Super Tuesday 2008
SANTA MONICA, Cali. — For the first time since I’ve started voting in Presidential Elections (which is since 1996), I’m going to walk into the booth tomorrow without knowing who (or if) I’m going to endorse, thanks to John Edwards, regrettably, being out-hyped, out-spent and overlooked. (Yes, I’m bitter about it.) In California you are required to declare your party affiliation in order to vote in the primary for that party. As a result I have three choices — Clinton, Obama, or neither. I really wish I could vote in the GOP primary so I would have the range of all the candidates to consider. Let’s say I did have that range, how should I vote? For people who are decided or undecided, which candidates are you pulling for tomorrow?
Popularity: 16%
no more tag found, sorry
Posted from: 66.108.84.96
February 4th, 2008 10:11
I will be voting for Senator Hillary Clinton tomorrow.
She is passionate about the issues about which I am passionate and she has a resume extending far back before both her tenure in the Senate and her time as First Lady advocating for said issues.
I look forward to hearing John Roberts be the first person in American history to say, “Congratulations, Madame President” on Inauguration Day.
Posted from: 136.242.129.93
February 4th, 2008 10:26
I’m not only voting for Mitt Romney, I’m dedicating a lot of effort toward getting him elected. He’s a man with the experience, vision, and values to change Washington, just like he changes Domino’s, Staples, the Olympics, and Mass. Americans are crying out for a change in the political culture of Washington, and quite frankly Romney is the only candidate with the ability to bring about any meaningful reform (sorry Barack, the state senate and maybe being some kind of “organizer” for a couple of years doesn’t make the cut).
Posted from: 138.16.32.79
February 4th, 2008 11:43
I submitted an absentee ballot for Barack last week, and the most recent debate made me all the more confident in my decision. He showed that he is as much a policy heavyweight as Hillary is, plus, as is often noted, he offers a lot of the intangibles that she doesn’t. Maybe I’m just drinking the kool-aid, but I have noticed much less cynicism in myself since Iowa, when a 93% white electorate went out and voted for a guy whose name is like 2 steps from Osama bin Laden. And I do believe he will surround himself with people who have “experience” (though I’m often unsure what exactly that is supposed to mean as it’s been thrown around so much during the campaign).
More importantly, the most recent debate also made me proud to be a Democrat. Barack and Hillary had a serious policy discussion, and drew contrasts between themselves without sinking to the level of the McCain-Romney exchanges we’ve seen in the recent Republican debates. In short, I’m just so sick of grumpy, old, delusional, anti-intellectual white dudes, and I’ll gladly cast a ballot for Barack or Hillary in November.
Posted from: 138.16.32.79
February 4th, 2008 11:46
though, ryan, the notion of having the country run more like an office supply store is tempting
Posted from: 71.160.56.34
February 4th, 2008 11:56
it would be sweet if the country ran like a pizza delivery store, too. If i could order my drivers license online and it would show up 30 minutes later would be great!
also - jon, how do you respond to someone like ann coulter who says hillary is more conservative than McCain?
Posted from: 66.108.84.96
February 4th, 2008 12:47
My first response is to laugh. Coulter has a history of making outrageous, incendiary comments to inflame those who oppose her. I would take anything she says — particularly about Democrats — with a grain of salt. I don’t think she’s an actual conservative. I think she’s a talking head opportunist, and she has an ax to grind with McCain.
My second response is to shake my head in disbelief. Hillary Clinton is a tried-and-true liberal Democrat. She’s been there when it counted and has fought for issues that I care about for a long, long time. A small sampling:
She was advocating for the poor when Jimmy Carter appointed her to the Legal Services Corporation in 1978; she served as chair of the committee. The LSC is a direct product of the Great Society under LBJ and provides legal assistance to the poor who cannot afford it.
She has been a vocal and active supporter of gay issues, both in my own state and nationally.
She, obviously, has been one of the leading forces in American politics for a national health care system before it was a fashionable issue.
She has an “F” rating from the National Rifle Association and a “D-” from the so-called Americans for Better Immigration. Sounds great to me on both counts. :o)
Posted from: 76.87.168.59
February 4th, 2008 12:50
I doubt that anyone who could use this information will see it, but just in case - If you are registered voter in Cali, but have not declared your party affiliation you can still vote tomorrow. You just can’t vote Republican, Libertarian, Green, or Peace and Freedom. You can request a Democrat or American Independent ballot. Our modified closed primary system allows parties to make the decision to let unaffiliated voters take part or not through writing to the secretary of state. It is typical of democrats to take advantage of such state guidelines. The Republicans do not. Anyway, point is if you lean Dem, but don’t want to be registered as such you can still play. And Mike - did you really just invoke Ann Coulter? I vomited in my mouth a little bit.
Posted from: 66.176.42.254
February 4th, 2008 13:14
Hillary ‘08
In the debate world where theoretical scenarios are everything, I understand a vote for Obama. We should always judge candidates by their respective records. What has Obama done? Compare how much change he is personally responsible for to how much change Hillary has caused through her years of experience.
Affirm or Negate:
The President of the United States has a moral obligation to meet with any world leader who choses to meet with him/her within his/her first year in office.
Posted from: 209.181.228.22
February 4th, 2008 13:51
Since the beginning, I’ve been a huge supporter of Obama. Especially with the JFK ad he has out, it just seems right. He doesn’t have the experience, granted, but as we’ve seen in the past eight years, experience doesn’t necessarily equal success.
Considering the fact that whoever gets elected needs to change things fast, there’s only one choice in my mind. Obama is the only candidate who can honestly say that he represents change. No conservative can, and by being a Clinton Hilary can’t either. Hilary is the de facto incumbent of the Democratic party.
Posted from: 128.12.16.14
February 4th, 2008 14:08
I’ll be voting for Obama for pretty much the same reasons Matt articulated (though I’d put an especially heavy emphasis on the differences in foreign policy between Clinton and Obama - just looking at their FP advisers alone is convincing on this point). I will say that I would be overjoyed if Mitt Romney was the Republican nominee.
Posted from: 70.116.31.157
February 4th, 2008 14:24
Barack Obama.
Hillary is an extremely divisive figure with a long history of questionable personal ethics. A lot of people are skeptical of John McCain’s ability to unite the Republican party, but nobody doubts that Hillary is capable of that task…in fact if there is one thing that the Republican half of this country all share it is a vitriolic hatred of Hillary. Beyond that, her inability to explain the gap between herrhetoric on the campaign stump and her extremely hawkish record is a huge liability. Don’t any of these Hillary supporters remember what happened last time we nominated someone who voted for the war before they voted against it?
If she is able to overcome all this, and beat McCain (a person I have infinite respect for) the best the country can hope for is another four years of a 50+1 majority that will accomplish nothing.Certainly, not a single republican will ever support Hillarycare V 2.0 , that sould be self-evident.
Barack Obama has the personal story, political skill, intellect, and integrity necessary to reinvigorate an apathetic nation and re-brand liberal politics the way Reagan re-branded conservative politics in 1980. No one every says I’m a Bill Clinton democrat, in the same way people are proud to be Reagan conservatives. In fact, liberals have been living in shame ever since the 1960s, afraid to even use the word liberal. I think 30 years from now people will be proud to say they are Obama democrats. There’s a chance I’m wrong, and Obama is just a fluke, but we might as well take the risk, given the other option.
And a note on experience: Working at the Rose Law Firm is not experience. Presiding over 8 consecutive easter egg rolls and picking the linens for state dinners is not experience. Leading the most catastrophic failure of the Clinton administration is experience, of a sort. Voting for the war, and against the Levin amendment and for the recent Kyl-Lieberman amendment is experience of a sort. It is as if Clinton looked at her record, realized it was a complete failure, and decided to run on the hoax that she has experience. Barack Obama has more years in public office than she does, and lets face it if this election comes down to years spent in Washington, Clinton’s only apparent qualification, John McCain is going to win hands down.
Posted from: 169.204.230.202
February 4th, 2008 14:36
i wholeheartedly agree with everything ryan cooper says, so i guess that means i vote my gender over my race.
Posted from: 66.176.42.254
February 4th, 2008 14:37
I think Hillary can unite the party. All of these questions raised about her electability and her ability to overcome scandals were raised before and while she ran for senate in 2000 and were dropped by the time of her re-election campaign.
If you can count in Obama’s experience as a community organizer, it is only fair to count Clinton’s experience working for the Children’s Defense Fund. Hillary has a much larger list of career successes than Obama. Compare the amount of change each candidate has caused and then determine the real candidate for change.
Obama’s backing is relatively shallow. Most of it comes from people who believe that they are part of a revolution. John McCain will easily be able to remove the halo from Obama’s head. Remember, Obama has not had the same level of media scrutiny that Hillary has endured for all these years. We only found out about Rezko over a week ago. How much is left in Obama’s closet. Republicans will find it. It is remarkable how much Hillary has been able to withstand on her own.
Republicans can easily argue that Obama gave his implicit support of the war during the actual invasion. His criticism renewed after the insurgency took root.
Posted from: 69.249.94.118
February 4th, 2008 14:47
RON PAUL
RON PAUL
RON PAUL
Posted from: 165.254.143.3
February 4th, 2008 15:02
I care less about experience in elected public office and more about dedication to public service.
Ryan, I admire your passion for Obama, but I think it’s a gross mischaracterization of Senator Clinton’s record to call it a “complete failure.” I also think it’s interesting that so many supporters of Obama — who stands for “hope” and “change” and a fundamental change in political discourse – insist in engaging in such considerable vitriol. That seems like old-school politics to me.
I’m not quite sure how law firm experience is any less legitimate than community organizer experience or Obama’s own legal experience, which has been routinely touted as well. But, of course, that sidesteps very significant public service experience that I mentioned above (LSC – an organization that really *makes* change), very significant public service experience that I forgot to mention (Children’s Defense Fund — thank you, Joshua!), and very significant legislative experience and success.
Hillary Clinton broke the mold for First Ladies, both in Arkansas and in the White House. She was intimately involved in policy decisions in both places; we need only remember GOP criticisms of this throughout both Bill Clinton’s gubernatorial and presidential administrations. Characterizing her involvement as “egg rolls” and “linens” and, apparently, nothing more, makes me really uncomfortable.
I like a lot of what Obama is saying. I like how he says it, and he’s got a lot of talent. But I wouldn’t put my star novice declamation competitor as the captain of my team. I’d rather put someone experienced, hardened, who has had some failures and learned from them, and who has demonstrated a record of standing up for the principles I support, in charge.
Posted from: 165.254.143.3
February 4th, 2008 15:04
(All that having been said, your point about the rhetorical issues surrounding the word “liberal” is very well taken. They both seem insistent on using the word “progressive” to sidestep this issue, though.)
Posted from: 71.160.56.34
February 4th, 2008 15:34
I will be honest. I have voted in 3 previous Presidential elections. I voted: Clinton, Nader, Nader.
I don’t like Democrats, generally. I consider myself to be a very, very liberal individual, both fiscally and socially, but Democrats just annoy the crap out of me. Lexy Green had me read an article by Andrew Sullivan that sums up what I feel about Dems:
“Clinton grew up saturated in the conflict that still defines American politics. As a liberal, she has spent years in a defensive crouch against triumphant post-Reagan conservatism. The mau-mauing that greeted her health-care plan and the endless nightmares of her husband’s scandals drove her deeper into her political bunker. Her liberalism is warped by what you might call a Political Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome. Reagan spooked people on the left, especially those, like Clinton, who were interested primarily in winning power. She has internalized what most Democrats of her generation have internalized: They suspect that the majority is not with them, and so some quotient of discretion, fear, or plain deception is required if they are to advance their objectives. And so the less-adept ones seem deceptive, and the more-practiced ones, like Clinton, exhibit the plastic-ness and inauthenticity that still plague her candidacy. She’s hiding her true feelings. We know it, she knows we know it, and there is no way out of it.”
For the most part I think that Dems, nationally, have been spineless and uninspired, rolling over to take another from the stronger, more confident, prepared, and more organized GOP. Why is anyone surprised that people vote against their own interest all the time in favor of the principle’s espoused by the right? I’m shocked there are any Democrats in congress. Although, it seems Dems win out of protest more than out of possibility.
I really can’t stand Hillary Clinton. She seems fraudulent to me. I think we saw her sincerity only once in this campaign. This was her “You helped me find my voice” speech after New Hampshire. I also feel like she is a candidate who feels as though it is her “turn.” Her experience in policy-making is a plus.
Barack seems to be more sincere, but I worry that he is not well-vetted. Any last minute revelation by the Republicans can spell a disaster for the Democrats.
In McCain I see someone who, primarily, is a militarist. I think domestically he doesn’t really stand for anything. Maybe lower taxes, maybe not. I think this is why conservatives don’t really trust him. I also have a tough time trusting him. But I also think he embrasses the *maverick* label enough that he might actually take time to do some things that are truly bi-partisan. I also don’t worry too much about the courts with him in office. But his willingness to play fast-and-loose with the truth bothers me. In the most recent GOP debates he made three points about Romney. Romney answered all three as untruths and McCain just sat there looking like a goose.
Romney is intriguing only because I think he is a known commodity. He will fight for lower taxes for the upper-class. He will fight for lower taxes for large corporations. He will nominate anti-union judges. I think he will expand US military operations. He seems to be more principled than McCain or Clinton.
Posted from: 24.6.64.186
February 4th, 2008 16:07
Although, I unfortunately cannot vote, I’m a strong supporter of Hillary. For starters, I think that Hillary is more confident and experienced than any of the other candidates namely Obama. In terms of their policies, I don’t see a stark difference between Obama and Clinton besides her health care plan and her home interest rate plan. I think it ultimately comes down to whether the country’s ready for an african-american president or a woman president. Quite honestly, I feel that sexism is far more trivialized in this country than racism. Not to downplay the racism that occurs, but I feel that the glass-roof for woman is far lower than it is for men in general. Moreover, I think many of us are being far too harsh on Hillary for the simple reason that she’s a woman. People have a hard time accepting it, but we would never brand a male candidate as calculating, sly, or aloof. I feel that people dislike Hillary because she is different from the conventional conception of what society thinks a woman ought to be. The one time she got emotional after the Iowa primary, the media pounced on her saying she was trying to play her “woman card”, which is ironic because when she wasn’t emotional, they said she doesn’t act like a woman and she’s all “polarized”. I greatly respect Hillary for ignoring the constant sexist remarks made by her male counterparts as well as women too and doing what she believes in. Finally, I think the “change” that Obama proposes is highly superficial. I would appreciate it if one of the Obama supporters on this thread would clarify what the change really is to me. From what I have inferred, it seems that the politics that Obama advocates for is just another name for the politics that is present in DC already. I feel that Obama has plenty of time to gain experience and run again for president at which point I would surely consider supporting him. Regardless, if Obama wins the primary, I’ll still support him.
Posted from: 165.254.143.3
February 4th, 2008 16:11
Bietz — I am a little confused by the end of your last post. I don’t mean this as a swipe against Romney — I find him the most palatable of all of the Republicans, and I respect my good friend Ryan Hamilton’s work on his campaign — but what do you mean by Romney being more “principled”? This term follows a sentence in which you acknowledge Romney will lower taxes for the upper class and for corporations, and that he will nominate anti-union judges. Do you mean that he will stick to his *own* principles?
Posted from: 165.254.143.3
February 4th, 2008 16:12
I agree so, so much with Narayan’s post. Very well said.
Posted from: 71.160.56.34
February 4th, 2008 16:35
Cruz: something to be said for a known commodity that a Democratic congress won’t get suckered into… although they get suckered into everything else.
Narayan: “I feel that sexism is far more trivialized in this country than racism. Not to downplay the racism that occurs, but I feel that the glass-roof for woman is far lower than it is for men in general.”
From Human Rights Watch:
“The disproportionate representation of black Americans in the U.S. criminal justice system is well documented. Blacks comprise 13 percent of the national population, but 30 percent of people arrested, 41 percent of people in jail, and 49 percent of those in prison. Nine percent of all black adults are under some form of correctional supervision (in jail or prison, on probation or parole), compared to two percent of white adults. One in three black men between the ages of 20 and 29 was either in jail or prison, or on parole or probation in 1995. One in ten black men in their twenties and early thirties is in prison or jail. Thirteen percent of the black adult male population has lost the right to vote because of felony disenfranchisement laws.”
Posted from: 71.160.56.34
February 4th, 2008 16:36
It’s the glass-ceiling, not roof. That’s on fire.
Posted from: 24.6.64.186
February 4th, 2008 16:48
my bad, bietz.
Posted from: 136.152.145.182
February 4th, 2008 16:49
+1 on Hillary’s apparent insincerity. If you listen to the tones in her voice, I always hear a plea for us to think she’s sincere. This is just a feeling, so I can’t really defend this, but every Hillary says seems thoroughly vetted, and calculated to win votes rather than espouse an identity. I agree their policy positions are very similar, but I’ve seen them both in person, and had a conversation with Obama, and I just think that Hillary flat out can’t lead the way Barack has the potential to.
Posted from: 66.176.42.254
February 4th, 2008 17:01
I think you’re taking Narayan’s point out of context. Obama has definitely not departed from traditional D.C. politics. Bill’s “fairy tale” remark was deliberately twisted into a racial slur rather than examining his actual argument, Obama began the attacks against Hillary in the heated debate in S.C. by linking Hillary to the corporate board of Wal-Mart, and as Narayan put, he doesnt have a position that illustrates a change from Washington thinking. Nevertheless, Hillary is criticized as being ruthless, a fearmonger, and a racist. We must remember that this is a democratic primary. While most of the statistics you point to may hold true in the conservative areas of the country, I think liberals are notorious for reverse discrimination. We are not yet at the point where we set both whites and blacks on equal footing. I think this sentiment may be partly responsible for the forgiveness over Obama’s lack of experience. If he was a white candidate, I dont think he could get away with it.
What is appalling is the snide remarks politcos make about Hillary’s gender…I think that if Hillary was a man, she would have very low unfavorables. Much of the opposition to her charachter deals with her ruthlessness or lack of principle. I think most of these attacks are based in gender bias.
Posted from: 69.134.16.205
February 4th, 2008 17:13
I agree with Jay. To me it seems that Hillary simply is running off a platform that outlines her desire for power. It seems like it is more of a “Bill was president, and now I want to be as well.” Again, just like Jay this is more of a feeling, but I sincerely feel that she seems like she calculates her answers to even the most basic question. For example in the Democratic Debates, a question was asked about the difference between her and the previous Clinton era. She talked about how 35 years back she helped children. Now I understand they want to dodge leading questions, but that is a bit obvious and dilatory.
I believe Obama is right in saying that you want someone who is experienced, but also right. I dont think Clinton will win if she gets the nomination. It might be because I’m from Chapel Hill but from simply asking around and listening to people discussing candidates many people would vote for McCain/Romney over Clinton.
I think Obama can also bring the nation together, where as Clinton’s “tried and true” approach to being a Democrat would polarize it.
Posted from: 71.160.56.34
February 4th, 2008 17:17
Joshua: How am I taking Naryan’s point out of context? On what basis do you believe that “if Hillary was a man, she would have very low unfavorables?” I don’t necessarily disagree with you. I don’t think it is as cut-and-dry as you make it. Oppositional politics is something I feel as though I am fairly cognizant. I do disagree with you that if a white person wouldn’t “get away” with what Obama gets away with? I’m not sure what you mean by “get away with.”
Also, Clinton exploits gender much more than Obama exploits his race. Clinton brought Bill (a mistake as it seems) to be the “heavy” in the campaign *against* Obama. Also, her crying also exploits this same thing. She must have been reading some polls before New Hampshire because today she cried again at an event. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/04/hillary-clinton-cries-in-_n_84823.html
Posted from: 71.160.56.34
February 4th, 2008 17:24
Narayan - my ceiling comment wasn’t so much to be critical so much as to make the joke. about the roof. which is on fire.
Posted from: 75.71.25.178
February 4th, 2008 17:33
OBAMANIA!
Among other reasons, from a speech standpoint he is a superb orator.
Full speaker points Mr. Obama, full speaks.
too bad I cant vote.
Posted from: 64.61.74.106
February 4th, 2008 17:43
I’m an enthusiastic Clinton supporter (and I’m also late to a Clinton event, so I have to keep this quick). Like Jon, I believe in her platform. Considering where our country currently stands, I just don’t feel comfortable with the gamble that is Barack Obama. I’m fine with the change message, but I simply don’t see how exactly he’ll bring about change. Ah, right, with unity! Oooh. I don’t know what that means and, moreover, I don’t WANT to necessarily be united with some of the pols across the aisle. I’m sorry, but experience in actually achieving change matters in my book. My teenage sister has health care BECAUSE of HRC’s work. That’s real change. Let’s think back to 92– I love Bill Clinton, but remember the clusterfuck that was his first year or two? I want someone who knows what they’re doing from day 1. Hillary Clinton has shown proven leadership, so I’m voting for her tomorrow.
Posted from: 66.108.84.96
February 4th, 2008 17:49
Jay — I’d argue that Barack Obama’s rhetoric is the most calculating, vetted, and tailored of the entire field.
Posted from: 66.108.84.96
February 4th, 2008 17:57
The “crying” today was after a kind introduction from a friend at an event.
Posted from: 71.160.56.34
February 4th, 2008 18:01
“vetted” is one of Clinton’s positives. She has been examined and dissected and taken apart and ridiculed and checked. That means there won’t be surprises at the last minute.
a negative of obama is that he is not well-vetted. I worry about last minute surprises.
Posted from: 66.176.42.254
February 4th, 2008 18:01
“On what basis do you believe that “if Hillary was a man, she would have very low unfavorables?””
The core of the anti-Hillary movement attacks her character. The character attacks they make would not be made if she was a man. I think this is cut and dry. I agree a comparative statement like, “Who is a greater victim of prejudice, Hillary or Obama?” is harder to answer.
“I do disagree with you that if a white person wouldn’t “get away” with what Obama gets away with? I’m not sure what you mean by “get away with.””
“Also, Clinton exploits gender much more than Obama exploits his race.”
Why is Obama the candidate for change? How can he effectively sell that? He doesn’t have a record to back that claim up. He gets away with it because he is a physical embodiment for change. Because of this, I feel that most of Obama’s campaign is based on his race. This isn’t clearly apparent. Nevertheless, it is one of the only ways I can justify his level of credibility with his lack of credentials. Hillary has more leverage to appeal to women because she has enacted greater reform for women in America than Obama has enacted for African Americans. After watching the video for both crying incidents, I feel that both were genuine. The antagonism she has received for crying only furthers my point. People claim that her displays of emotion aren’t genuine and simply are last ditch attempts to boost her performance in polls. If a male cried, they would probably lose all support for being girlish, but no one would question that they were genuine.
Posted from: 66.108.84.96
February 4th, 2008 18:05
Agreed with Bietz. I was using the term “vetted” in the sense that his aides have helped him tailor his message and choose his rhetoric and design his message. I didn’t mean media-vetted. Right now, he’s pretty much gotten a free pass. RIght now.
Posted from: 71.104.246.208
February 4th, 2008 18:08
I cannot vote (16 years old), but to me the greatest advantage (policies aside) that Obama has over Clinton is that he could actually win November. Clinton, especially if she is pitted against McCain, will be hard pressed to garner a sizeable amount of independent votes. For many Americans, particularly independents, Hillary is too divisive and calculating. In comparison, McCain thrives on independent voters. Moreover, McCain has done a better than anticipated job of getting support from the Republican base (look at Florida). Basically, a McCain/Clinton general election will almost certainly go in McCain’s direction. The thought of McCain, or any Republican for that matter, being president makes me bleed inside.
So, on that note, if I were voting, i would vote Obama because he could actually win in November. Obama would mobilize the anti-war democratic base far more than McCain would mobilize the Republican base. To boot, Obama is also extremely talented at garnering independent votes, given his awe-inspiring oratorical ability, likeable personality, and great life story.
Posted from: 72.80.248.101
February 4th, 2008 18:17
I would be pleased to vote for either Clinton or Obama in November. The reason people seem to enjoy Obama’s campaign for change is that his speeches are eloquent and powerfully liberal. However, I don’t believe Obama has the gravity to be a successful president. His words are lovely, but if he were able to implement this change message, we would see more than just striking words in his experience.
Hillary Clinton has the experience to take actions, Obama does not. Ryan, does not seem to understand that that while he makes jokes about her “picking the linens for state dinners” she has valuable experience, in and out of the white house.
While many can give reasons why they don’t support some candidates, they allow that to validate a vote for Obama, but his lack of experience will take his bold ambitions longer to materialize than many seem to know. Obama to me provides more words than actual evidence of his qualifications.
Hillary’s years in senate during a particularly delicate time for New York, demonstrate her ability to adapt to the needs of the nation. Her understanding of what CAN be accomplished given government bureaucracy far surpasses Obama’s. The bottom line is that She IS more qualified.
While I am tempted to vote for Obama’s words and dreams, and will if Hillary is not the democratic candidate in November. I believe that her experience and understanding of what is a reality and what is possible surpasses that of Obama’s words. The bottom line is that both are fine candidates but, when it comes down to experience, Obama does not have enough to follow through with his plans for change.
Posted from: 69.181.125.125
February 4th, 2008 18:30
a tidbit about electability: the national journal polled a large group of republican senators and representatives on whom they would like their party to run against in november. 70 percent of them would rather run against hillary clinton than barack obama. just food for thought.
Posted from: 71.104.246.208
February 4th, 2008 18:32
Hillary Clinton will literally mobilize Republicans against her. They will vote against her, not in favor of McCain. I really think that nominating Hillary for president would be a waste of a perfectly good chance for the democrats to take back this once great country. If she is nominated, she will lose, and we will have to suffer through four or even eight more years of more of the same Republican shit.
Posted from: 75.134.142.27
February 4th, 2008 18:34
While I have many other reasons for supporting Obama the most important for me is that I think he has a much better shot at winning in November.
According to a Rasmussen report the potential matchups would break down as follows (in MN at least):
Clinton V. McCain
Clinton: 44%
McCain: 44%
Obama V. McCain
Obama:47%
McCain:41%
Clinton V. Romney
C: 49%
R: 40%
Obama V. Romney
O: 52%
R: 36%
The key factor in my mind is going to be independent voters and Hilary is just viewed in a negative light by way to many people. Here are how peoples opinions break down:
Very unfavorable
C: 32%
O:17%
M:17%
R:24%
Very Favorable
C: 23%
O: 31%
M:18%
R:11%
Looking at the numbers Obama is the best bet for a democratic victory.
Posted from: 75.72.79.154
February 4th, 2008 18:36
Let me respond to Joshua’s question for a second.
You say Obama has no track record for change. 1. I’d say that voting “present” to send the message he wants to work out a better deal on the same subject instead of believing in purely partisan politics is change. I’d say that getting a large percentage of Independent voters is something that the other Dems can’t offer. I’d say inspiring enough young people so instead of cameras and tripod camcorders at his victory speech in Iowa, there were iPhones and Cell Phones, representing the younger movement that he has inspired. He’s one of us. He’s part of the younger generation.
Our nation is at a crossroads. Whatever the right decision is, it has to be made soon. Why? If it isn’t obvious to you, read this: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/magazine/27world-t.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&ref=magazine&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Regardless of what happens, it’s our generation that has to deal with the consequences. I want someone who can really deal with the issues because he knows he has to live with them.
2. I’d say that on top of all of that, Obama’s lack of a record makes him the symbol for change. He’s new to the table, and he doesn’t fit the mold of the rest of the candidates.
Posted from: 66.176.42.254
February 4th, 2008 18:37
Numbers are meaningless until the republican attack machine gets into gear. Kerry was far ahead of Bush before swiftboating season.
Posted from: 71.104.246.208
February 4th, 2008 18:37
tru dat
Posted from: 75.72.79.154
February 4th, 2008 18:37
wow, that’s impressive research Theis. I’ve been looking for a decent MN poll for about a week
Posted from: 71.104.246.208
February 4th, 2008 18:37
i was saying tru dat to chris’ post, not yours
Posted from: 71.123.192.89
February 4th, 2008 18:38
I find it interesting that people who are supposed to be the most informed high school/college people in the country make claims that are both warrantless and without proof. For example - the comment about Hillary’s questionable personal ethics. What questionable personal ethics. Honestly, the worst thing this woman has ever done was stand by her man when many women would have taken the easy way out and divorced him. From the time I was 13 and my brother had her as a law professor at the University of Arkansas, I have never known of anything she did that was not for the good of other people. While in the end, I will likely to vote for the democrat nominee in November, I hope people recognize there is a difference in saying there is a need for change and being a proven agent of change as Hillary has been for over 30 years. She could have sat in a huge law office and make an enormous amount of money, but she has been in public service. If she would not have married Bill Clinton and moved to Arkansas, she was going to be a child advocate not a high powered attorney of slum lords. (opps I just made an adhominem but at least mine was the truth). Also — Barak is a first term senator = he doesn’t have the knowledge or experience to deal with the foreign leaders whom Hillary already knows. As First Lady she has a great deal of knowledge of and already relationships with these leaders. For for someone who has proved to be a facilitator of change… not one who sounds good but says nothing specific.
You would HATE to lose a debate round against someone who just sounded good and you had more ink on the paper… think about this when listening to Hillary - she has ink on the page — Barak just speaks well.
Hoping the primary elections in Texas have meaning.
Posted from: 71.104.246.208
February 4th, 2008 18:38
To Joshua:
The Republican base will take action against Hillary. You have NO idea…
Posted from: 71.104.246.208
February 4th, 2008 18:40
None of Hillary’s merits mean anything if she cant win.
Posted from: 75.134.142.27
February 4th, 2008 18:40
Also Barack is even able to win over some Republicans something Hilary will never be able to do. For example my Dad has not once in his life voted for a democrat yet he will be caucusing for Obama tomorrow. Thank god.
Posted from: 71.104.246.208
February 4th, 2008 18:43
I have a friend who has been phone-polling for Obama. People just like the dude. They will vote for him and we will finally have a president who isnt a fiery ball of evil.
Posted from: 66.176.42.254
February 4th, 2008 18:46
“1. I’d say that voting “present” to send the message he wants to work out a better deal on the same subject instead of believing in purely partisan politics is change.”
Well, Obama himself defended his “present” votes by saying that they are commonly used in the Illinois legislature to express dissent with the effect of legislation rather than the purpose of legislation. He admits there that this isn’t a change tactic.
“I’d say that getting a large percentage of Independent voters is something that the other Dems can’t offer.”
Republicans have added a new preemptive attack to Obama on top of his lack of experience, they call him one of the most liberal members of the senate. This is relatively easy to prove and Obama will quickly lose a lot of independent support even without Bloomberg running.
“I’d say inspiring enough young people so instead of cameras and tripod camcorders at his victory speech in Iowa, there were iPhones and Cell Phones, representing the younger movement that he has inspired. He’s one of us. He’s part of the younger generation.”
Um…most Americans have cell phones. I have an iPhone and I support Hillary. I think if he gets slaughtered in November, young Americans will learn an important lesson, speeches aren’t the primary component of politics.
“2. I’d say that on top of all of that, Obama’s lack of a record makes him the symbol for change. He’s new to the table, and he doesn’t fit the mold of the rest of the candidates.”
Bush. Need I say more.
Then I’ll nominate myself to be president. Jon Cruz can be my running mate.
Posted from: 71.123.192.89
February 4th, 2008 18:50
You are hilarious– I HAVE NO IDEA! Give me a break — I am actually old enough to have voted and lived through the Clinton years ;). The difference is that people say the Republicans will attack her, but she has a record of reaching across the aisle and working with Republican while in the Senate. She is electable. Once people stop falling for the “but he is so inspiring” and look at the facts - then they will realize. That is where the INFORMED citizenry comes in. Inform those who are not informed on facts not feelings.
Posted from: 75.134.142.27
February 4th, 2008 18:51
Wow I dont think I have ever posted so many times in quick succession on a page but this is actually interesting. I think that alot of people are looking at this in the wrong way. Obama and Clinton have WAY more things in common than they do things that are different. No matter which way the primary goes the platform will be roughly the same. So without a HUGE policy difference, I think the choice comes down to who can win. They are both incredible candidates and the personal attacks that are being launched by both sides against each other will be damning when the general elections roll around. The best thing the democrats could do for the republicans this primary season is to divide and or give the republicans the ability to use the attacks that are being made now against us in November.
Posted from: 72.80.248.101
February 4th, 2008 18:53
When we vote Obama because he’s favored among others and not because of his experience (which Hillary has more of) or platform (which is so similar to Hillary’s) then we uproot democracy. The truth is when democrats compromise their vote to strategize against the republicans, then they have already won. At least they are voting for someone who they have full confidence in.
Posted from: 72.80.248.101
February 4th, 2008 18:55
If you vote one way to prevent a vote by another, then its not YOU voting, its them.
Posted from: 75.134.142.27
February 4th, 2008 19:04
I don’t get why experience is such a good thing anyway. Nixon was FAR more experienced in 1960, in fact his campaign slogan against Kennedy was “experience counts”. That was his main attack against Kennedy. I think we all know who turned out to be the better leader. Just because Hilary has been around longer does not mean she would be able the implement the platform the best. I think the fact that Obama is liked on both sides of the aisle and is far less divisive makes it more likely that he would be successful.
Posted from: 72.80.248.101
February 4th, 2008 19:05
Jon would like everyone to know that he is at a Hillary rally right now.
Posted from: 72.80.248.101
February 4th, 2008 19:29
I don’t find Hillary as divisive as many claim. I feel that she still has the capability to reach out and grab voters from many parties (especially given her similar platform to Obama, who apparently has these capabilities). With regard to experience, I mean that Hillary’s experiences in politics have demonstrated her ability to enact change and help, whereas I don’t see that from Obama. Don’t get me wrong I believe he has the drive and desire to enact change, but from an experience standpoint I don’t see the change. Remember, I’m still not a fan of voting for strategy. But, I don’t understand why people will support Obama but NOT Hillary. If Hillary loses it is likely that her supporters will vote Obama. If Obama loses I don’t believe his voters will ignore the platform they wanted, and so logically they would still vote for Hillary. If they don’t then it is evident that they vote for Obama’s words and not his platform, in which case he’s not the deserving candidate. So, saying that Obama is more likely to win is hardly a good reason to vote for him anyway.
Posted from: 160.94.28.143
February 4th, 2008 19:52
The Obama camp always paints electability as a HUGE Obama strength, when its really not that clear, despite how your dad votes, theis. From yesterday
http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Vote2008/Story?id=4233020&page=3
“Among the general public overall, it’s a 49-46 percent McCain-Clinton race and a 46-49 percent McCain-Obama race; those 3-point differences are not enough to constitute a lead for either McCain vs. Clinton or Obama vs. McCain, given sampling tolerances. Clinton-Romney standings are 53-41 percent, Obama-Romney, a wider 59-34 percent.”
The advantage that Obama has over Clinton in a McCain contest is within error. Attitudes will change over the course of the election with candidate exposure, and the fact that Hillary is more experienced at fighting the Republican noise machine will serve her well in the general. The anti-Clinton movement is already in the conservative mainstream, she’ll be less surprised (and better equipped) to deal with an inevitable cheapshot. Of course that’s all speculation, as all of this crap is. Regardless, the losing dem NEEDS to send their pack of voters to the party candidate. I’m more worried about the Obama camp not voting for Clinton than I am the other way around, but the loser needs to make a clear endorsement because Obama and Clinton are functionally the same candidate (despite what I find to be some ignorant idealistic differences in foreign policy), just with different prospects of getting things done.
Also interesting,
“If Clinton is the nominee, 15 percent of Democrats say they’d rather vote for McCain; if Obama’s the nominee, 20 percent say they’d go to McCain. A key factor is the extent to which those intraparty tempers cool after the Democratic race is decided.”
Posted from: 64.91.217.43
February 4th, 2008 20:01
although the texas primary is not until early march, i will definitely be voting for barack. 2 primary issues i am concerned with happen to be healthcare and the war in iraq, and barack’s proposal for solving the huge lack of healthcare in the country seems a lot more appealing to both republicans and democrats alike; subsequently, the malleability of his proposal is more re-assuring in terms of it actually coming to be. also, i think hillary is way too soft on the iraq issue, whereas barack has had a firm opinion in relation to the war for a long time. moreover, after reading several different newspaper articles, it seems a lot more logical for a general democrat win if barack gets the spot; texas is where that comes into play. john mccain needs to win the republican spot because generally texans will straight up not vote for him. additionally, texans will straight up not vote for hillary. barack, however, has a pretty strong following here, and has the power to make a prominent red state go blue. the end.
Posted from: 64.91.217.43
February 4th, 2008 20:03
to make my post make a little more sense, everyone who is voting tomorrow please vote for barack, so i can vote for him later. texas will be a big win for the democrats if it’s barack v. mccain. obamania continue!
Posted from: 75.134.142.27
February 4th, 2008 20:15
Hogan, you would post for the first time in forever just to contradict me. The problem with the poll you posted is that it is a poll of random people not registered or even likely voters. Beyond that however when has Hilary ever been able to successfully withstand the republican attack machine on a national stage? Barack disables the attacks because mud-slinging is not effective if their own base likes the guy personally even if they disagree politically. Either way though Tim is right people need to support who ever the candidate is.
Posted from: 136.242.129.93
February 4th, 2008 20:43
A couple of things: whatever is said about this community, the idea that it is ideologically diverse is nonsense, and this thread proves it because I am the singular Republican on this thread of sixty two comments.
Secondly, I haven’t been more happy about the state of the Democratic Party ever before. The fissures opening now, I think, at least, are the beginnings of a civil war that will engulf your party (though I cannot say my fellows in the GOP may not succumb to a similar situation, especially if the Arizona spoiler gets elected).
Posted from: 71.160.56.34
February 4th, 2008 20:47
John Edwards is still on the ballot in California. This is who I will be casting my ballot for tomorrow.
Posted from: 66.108.84.96
February 4th, 2008 20:56
“You would HATE to lose a debate round against someone who just sounded good and you had more ink on the paper… think about this when listening to Hillary - she has ink on the page — Barak just speaks well.”
So well put. (And so much better than my lame attempt at a debate analogy.)
Posted from: 138.16.32.79
February 4th, 2008 20:56
bietz- why edwards?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/25/feingold-rips-edwards-aga_n_83225.html
russ was my first choice for this gig almost a year ago, so what he says carries a lot of weight with me…
Posted from: 134.84.33.251
February 4th, 2008 21:15
Quinn, I would be willing to bet Pam wycoffs undying love on Texas staying a red state, but good luck.
Skeletor, no poll strongly disagrees…without one that does I don’t think its off the mark to say electability is not as huge for Obama as his camp plays up. I also really doubt that the Republicans are going to lighten up and go easy on Obama because they think he’s a nice guy. And I’d be willing to bet the experienced Clinton PR defense will be better than Obama’s since that family has been in the conservative crosshairs for so long. Especially with Hillarycare 2.0, she has hopefully learned some tricks. But like I said those types of things are impossible to prove at this point.
Ryan, is the gross liberal slant really a surprise? I think the difference between the dem infighting and republican infighting appears to be that the base is still committed to either candidate. For example the Left’s Ann Coulter/Limbaugh (I have no idea who that is for us, actually) haven’t announced that they are campaigning for the other side/blasted the nature of their platform as “against core party values.” Same goes for the nature of the Obama/Clinton debates. Most of the debates for the dems have been over silly personality differences.
Posted from: 75.73.219.151
February 4th, 2008 21:17
HOGAN YOU SHOULD KNOW BETTER THAN TO RUN EMPIRICS AGAINST THEIS.
That being said, I was reflecting upon my earliest memories of debate the other day (since I recently debated what I believe to be my last round, I’ve gotten extremely nostalgic). Anyways, come along with me as we journey back to my freshman year of ‘04…
I was a freshfaced youngster unaware of the large legacy his senior teammates had left him from the years prior. An enthusiastic and verbally abusive John Scoggin is starting his debate career alongside me at Edina, just as his sister’s debate career is just taking off. Nolan Green has decided to pursue debate at St. Thomas Academy, rather than repping the good ol’ green n’ white (he later recanted). I have yet to be taken under the wing of the ever intelligent/helpful Mihir Gupta, and I’m in the midst of an election year especially fraught with conflict. Little do I know that in addition to the legacy left by debaters past, I am left with one of the most well-known coaches in the nation: Mike Bietz. His glasses, longer, curling hair, and constant need to check his Blackberry (which, I believe, at the time, were quite a hot item, similar to having an iPhone nowadays) made him something of a cool neighbor-figure that happened to just happen to be in the area and wander his way to debate practice every week because he wanted to rather than due to any prior obligations.
I was still imbued with the naïveté of my youth, and I was utterly confident, nay, DAMN SURE of my right wing beliefs. Sitting down in the couches in the teachers lounge (i.e. the debate practice room, which now happens to be a cafe run by the school and where I now attend weekly table-tennis practices after what seemed like 10 years of renovations), I sat quietly and waited for someone to signal for practice to start (Ann Weigand, the novice coach at the time, seemed to have a difficult time getting Scoggin to cooperate, along with his then-crony, Thomas Kakalios).
The election that were coming in seemed to indicate the same things: Bush was winning. Of course, I had no idea that I was entering a notoriously left-wing (occasionally bizarrely and crazily so) activity. Mike Bietz comes in, and sits down on a couch across from me. To be honest, I’m not sure if I even knew he was a coach at this time, since I think this was perhaps my second practice. Joe Schmidt, the policy coach, sits down next to him and they begin to chat about the election. The one line (which is not in its exact form, but is true to the original meaning) that Mike Bietz said that stayed with me all these years was: “I don’t see how a country that calls itself ‘the Land of the Free’ can elect someone who actively opposes gay marriage!” My friend, who knew how outspoken I was on right wing issues, smiles and looks at me, expecting a retort. However, 9th grade Jordan Grimstad is not yet arrogant or confident enough in himself to challenge an adult’s political views (perhaps luckily so).
Now here I am, four years later, and a week ago or so I just debated my final round with John Scoggin. I seem to have come full circle, in some sense. The panel in the round prior to that one round included the first good debater I ever remember watching (Christian Tarsney), one of the first judges I’ve ever had (Fischer), and a judge who, in my first years debating, I would typically have a difficult time adapting to, but managed to learn how to by the end (Fones).
But since that one line that I found so controversial at the time, I’ve undergone a major political shift since my time in debate. I’m still a right winger on punishing criminals, abortion issues, gun control, taxes, and some other generic stuff, but I’ve noticed a profound shift in the ways I look at how war is conducted, what rights people ought to have, what people’s personal responsibilities ought to be, etc. I’ve become more attuned to women’s issues (I know this may look like it contradicts the abortion issue, but believe me, I make it work) and queer issues. I think I’ve gained a very very strong distaste for the religious right (personally I believe they’re an embarrassment to the rational right; not to go on a rant here {in the words of Miller}, but despite the fact that I’m now ambivalent about the issue of gay marriage, there are probably plenty of economic {i.e. rational} reasons as to why gay marriage isn’t necessarily good for society on the whole, and saying ‘ITS AGAINST GODS WILL’ just makes you look stupid, but that’s a whole other issue). I’ve definitely learned that any policy issue must be backed by a strong leader that knows what he’s doing, and my allegiance has shifted from Bush to anyone else who knows what the hell they’re doing and won’t try to throw money at lost causes. I personally believe that the Iraq invasion is still morally justified; however, I’d much rather have a president that could carry out their ideas effectively rather than a president who could carry out ideas that overlap with mine ineffectively. At this point, I’m curious to see how a democratic president could handle the country, but at the same time I’d prefer a rational right winger in power. I don’t have the sense that there are any such candidates, so I may be voting libertarian this election. I really have no idea though, and I’m going to have to see how things shake out. At this point in time, I’m praying Obama gets picked over Clinton, since I would strongly prefer not to have anything resembling a dynasty in the White House again.
I hope you enjoyed this coming of age tale, and I hope I didn’t render it incoherent in my 45 mins+ of writing it.
Posted from: 75.134.142.27
February 4th, 2008 21:29
Bulldog, I did not say the republicans would not try to attack him I said that the attacks would not stick. Also, You say you havn’t seen any numbers that show electability going strongly in Obama’s favor, You should look at post # 40 I think those are pretty strong. Finally If she has these “tricks” what are they and why hasn;t she utilized them yet?
P.S. Some kids in study hall were talking about how hot they think your mom is… how does that make feel?
Posted from: 68.11.25.35
February 4th, 2008 21:43
Re: post 18. As far as I can tell, Barack’s message of change isn’t so much Washington-based change as it is my, yours, and everyone’s change. A change to a belief in the goodness of humanity and to a spirit of togetherness in the face of adversity. I know those phrases are horribly cliche, but I think his message of change is that we should no longer think that those ideas are cliche, or the stuff of “fairy tales.” His hero lived in an era that saw the rise of optimistic, idealistic American Transcendental thought, and I think he’s drawing on that optimism. To his credit, I think that most great political world leaders have touched on those ideas and have sought to bring them forth.
Posted from: 66.108.84.96
February 4th, 2008 21:55
People said Hillary Clinton could never, ever win the Senate seat in New York. She did. In a landslide. Then she won again. In a landslide.
The electability “issue” is old non-news. Clinton and Obama would both be competitive with the Republican nominee…particularly if the GOP decides to put the mean-spirited, out-of-touch John “Keating Five” McCain at the head of the ticket.
Posted from: 138.16.32.79
February 4th, 2008 21:57
whether you support obama or not, this is pretty cool: http://www.dipdive.com/
you got common in there kareem abdul jabbar, it’s a will.i.am production (hip hop is dead).
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
February 4th, 2008 22:10
HUCKABEE HUCKABEE HUCKABEE HUCKABEE HUCKABEE
Posted from: 68.209.198.15
February 4th, 2008 22:12
this sums up my decision:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjYv2YW6azE
Posted from: 68.209.198.15
February 4th, 2008 22:14
a brief interjection of seriousness: wait, are there actually people who think texas has a chance of going blue? am i missing something?
Posted from: 75.72.79.154
February 4th, 2008 22:15
Joshua, they can run all the attack ads they want against him. Hilary’s already tried it. It doesn’t work.
His voting record to those who understand it speaks for itself. Let’s say he is the most liberal senator. Voting “present” usually means that you are willing to vote for a similar bill, just not the current version. He can be as liberal as can be, but the will to compromise is something that cannot be overlooked.
You miss the point. No other candidate has the appeal to our group. You are part of the demographic Obama Targets. You are the generation that will grow up without a true foe to US policy, and yet, it’s influence globally seems so low (refer to the link in my last post). Have you looked at the demographics of the primaries so far? Huge surges in YOUNG LIBERAL VOTERS. Why? Because they’ve found a messenger to DC. Barack’s goal is to try and channel all the energy that goes into the “Save Darfur” movements, and move it into politics where it can set a policy that can do more than they could imagine. That’s the message I’m trying to point out he’s sending.
Good for you and Jon, good luck finding 10 people to vote for you guys outside of your friends and family.
Obama is a politician that has no record of being a run of the mill liberal, that’s the appeal.
Re: Jane
Locally in MN, there’s a Judge by the name of John Brown (I’ll leave my personal perspective out of this one). When I debated in front of him vs. Grimstad @ Nat Quals, he said that Jordan was more persuasive than I was, and that’s what got his ballot.
To put that in context, if your a policy oriented Dem, you should have been pushing for Richardson, who’s a great guy personally (I’ve meet him before, and he’d be a great president), but he’s a policy nerd.
The point being, while I had hella answers on the Flow to what Jordan was saying, I wasn’t making it clear to the Judge why any of those reasons should make him care, whereas Jordan was telling a solid story, and being persuasive in doing so.
You could have the greatest platform ever, but if you can’t communicate it, you’re bound to fail. Same goes for foreign leaders. You can have a strategy for global success between two nations, but if you can’t explain it to the other leader, it doesn’t matter.
“I hope people recognize there is a difference in saying there is a need for change and being a proven agent of change as Hillary has been for over 30 years…” I’m sorry, but being around for 30 years in politics, and being the Husband of the last Democrat President who still wields tremendous power within the party is not change. Change implies something new, a different direction, not 30 YEARS OF THE SAME MESSAGE>
Posted from: 75.72.79.154
February 4th, 2008 22:16
and Grimstad, I followed your post. I found myself laughing at what havoc TK and Scoggin must have caused
Posted from: 68.209.198.15
February 4th, 2008 22:16
hella illegit triple post:
grimstad what the hell
Posted from: 75.72.158.189
February 4th, 2008 22:28
I would without question risk pams love on MN staying blue as well theis, and thats only a 1 state poll youve got, not a national one, also likely within a margin of error (44/44 and 47/41). the point being what cruz just said: electability is a null issue for obama even though its played up like its going to make the campaign. and stop spreading rumors about my mom. gross.
Posted from: 68.98.109.16
February 4th, 2008 22:30
This should shock no one. Ron Paul. Here’s why:
I’m an Arizona-registered GOP voter. I think calling McCain a republican is as ridiculous as calling Lieberman a democrat - he stands for none of the values of the party. That said, I’ll vote GOP in the general election if he is the candidate even though the two most famous pieces of legislation bearing his name involve stifling freedom of speech and rejecting the notion of law being the basis of a country that is a republic and instead allowing immigration under the notion that if we can’t stop it we might as well adapt to it and ignore the law. Mitt Romney is only slightly better than McCain , but both of these candidates are unprincipled and change their viewpoints in the direction the wind blows.
I agree with Ron Paul in all areas except the War in Iraq, and frankly that isn’t an important issue to me. He also offered me an internship; while I took the one with Congressman Tancredo instead, that always counts for something. I think fiscal responsibility in government requires a drastically reduced role of government in society and a drastically reduced taxation policy. I think that the regulation of corporations stifles the free market, and economic growth and prosperity requires the free market to reign supreme.
Posted from: 24.155.229.81
February 4th, 2008 22:38
I haven’t read this entire thread, just don’t have the time, so I apologize if I am missing some things, or beating a dead horse. But, Ms. Boyd, given that you directly question my intellect and credibility, I thought I might answer you. To say that Hillary’s ethics are questionable is warrantless and unproven , is quite simply to ignore history. I, like most, am a strong believer that a person is innocent until proven guilty…and I don’t think that Hillary has been proven guility of anything, but this is not to say her ethics are not QUESTIONABLE. Let me give just one example: From 1978-1979, Hillary, who had NO experience in trading cattle options whatsoever, turned $1000 into $100,000. This is a rate of return better than George Soros ever saw. Economists have used computer models to determine the chances of this happening to be about 1/250 million. What is more odd is that when asked about this money she said it was inheritance. Then she claims she made it based off of James Blair’s cattle herd shrinkage theory, which makes no sense considering the vast majority of money she made was due to SHORTING cattle options. So, I don’t know if some people thought it’d be nice to payoff Bill’s wife, but I do think it is fair to say her ethics are QUESTIONABLE. As in they can be drawn into question. And this is to say nothing of Watergate, Travelgate, or Vince Foster. And it it is to say nothing of a presidential campaign that has shown no problem lying (claiming Obama said Republicans had the best ideas) and has no problem trying to ghettoize Obama as the black candidate (multiple references to drug use “in the neighborhood,” Bill’s comparisons to Jesse Jackson.)
Moreover, people keep insisting experience is necessary to get things done. I don’t know why this is true. Obama, like all presidents, will have a massive legislative communication office, filled with people who are well connected and have connections are well versed in legislative procedure. What is different about Obama is his ability to re-brand liberal policy. It is easy to see Republicans voting for an Obama healthcare plan, not at all easy to see them voting for Hillary’s. People dismiss Obama as being all sytle and fluff and no substance. This misses the point. With an Obama presidency a) there is a stronger likelihood of large coalition leading to a larger mandate and b) a stronger likelihood that Republicans will cross the aisle and support democratic legislation precisely because of his persona, and his all inviting political rhetoric. Case in point: Mark McKinnon, who made W’s adds and is now working for McCain, has so much respsect for Obama, that he has pledged not to work for McCain if Obama is the nominee. Finally, one thing which I think is not going addressed on this thread is how the presidential nominee will affect down ballot candidates. I have been working on Rick Noriega’s campaign to oust John Cornyn. Texas is a state that has a lot of Hillary haters, whether or not they are justified in their hate, less democrats are going to come to the polls, particularly considering Texas’s electoral irrelevance, if Hillary is the nominee. Obama has the potential to make democrats and independents come to the polls even in Texas, and help someone like Col. Noriega when a seat in the Senate.
Posted from: 72.193.59.38
February 4th, 2008 23:11
I’ve decided to put my foot in the door here, too. I interned for Barack Obama this year, and worked as a precinct captain in my neighborhood. I made nearly 1,000 phone calls in the weeks leading up to the caucus here in Nevada, and proudly canvassed many different neighborhoods for my candidate. The truth is, that Hillary cannot be elected in the general. I keep hearing this ”but she was elected in New York!” response, and it makes me cringe. A U.S. Senate race in an enormously liberal state, with the Clinton beloved name and machine, and she wasn’t expected to win? Come on, people. You have got to be kidding me. I know EIGHT different friends of mine alone, who if Clinton gets the nomination will not vote in the general. And I’m in that demographic. It isn’t that I profoundly dislike her, but it is the fact that I do not trust anyone who is willing to do anything to win. She takes more money from PACs and lobbyists than anyone, including the Republicans. I find that gross. Also, she keeps running on experience. And everywhere I go, including this forum, I hear this more than any other, as the platform for why she should be elected. Barack has MORE time in public office, just because he didn’t start as a U.S. senator because his spouse was a former president, does not mean that he should be discounted. Go to youtube, and look up the JFK?Nixon debates of 1960. NIXON says the same things of JFK, about experience. It’s amazing, like an echo of the criticism of today. You know, everywhere Barack goes and actually has the chance to reach out to people, he closes the Billary machines gap. This has been her contest to lose, and she’s doing a great job of that. And to Jon, who believes Barack is getting an apparent free ride- I respect your opinion greatly, but do you really believe that? This guy is having everything from his father’s religion, to his middle name pressed upon him. AND YES, to end my post, IT IS A MOVEMENT. It’s like my sister pointed out, when she was at the debate in L.A. last thursday: The supporters for Clinton were frigid old women, who tried to pull and break at Obama’s signs (which happened to my sis), and Obama’s supporters were busy touting silhouetted signs of the Senator, and dancing around a drum circle. That’s the difference in the movement, and my demographic, the people who disassociate from frigid old women, will not show up in November.
Posted from: 72.193.59.38
February 4th, 2008 23:38
One more note before I hit the sack, I do not mean to offend frigid old women. You may be vastly different than myself, but I do respect your opinion and I hope that none of you are (if there are any reading this) offended by my recent post.
Also, I’ve seen Barack speak in person 6 times, and have met him twice. On one occasion, we discussed Football. He believed, at the time, that the Bears were a much better team than mine, the Detroit Lions. The following week, the Lions beat the Bears. Aside from that, he inspired me.
Posted from: 67.40.155.155
February 4th, 2008 23:41
I got to see Senator Obama and President Clinton speak last week here in Denver. It was an exciting time for me because historic political movements were making a stop in my home town. The reality is that most of the Obama and Clintons policy agendas are very close. They’re different on some foreign policy matters and the methodology for health care.
What’s really compelling to me are Coop’s arguments about what Sen. Obama brings to the table in gathering votes from Republicans and Independents. The people in the center sway the election. In places like Texas, Missouri, Kentucky, and Colorado, finding a candidate who can appeal to a broad grouping of people has value beyond an indivdiual policy dispute.
Candidates and debaters like us are all sales people. One thing you learn in sales 101 is that selling your products is less relevant than selling yourself to the person in front of you. I tend to believe that Sen. Obama is a better salesperson.
Two interesting asides:
(1) The Clintons tend to run liberal and lean moderate/conservative when they govern.
(2) President Clinton sent cruise missiles into Sudan to go after a well known Al Qaida pharmaceuticals lab (he was simply about 36 hours too late) and he was accused of wagging the dog. Heh.
Michelin Massey
Posted from: 128.101.49.27
February 5th, 2008 00:07
sorry wade but im going to have to go with conan on this one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNOhvKQkY74
Posted from: 128.101.49.27
February 5th, 2008 00:09
sincerely sorry to double post but as long as we’re on the topic of rhetorical genius, yet another reason to vote conan
1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi4-1d9DB9Q
2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bLeVKGSJWE
Posted from: 68.126.6.208
February 5th, 2008 00:28
I can’t even vote (16), but I’ve been following the race very closely and I’m really stuck on the fence between Hillary and Obama. I’ve been leaning toward Hillary for a while just because I think she would make more rational decisions in office and keep the nation in control (and, despite the beliefs of many Hillary bashers, “control” does not mean “impersonal polarity”). Rational decisions would be great for a nation in the delicate situation we are in right now. However, I like Obama a lot. He seems to be a great guy and I really think he’d rally the masses behind him and spart a revived American comeback onto the global scene. I’m not one of those cynics who thinks America is over, but Obama would definately boost our morale.
Cody (my man), I really loved the end of your post and I think it may have affected my stance. The educated young people of the country seem to be behind Obama (if they’re not stuck supporting Ron Paul… but I won’t start with that). I definately preferyoung people to old people. Sounds stupid, but think about it… I think that’s the real *change* that Obama brings to the table. Sure, he hasn’t done much yet because he hasn’t been elected. But I honestly think that the candidate who would bring the most change AFTER being elected would be Obama — the nation would be invigorated.
ps - people since when do we vote just because we think the candidate will win the General Election? I think that’s definately a positive, and it’s important, but it should be a secondary issue. Vote for substance, not strategy.
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
February 5th, 2008 06:50
after reading a very interesting article on this very issue (Hillary v. Barry) in the New Yorker, i feel i can meaningfully contribute to this discussion.
The article noted how the fundamental difference in the two candidates is what their opinion of the presidency is. hillary sees the presidency as the natural leader of the executive branch and a job that is about “getting things done.” Barry O on the other hand sees the president as a post that can guide the legislature and agencies, but isn’t in full control. The president to Obama is primarily a motivator and less an actual doer.
I think there are a few things that are extremely problematic with Hillary’s point of view, which is why i support the big O:
A. She’s just plain wrong. Time and time again we have seen that the president cannot single-handedly “get things done.” In fact, the way the presidency is described in my AP Gov textbook is identical to how Obama thinks of it. The president has the power of the bully pulpit and not much else. Even presidents like FDR and LBJ (doers?) found their successes not in actually implementing policies but in convincing congress to implement them.
B. It’s a continuation of the Bush school of government. Bush et al wholeheartedly believe that the executive really can drive the government, even in a democratic society. This is a belief i find disturbingly mirrored when Hillary talks about people either being with her or against her (not a direct quote, but she did say that if you disagree with her when she thinks something needs to get done, too bad) and when she envisions the presidency as this all-powerful post.
C. Wrong branch of government darlin’. Unfortunately for Hillary legislative success means exactly zero for a president, since they don’t get votes, and can only influence through the bully pulpit. The only reason LBJ was successful in motivating Congress was that the man was owed god knows how many favors by members of Congress. Hillary is not that well liked in Congress, nor is she that feared, thus negating any benefit from her supposed “experience.” The president has an entire staff (i believe this was mentioned before) to do legislative work. This makes her skills if not redundant, irrelevant. Thus, i am left with Barack who has a unique skillset (rhetorical powah) that Hillary does not. Lest we forget, the president is primarily a rhetorical position. not even bush could have done everything he has without first convincing congress/the public that it was necessary in the war on terror. without a clever and fear inspiring catch-phrase, hillary’s policies will go exactly nowhere. in order to be effective, she will have to resort to the very tactics we’ve all grown to hate from our current government.
It frustrates me to see people who i respect so much take what seems to me to be a very clearly incorrect tack on this. Her experience is in politics as usual. You can blather about it all you want, but you can’t deny the fact that hillary gained her supposed experience by toeing the party line (not that barry isn’t a straight up liberal either) and by getting some meager bi-partisan bills passed. To me hillary is the flip-side of the Bush whitehouse’s polarization. That is not something i look forward to. I think ryan is still correct, and i think the numbers chris brings up should be more important than they have been. the president is not a winner take all monarchy. it is first and foremost a compromise post, about working with everyone in government, not telling them what to do. Barack Obama is a candidate that can inspire compromise, not division. That alone is enough to swing my vote.
Posted from: 71.123.192.89
February 5th, 2008 06:54
Ryan, I know there is a lot of speculation about her “ethics”, but all those items are items she was found to have done nothing wrong. BUT this brings up a fabulous point and several have said it. If you vote for someone because of their electability, you are already saying the Republicans will win and you are letting them dictate your vote. The idea of movements, the idea that “old women” are the only ones who support Hillary, and the idea that she is only running on her experience are interesting. Now — referring to the Kennedy - Nixon debates. Interesting point is that people who listened on the radio thought that Nixon won the debate - those who watched on TV thought Kennedy won the debate. Presentation made that difference. Also being in Texas- Kennedy was greatly and is still greatly hated by many of the Older Texans. A quote the other night - “Kennedy was an idiot.” Then again — Texans are a different bred. The election is far from over.
Posted from: 66.108.84.96
February 5th, 2008 07:09
Cody: an Obama supporter crashed the event I was at last night, being obnoxious and barking things at us. Also, our group consisted of mostly under-30s. Lots of gay men in sight, but no frigid old women.
.
I’ve watched Obama supporters take down Clinton signs, tear into her personally (here and elsewhere), crash other rallies, etc. More politics as usual.
.
Anecdotes? Yes. I mention these things because I find it odd that Obama’s all about changing the discourse, but so many Obama supporters are engaging in politics as usual while managing to think they’re doing something all together different. You know I have a lot of respect for you personally, and I’ll respect any choice you make politically, but I guess I kind of wish all Obama supporters would practice what their candidate preaches. The last time I truly believed a candidate was running a different kind of campaign was Bill Bradley’s run in 2000. Before that, Ross Perot in ‘92.
.
I’m about to go out and vote. I’ll say that, if I were an undecided voter, I suspect the post that would most sway me to consider Obama would be Rebar’s latest. I think it’s the most substantive argument I’ve read for Obama on this thread. (I’ve also read the excellent article in The New Yorker that he is referencing, and it is excellent overall.) The reference to our future president as “darlin’” makes me cringe a bit, not going to lie, but I think otherwise a legitimate perception of the difference between the candidates is presented there.
.
P.S. Ryan, Watergate? I think you mean Whitewater? :o) It’s interesting you should mention Watergate, though, since Senator Clinton was a legal counsel who advised the Senate Judiciary Committee on the legal and historical precedents for impeachment.
.
P.P.S. Through Legislative work and legal work, Hillary Clinton has done more for young people than her opponent ever has. I’m more swayed by that commitment to young people than to rhetorical promises about future “change” that are not consistent with campaign practices.
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
February 5th, 2008 07:10
forget about the fissures in the republican party, look at the cracks in the Apple Valley machine. if they can’t stay on message, who will?
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
February 5th, 2008 07:10
EDIT: i meant democratic party. illegit typo steez.
Posted from: 163.231.6.68
February 5th, 2008 07:19
Let me say up front that I have NOT decided who I will vote for on Super Tuesday within the Democratic Party. I would like to articulate that “movement” is a very large term and has been used by a number of politicians over the years to make their candidacies seem larger than normal political campaigns.
As a matter of fact, I remember another “movement” in 1992 when I jumped for joy in a college dormitory lounge to see that William Jefferson Clinton had been elected President. Sen. Obama is running a campaign that is very similar to Bill Clinton’s campaign of “change” in 1992. I just want to hear more than just the phrase “change”. I want to hear substance. How are folks going to lower my health care costs, cut my taxes, or provide my child the opportunity to afford to go to college?
Also, can someone please tell me why the phrase “Yes, we can” for Sen. Obama? I have a 3.5 year old son and he loves Bob the Builder — that is Bob’s signature line on the show.
Happy Super Tuesday to All, Dennis
Posted from: 205.221.1.253