posted
One of these days I'm going to do a little experiment where I take things Ms. Clinton has said and things Obama has said and test people to see if they can tell the difference. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
How does that happen? They both run, Clinton takes the nomination and asks Obama on? I don't want him to run.
I want someone else to run, and win, with someone else as VP. Then when they run for reelection in 2012, Obama can come on as the new VP, when his term is up in 2011. Then in 2016 he has Senate experience, VP experience, and he runs away with the nomination and maybe the next election. The problem is coming up with a viable candidate in 2008. I still think Bill Richardson is the man, I think he's more electable than Hillary, even if I think Hillary is the best person for the job.
Hillary, Richardson, Obama, I think those will be the top three names when people get serious about running next November. No other senator has anything close to the popularity to beat any of those three, not as the presidential nominee, maybe as VPs, assuming the other two are okay with going back to whatever they were doing.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Their position on the war is different. Senator Clinton voted for it and was a strong supporter until recently; Senator Obama thought it was mistake from the first.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Which is why I think he shouldn't run with Hillary. Any conservatives sitting on the fence come election day will vote for not-Hillary if she's on a ticket.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obama does not need Hillary. He has plenty to run on off his own record. Call it unfair, but he got elected without needing to sell his soul (because the republican candidate royally botched things up). He owes nobody anything and nobody can claim to own him.
I think Hillary would actually slow down his campaign as he would have to deal with all the stupid jokes about being subject to a woman. "Is Mrs. Obama or Mrs Clinton holding the whip?"
Obama spoke at the Democratic national convention last election and you could argue his speech was the highlite. Hillary was not invited to speak. He is smart, down to earth, funny, very much able to convince people from opposing sides to work together, and as far as anybody can tell his record is squeaky clean.
I'd rather see Obama run against Clinton for the Democratic primary. After winning that I honestly think you would see most undecided voters and the slightly more moderate republicans voting for him, as well as 90% of the Democrats in this country. Obviously the extremists would see Obmama as too moderate.
Still holding off for a McCain/Obama ticket and enjoying the media frenzy.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
sorry for double posting but does it make sense to anybody else that Alan Keyes is saying Obama is not an "African American" because his African ancestors did not come to America as slaves?
Is it inaccurate to think that as long as your ancestors immigrated to America from Africa at some point that you could be considered an African American?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Their position on the war is different. Senator Clinton voted for it and was a strong supporter until recently; Senator Obama thought it was mistake from the first.
I don't recall Obama voting against anything related to Iraq. There are a ton of Democrats out there that say they are opposed to one facet of the policy or another but vote pretty much for everything layed in front of them for Iraq.
It would be interesting to compare their voting records, Scott.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you kidding? Extremists among libearls thing HILLARY is too moderate, but no one who is against her seems to know, which I think is what was being referred to earlier in this thread about Obama's and Hillary's voting records. He's only been in the senate for two years, six for Hillary, she has a larger voting record to live up to.
Still, I'd be surprised to see Obama beat Hillary in the primary. It's part of the problem, everyone says she'll lock it up, but won't get the general election. Whereas Obama has possibly the opposite problem. The problem for Republicans is that if Obama is elected, he'll steal a lot of their centrist voters, but the only reason he should be elected over Hillary is that Republicans have succeeded in painting her as ultra liberal when in fact she's ultra centrist. So, if Obama takes the primary, I think he'll take the general, and really, it's all the fault of the Republicans for smearing Hillary to begin with.
Talk about sins of the fathers...
Alan Keyes is an idiot, and I'm pretty sure he comes off that way, and while I don't know, I'd guess that most blacks in this country agree.
posted
I've loved obama since he spoke at the DNC last election. If he runs, he's almost surely got my vote.
Posts: 1401 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm still angry that Warner dropped out. He was the perfect Democrat candidate (moderate southern governor).
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I honestly don't know who I'd vote for in the primary in 2 years. Hillary, Bill Richardson, Obama, any of the Democratic senators or governors, there's a lot of good candidates for the Democratic side. In the general, only McCain can even come close to getting my attention for the Republican side.
As for Warner -
I like him even more now. The man wants to spend more time with his family and he let the rest of the field know ahead of time what was going on so contributors could go after other people. He's honest, and he knows how to say no for the sake of this family. Some might fault him for turning down a chance to fulfill his civic duty, but I honor his decision to choose his family. Though to be honest, I'd almost rather have someone in the Oval who DIDN'T want to be there. Reluctant dictators are a curious thing.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyr: That site... I wish it would be a little more descriptive of what each of those votes mean without clicking on them. "ANWAR Amendment" doesn't say much. It might mean that he voted "Y" to removing ANWAR from a particular bill (that might or might not have passed) or it might have been to add something (anything) about ANWAR to the bill. You don't know unless you click the link.
Also it lists gay marriage under "social issues" instead of "Civil Rights" >< >< >< >< ><
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah the site is a little labor intensive and not very descriptive at points, but it has a lot of good information in it if you look for it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
A Warner/Obama ticket would have been wonderful- possibly the only way the Democrats could beat a hypothetical Giuliani or McCain-led ticket. At this point, the best I'm hoping for is a charismatic Southern Democrat to take the nomination, and name Obama as his Veep. The vice versa would work as well, but either way, a ticket with Obama in it needs balancing. Unfortunately, with Warner out of the picture, I'm not sure if there are any charismatic Southern Dems left in the running. Bayh is boring as hell, and Hillary is a one-way ticket to another Republican presidency.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyr, I respect his decision not to run, but I can't help feeling like it's the civic responsibilty of good people to lead our country. His reluctance only further cements him in my mind as one of the few people who deserve to be President.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Their position on the war is different. Senator Clinton voted for it and was a strong supporter until recently; Senator Obama thought it was mistake from the first.
I don't recall Obama voting against anything related to Iraq. There are a ton of Democrats out there that say they are opposed to one facet of the policy or another but vote pretty much for everything layed in front of them for Iraq.
Unfortunately, Obama never had the opportunity to vote against the authorization of force in 2002, since he wasn't in the Senate until 2005. It would have been interesting to see how he voted had he been there at that time.
Added: To be clear, I know you know that; I'm just musing aloud.
quote:...and Hillary is a one-way ticket to another Republican presidency.
Do you know any Democrats that would vote Republican before voting for her, because the key swing-votes to win in a Presidential race are minorities and women, and she seems to be polling pretty well across both groups.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Giuliani I don't think will capture his party's primary, and if he does, he'll get womped on in the general election. McCain will cause a lot of far right Conservatives to stay home, and if the Dems run a middle of the road contender, McCain won't steal enough moderates from the Dems to make up the difference.
We're seeing in this midterm, the threat is in part a vote against the incumbents, but it is ALSO because liberals are chomping at the bit to vote, we can't wait to get to the ballot box, whereas a lot of conservatives are apathetic, and are likely to stay home.
Giuliani makes conservatives stay home, it's the difference between Conservatives and Liberals in the coming general. Moderates they disagree with make extreme right wingers stay home. Moderates who disagree with extreme left wingers still bring them out to the polls. No, I don't think these are rules, but from what I've read lately, it's a growing trend.
Hillary does NOT guarantee a Republican victory, especially if they run someone who is ultra conservative. Republicans have demons in their voting records that any potential Republican can eviscerate in the next election. It depends on how good she'll be at countering eight years (and more) of Republican propaganda against her. That will determine how well she does.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:...and Hillary is a one-way ticket to another Republican presidency.
Do you know any Democrats that would vote Republican before voting for her, because the key swing-votes to win in a Presidential race are minorities and women, and she seems to be polling pretty well across both groups.
No, not personally, but I can guarantee you that there will be very few Republicans who would vote for her, regardless of who their own party nominates. There's just too much irrational dislike for her out there. She's also not nearly exciting enough of a candidate for there to be record-setting turnout among Democrats. Obama I could see pulling in voters who wouldn't have bothered otherwise, since he's as close to a rock star as there is in politics these days. Hillary, not so much.
Also, now that I think about it, Warner's decision not to run for president doesn't necessarily preclude his nomination for the vice presidency. Maybe it's a bit of a pipe dream, but we could yet see an Obama/Warner ticket.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know Democrats that would happily vote mccain before voting Hillary.
fwiw, where did all the Hillary hate come from? is it all related to her national health care thingy she pushed in the first years of Bill's presidency? Everything about people's attitudes towards her seems grudge based (for whatever reason) as well as sexist and irrational...
Obama could be elected IF the upset son of a high ranking terror official stuck in a secret prison tries to blackmail a high ranking US anti-terrorist agent into assassinating Obama on the day of the California Presidential Primary (naturally our heroic agent would turn the tide and Obama would win the day on good will.)
Sure would be great to have Palm...err Obama elected, I saw some excerpts online from his new book and I'd really like to read or listen to it.
Posts: 128 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Giuliani I don't think will capture his party's primary, and if he does, he'll get womped on in the general election. McCain will cause a lot of far right Conservatives to stay home, and if the Dems run a middle of the road contender, McCain won't steal enough moderates from the Dems to make up the difference.
I'm not sure I buy this. McCain may be something of a "maverick" on issues of torture and campaign finance reform, but he's a rock-solid conservative on pretty much everything else. He's extremely socially conservative (including supporting the teaching of Intelligent Design), and is quite vocally hawkish as well. I think he'd be a dream candidate for the far right, because not only does he actually support just about everything they do, he's got the street cred with moderates, deserved or not, to pull in the undecided vote.
Edit:
quote: We're seeing in this midterm, the threat is in part a vote against the incumbents, but it is ALSO because liberals are chomping at the bit to vote, we can't wait to get to the ballot box, whereas a lot of conservatives are apathetic, and are likely to stay home.
Much as I hope you're right about this, don't count your chickens before they're hatched (or however the hell that metaphor goes). The Republicans have a get-out-the-vote operation that makes the Democrats look like babies, and I'm not actually convinced that Foleygate and low Presidential job ratings are going to translate to higher turnout for the Dems. We'll see in a few weeks.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does anyone here dislike Obama and really do not want to see him become president? I don't think I've ever heard a good argument about why Obama would be a bad president or why they don't like him. If anyone has one, please share.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, he has a very short record. And since he's a Democrat, and voted with the party on one or more occassions, I presume, he is likely to get tarred as an extremist Liberal.
posted
What they said. On one hand I like that he doesn't have years and years of political experience (I figure he probably owes less people favors that way). On the other hand, I've been taught time and again to pay attention to how politicians vote, not what they say. And there's just not that much to go on.
My personal thoughts are that the Democrats could do good with someone who doesn't have a huge voting record, but who is intelligent, charismatic, and a leader. I have a hard time seeing Obama losing against any of the named Republican candidates in 2008 to be honest-especially if he is careful to portray himself as very moderate between now and then.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And if he doesnt go now, its likely he will have to wait until 2012 and then theres chance it will be a harder race. 2016 if a democrat is elected, perhaps even further if the democrats completely flop it up in those 8 years.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
What do you all think about McCain? I don't really know so much about him and I trust Hatrack more than Wikipedia .
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: (Edit: to BlackBlade's post) No rush...
What do you all think about McCain? I don't really know so much about him and I trust Hatrack more than Wikipedia .
He's willing to break with his party on issues of importance to him, something that earns him a certain amount of my respect. However, I will never vote for him, because his positions on issues like the war in Iraq, science in classrooms, and gay rights are completely antithetical to my own.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
In what, 2004 I think, he was rated by a group whose name I can't remember, it's a Conservative group, as the third most conservative, according to his voting record, in Congress. The year after he was rated the third most liberal conservative.
Too inconsistent to me, and his willingness to pander to Jerry Falwell's ilk gives him a black mark in my book.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Too inconsistent to me, and his willingness to pander to Jerry Falwell's ilk gives him a black mark in my book.
Could you offer anecdotal evidence for this? Or at least explain what you mean. Nice use of "black mark" btw
If you mean that Obama is religious or that he said "I don't think making children say "under God" in the pledge indocterinates them" and therefore he panders to the Falwell crowd, I think thats a mistaken perception.
He seems like a moderate IMO especially since he was raised Muslim, became a Christian as an adult and still supports Gay marriage.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to say, I don't get the fanboyism for Obama. Is an articulate black man so rare? I'm not sure why he's so remarkable, aside from giving a good speech at last year's DNC. Not that "unremarkable" isn't leaps and bounds more praiseworthy than the average Congressman deserves, but I don't understand why he's so worshipped. If he were white, would be be such a golden boy?
I'm stumping for Gore. Good god, I want that man in office.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hilary won't be able to pull in the south, and as has been shown, you can't win the presidency with just New York and California. Gore would have been president if he'd manage to carry his own home state.
There was a discussion at college just the other day about Hillary, and you would not belive the emotion she stirs up down here. Well, maybe you could. At any rate, I was in a pretty small minority, being conservative, I was far outnumbered by young liberal voters including the head of the campus Young Democrats club.
And yet I can't tell you a single person who said they'd vote for her. I heard several times something akin to "I consider myself liberal and vote democrat, but I will not vote for that woman."
Course this is Alabama, where people who call themselves liberal are probably conservative compared to other parts of the country and no democratic candidate is likely to be able to carry Alabama, but still I wonder if there are other liberals and democrats across the country who feel the same way and would not support her if she got the party's bid.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lalo: I have to say, I don't get the fanboyism for Obama. Is an articulate black man so rare? I'm not sure why he's so remarkable, aside from giving a good speech at last year's DNC. Not that "unremarkable" isn't leaps and bounds more praiseworthy than the average Congressman deserves, but I don't understand why he's so worshipped. If he were white, would be be such a golden boy?
I'm stumping for Gore. Good god, I want that man in office.
Now there's a thought. What about a Gore/Obama ticket? Old Al's really improved the connotations of his name since 2000, especially shedding most of the "Al Bore" image he had during that election. Plus, he gets a big +5 in my book just for having appeared on "Futurama" so many times.
Edit:
On the subject of Obama's popularity, it's not just because he's a black man, although that certainly has an effect. It's that he's smart and articulate (not to mention pretty), but also appears humble and sincere. In the current political climate, where the number one complaint against our current government is that they are a bunch of untrustworthy fat cats, the latter attributes count for a lot. Also, although he is unabashedly liberal in his ideals, he is strongly religious and has demonstrated a desire to cross party lines and work with those who disagree with him- another plus in these tense times.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
I think so yes, but he probably wouldn't have risen to such prominance. The man is young, energetic, smart, charismatic, and he comes across as honest. That IS fairly rare, regardless of where you are in national politics. He stands out, and I don't care if he's white or black, I like what he has to say.
Belle -
A couple things...
1. Gore lost the entire south, and with the exception of California, Oregon, New Mexico and Washington he also lost the entire west. With the exception of those four states, he lost everything south of Illinois and west of Iowa. That's a LOT of states. But he won almost the entire northeast, and those four western states, and a smattering of well populated mid-west states. Democrats don't NEED the south, though they'd be nice to have. For Gore, if he had won ANY state in the entire United States that he lost, he would've won the election.
Hillary just needs to take every Gore state plus one, and Ohio is swinging way back the other way these days, which is at least 21 electoral votes. Besides, Hillary is from Indiana originally (I think), not New York, maybe she'll carry her own state (just kidding!).
I think she'd carry all or most of the northeast, and all or most of the states that Gore got in the west, plus Ohio, and I think that's the ball game, assuming she doesn't pick up anything else.
2. I wonder if all those anti-Hillary folks at the meeting you were at could give reasonable answers for WHY they wouldn't vote for her other than "I just don't like her." Most people, a majority I'd say, don't know her voting record, don't know her position on issues, and think she's a raving liberal, despite the fact that the left wing of her own party really isn't a fan of her.
3. No way of knowing any of this for another year, which makes speculation a combination of really fun and totally futile. This midterm matters. If Democrats take back the house and everyone loves what they do in the next 16 months or so, that's going to give ANY Democrat a rather large boost going into the primaries and election in 2008. If Democrats don't retake it, or retake it and blow hard, then that'll make them less favorable to the people. And so much depends on flubs that Bush makes and how his party and the Dems react to it. Reaction to a do-nothing Congress and the President can decide this next election.
I'd vote for Hillary. I wouldn't even feel bad about doing it. I'd vote for Barack, and I'd feel just as good. I'd vote for Dean, if he ran again, and I'd feel good (less good now than I would have). I'd be hesitant to vote for Kerry, or Edwards. But against a Republican I would anyway, but it would a vote against Republicans, not for Democrats. And I'd vote for Al Gore, though I hope against hope that he doesn't run. I really like the guy, but I don't think he'll win, even with his new image (which I think helps imeasurably). He'll be painted as a radical environmentalist who is out of touch, and I think it'll work.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyr, you're right, statistically you can lose the entire south, but if you lose the south you tend to also lose some of those other states, what I'm saying is you can't win just by taking the big liberal states alone.
I don't know why those self-styled liberals don't like Hillary. I really don't, since I'm conservative, I don't plan on voting for any democratic candidate, so it doesn't really concern me. I find it curious. I don't think it's just the female thing, either, maybe I'm deluding myself there, but I really don't think that's it. This was a group composed almost entirely of women, by the way, that were discussing her. In fact, I would venture to guess that it's women who have the most visceral reaction to her.
Case in point - a girl in my class calls herself liberal, and says she hates Bush, and talks negatively about him all the time. When our professor mentioned that sometimes women like Hillary are treated badly because they don't conform to a feminine norm, this young girl says "People don't hate Hillary because of feminine norms, people hate Hillary because she's the spawn of Satan." Everyone in the class laughed, including the professor, then the discussion moved on to other things. This same girl is an ardent supporter of the democratic candidate for governor in Alabam, who is female. I don't really think this girl hates Hillary because Hillary is a woman, there's something else going on. I honestly am not sure what it is.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Part of it is her voting record. She's pro-military for one, which hurts her with a lot of traditionally dove leaning Liberals. She is willing to break with the party faithful on issues, such as cosponsoring legislation with McCain and Newt Gingrich of all people.
She's a centrist at a time when the Democrats are trying to be the Anti-Republicans, so that hurts them. And her voting record backs it up.
Everything else? The natural unexplained, unreasonable gut wrenching hatred of the woman? I have no idea what that is, or where it comes from (though something wants me to blame conservatives, just feels right), and I honestly think that the people who feel that way couldn't tell you either. I encourage all Hillary haters to try and explain your feelings about her here, if you are among us. And I encourage everyone here, when they meet someone with those feelings to EXPLAIN them. If it's anything other than "she's a flaming liberal!" or "she's a woman" or "she isn't liberal enoigh," then I'll be deafeningly surprised.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tarrsk: The same idea occured to me. But do you think Gore can escape the "half-elected president" stigma?
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't hate Hillary, but I don't much care for her either. I do not get the same honest sincere vibe that I get from Obama, and I do not forgive her for the flag-burning amendment.
Obama, on the other hand, really does strike me as a good guy. He's forthright, he's smart and a good speaker, he's willing to build coalitions across party lines. I tend to agree with most of his positions, and I am really appreciative of his honesty.
Posts: 910 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Everything else? The natural unexplained, unreasonable gut wrenching hatred of the woman? I have no idea what that is, or where it comes from (though something wants me to blame conservatives, just feels right), and I honestly think that the people who feel that way couldn't tell you either. I encourage all Hillary haters to try and explain your feelings about her here, if you are among us. And I encourage everyone here, when they meet someone with those feelings to EXPLAIN them. If it's anything other than "she's a flaming liberal!" or "she's a woman" or "she isn't liberal enoigh," then I'll be deafeningly surprised.
While there are things she has said in the (remote) past about abortion which just made me angry, I think most of it is just bad vibes. Every time I see an interview of hers, she gives off the impression of someone who is putting on an act while being condescending at the same time. That is, it seems to me that she lies about her opinions and does so because she has contempt for her audience.[/2c]
Exactly. Hillary gives the impression that everything she says and does is calculated. Running for senator in New York, opening her to accusations of being a carpetbagger, really didn't help in that department. If she has convictions, it is very difficult to tell what they are (aside from censoring movies and video games, anyway). She's the anti-Obama.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
.
