this represented how far out they were.
If this is not the case, then pardon.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Well, maybe I was saying that. I don't find extremism to be bad, necessarily, but I do think everyone should know what they're buying. These 2 are apparently pretty liberal, so if they're sold as moderates, we shouldn't believe it.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
You can take your best guess, though.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
or ![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
.![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)