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.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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)
IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 834 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 300 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you can . When people say things like "Obama is a sleeper cell agent," they *want* you to .
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 155 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 155 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 155 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Sounds like he has some pretty ambitious "planks".
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
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.
IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 155 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
or ![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
.![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
