posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 155 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
