NationStates Jolt Archive

I know there are more candidates however, I am focusing on these two.

Hillary Clinton is the former first lady and current Senator from the State of New York. She is controversial and is trying to show herself to be a centrist.

Barak Obama is a freshman senator from the State of Illinois. Some think he is inexperienced in politics but experience is subjective.

If it was down to these 2 candidates, who would you vote for in the Democratic Primary?

Obama. Anyone but Hillary (except maybe Hitler and like-minded persons).

Invisible third option.

Invisible third option.

There is no 3rd option in this poll.

Hillary is a bloodthirsty, video game-hating arch-bitch and cruel monster. I'd settle for Obama, thanks.

Obama, hands down.

It's a difficult choice. I have to choose the lesser of the two evils here; on one hand, Hitler started a world war, and executed millions of innocent people. But on the other hand, Osama is a bloodthirsty terrorist who would like nothing more than to behead or forcibly convert us to Islam.

There is no 3rd option in this poll.

It's there, just invisible. Try squinting.

This is one of those pick your own poison polls.

Obama.

We have to move away from nepotism. Bush and Bush, Clinton and Clinton. We're falling towards Dynasties, not Presidents. They cash in on the simple fact that they're well-connected and someone in their family was also President. Sometimes this works for the good - FDR - other times it wouldn't. This is one of the latter.

:p I'd say the poll results are pretty telling.

14 - 0. Hell yeah.

We even beat the Daily Kos straw poll where she got 4% of the vote. :p

Obama.

We have to move away from nepotism. Bush and Bush, Clinton and Clinton. We're falling towards Dynasties, not Presidents. They cash in on the simple fact that they're well-connected and someone in their family was also President. Sometimes this works for the good - FDR - other times it wouldn't. This is one of the latter.

You mustn't understand American politics, as Bush Jnr was actually elected into office. It isn't that hard for you to comprehend is it?

Obama has my vote and my heart *blush*

You mustn't understand American politics, as Bush Jnr was actually elected into office. It isn't that hard for you to comprehend is it?

I do understand American politics. People vote for whom they know. Whom they recognize. Who seems familiar. They vote for what they think has worked. All of these give a candidate who has family in politics, ESPECIALLY in the position he/she running for, an advantage.

I do understand American politics. People vote for whom they know. Whom they recognize. Who seems familiar. They vote for what they think has worked. All of these give a candidate who has family in politics, ESPECIALLY in the position he/she running for, an advantage.

Aye, aside from party, most people vote on name recognition.

I do understand American politics. People vote for whom they know. Whom they recognize. Who seems familiar. They vote for what they think has worked. All of these give a candidate who has family in politics, ESPECIALLY in the position he/she running for, an advantage.

Which isn't nepotism. Thats just the problem with elections, idiots vote.

I am the only one who picked hitlery so far.

Which isn't nepotism

Sure it is. Nepotism isn't simply croneyism, it's a general favoring of someone for their family rather than skills or abilities.

Sure it is. Nepotism isn't simply croneyism, it's a general favoring of someone for their family rather than skills or abilities.

For ones own family, that is. It doesn't really apply when I favor say the Bush family by voting for him in the elections. It is a form of favoritism but hardly nepotism.

I like Obama and I like his policies. Hillary on the other hand seems to do whatever is most popular, so I am not sure where she stands. I also don't want to see the white house turned into a family business.

For ones own family, that is. It doesn't really apply when I favor say the Bush family by voting for him in the elections. It is a form of favoritism but hardly nepotism.

Well, the dictionary (Merriam Webster) is sufficiently vague on this that I think it can be called nepotism.

It's semantics at this point though. I think we both agree that voting for candidates based on anything other than their abilities is a bad idea.

Well, the dictionary (Merriam Webster) is sufficiently vague on this that I think it can be called nepotism.

It's semantics at this point though. I think we both agree that voting for candidates based on anything other than their abilities is a bad idea.

Yes, definitely.

Just a question: Can anyone here give an intelligent, rational, and concrete reason why they would not vote for Hillary? Other than "I don't like her", " anyone but HER", or the old standard "Bitch from hell" or even "Clinton for Clinton" argument? Seems like these are the only uneducated reasons people give for disliking her.

I am the only one who picked hitlery so far.

You are a
Social Conservative (18% permissive)
and an...
Economic Liberal (31% permissive)
You are best described as a:
Totalitarian

Makes sense.

Barak Obama

Makes sense.

How so?

Barak Obama

Then why'd you vote for Hillary?

Just a question: Can anyone here give an intelligent, rational, and concrete reason why they would not vote for Hillary? Other than "I don't like her", " anyone but HER", or the old standard "Bitch from hell" or even "Clinton for Clinton" argument? Seems like these are the only uneducated reasons people give for disliking her.

Reasons unique to her? No need. Not going to vote democrat either way.. so that's reason enough.

Just a question: Can anyone here give an intelligent, rational, and concrete reason why they would not vote for Hillary?

Because I would prefer Obama.

Just a question: Can anyone here give an intelligent, rational, and concrete reason why they would not vote for Hillary? Other than "I don't like her", " anyone but HER", or the old standard "Bitch from hell" or even "Clinton for Clinton" argument? Seems like these are the only uneducated reasons people give for disliking her.What can I say I love me some violent sex filled video games.

How so?
Because she supports excessive social regulation in the name of "conservative values". She wants to ban flag burning, gay marriage, and even violent video games, for crying out loud. She's also hawkish when it comes to the war in Iraq.

Just a question: Can anyone here give an intelligent, rational, and concrete reason why they would not vote for Hillary? Other than "I don't like her", " anyone but HER", or the old standard "Bitch from hell" or even "Clinton for Clinton" argument? Seems like these are the only uneducated reasons people give for disliking her.

1) She's a populist. During the week when the most people were dying in Iraq, she wasn't trying to adress issues there, she was too busy holding a meeting to discuss the "dangers" of video games. That alone is enough to mark her as being poorly focussed in my mind.

2) She is supported by the DLC. The DLC is the DINO branch of the party. 'Nuff said.

3) She had a massive war chest during the 06 election, but next to none of her money was actually spent on other candidates. That bodes poorly in a primary candidate, since it says they are unlikely to sweep others in with them.

4) I don't want to build a Presidential dynasty. It's bad form. I don't want the millionaire's club to become the controlling interest in the Presidency.

5) I don't think she can win. She will depress the professional left's vote, and the Independant left will swing away from her once the 'Pubs have a central candidate.

and

6) Why should I vote for her? She hasn't given me one good reason to.

I like Baraka cuz like he's the coolest Mortal Kombat character!!

Obama would have a higher chance of winning in the general election, because he is a likeable, charismatic person. Hillary Clinton is not. I'd vote for her if she somehow won the primary (I wouldn't vote for her IN the primary), because she's still better than any republican, in my opinion, but she'd never win.

Then why'd you vote for Hillary?

I thought that was the joke option.. :(

Neither...or both...doesn't matter which one wins the primary, as neither gets my vote for President.

Of course, the same goes for the Republican primary as well. Both the major parties have a lot of shaping up to do before I'll consider voting for a candidate from either one again.

Hmmm this poll seems to be only attracting the conservatives because Hillary is obviously the best choice. Don't even get me started.;)

1) She's a populist. During the week when the most people were dying in Iraq, she wasn't trying to adress issues there, she was too busy holding a meeting to discuss the "dangers" of video games. That alone is enough to mark her as being poorly focussed in my mind.

2) She is supported by the DLC. The DLC is the DINO branch of the party. 'Nuff said.

3) She had a massive war chest during the 06 election, but next to none of her money was actually spent on other candidates. That bodes poorly in a primary candidate, since it says they are unlikely to sweep others in with them.

4) I don't want to build a Presidential dynasty. It's bad form. I don't want the millionaire's club to become the controlling interest in the Presidency.

5) I don't think she can win. She will depress the professional left's vote, and the Independant left will swing away from her once the 'Pubs have a central candidate.

and

6) Why should I vote for her? She hasn't given me one good reason to.

Actually Hillary is one of the few senators who has traveled to Iraq to witness the disaster first hand. I think that she has taken at least three trips, and during the most recent she also visited Afghanistan. She does not support the troop surge in Iraq (thank goodness), but does think that one is needed in Afghanistan, where the Taliban are coming back. America has allowed the media to focus on Iraq, leaving the primary reason we started the war on terror in the dark.

Actually Hillary is one of the few senators who has traveled to Iraq to witness the disaster first hand. I think that she has taken at least three trips, and during the most recent she also visited Afghanistan. She does not support the troop surge in Iraq (thank goodness), but does think that one is needed in Afghanistan, where the Taliban are coming back. America has allowed the media to focus on Iraq, leaving the primary reason we started the war on terror in the dark.


And? Once again, she has not made Iraq an issue. If all she has done is visited, and she still isn't leading the forefront for change, she's failed in my mind. Especially considering the fact that she is strung out on video games as an issue. That also doesn't reply to any of my other points.

Hmmm this poll seems to be only attracting the conservatives because Hillary is obviously the best choice. Don't even get me started.;)

I'm gonna hope that winky-smiley indicated that it was a joke.

Otherwise... Yeah... I'm not a conservative in the least, and I oppose Hillary on solid ground.

You mustn't understand American politics, as Bush Jnr was actually elected into office. It isn't that hard for you to comprehend is it?

Bush was elected into office and he is not a junior. :rolleyes:

Obama has a better name.

And? Once again, she has not made Iraq an issue. If all she has done is visited, and she still isn't leading the forefront for change, she's failed in my mind. Especially considering the fact that she is strung out on video games as an issue. That also doesn't reply to any of my other points.

And yet she wants to cut funding for the war which is, in essence, cutting funding for our troops there.

I plan on throwing my vote with Obama in the Primary, i agree with some of the above posts such as.

We are a nation with many issues right now. the fact that she is so concerned with video games as a political soapbox really depresses me about her focus on government. That is an issue that really bugs me about most politicians in general, stop telling me what is good or bad for me i want a government not a mommy. don't spank your kids, don't eat trans fat, don't play violent video games. seriously gimme a freakin break! i thought this was the land of the free don't tell me what to play or not and what to eat.

Secondly i agree that new blood in American politics can only be a good thing a country that runs the same family's over and over again feels like governmental incest and stagnation. we need new perspectives at least in my humble opinion.

Again to agree with some of the above posts i also believe that she has avoided any serious discussion about iraq and the iraq war. she is waiting to find out what is popular she also seems to run from open conversation and only agrees to interviews when her staff writes or approves the questions beforehand that just sounds seedy to me.

i dunno i also admit im just one of the stupid masses with my one vote and as much coverage of the issues as the mainstream media is willing to give me.

eh... what are you gonna do.

And yet she wants to cut funding for the war which is, in essence, cutting funding for our troops there.

Innaccurate. Cutting funding for the war is demanding that our troops be brought home. It is the balancing power that rightfully belongs in the congresses hands. That is the way that the President's power to make war is checked. It is pure and simple spin to present it as an attack on the troops.

Just a question: Can anyone here give an intelligent, rational, and concrete reason why they would not vote for Hillary? Other than "I don't like her", " anyone but HER", or the old standard "Bitch from hell" or even "Clinton for Clinton" argument? Seems like these are the only uneducated reasons people give for disliking her.

She's a little too blatantly manipulative for my taste. Any position that looks politically profitable she'll run for at breakneck speed, regardless of intellectual merits.

Obama I don't know, but hell he seems less slimy than her.

And yet she wants to cut funding for the war which is, in essence, cutting funding for our troops there.

Actually, she's taken a very calculated and nuanced position--which isn't surprising, frankly, considering who she is. She wants to cut funding to the Iraqi military and political structure if they don't meet certain benchmarks. I'd rather she supported cutting funding to the whole damn mess, and she's certainly not my first choice, but I'm not going to let others mischaracterize her positions.

forgive me for making a somewhat stereotypical assumption but from the historical evidence of race segregation...how many people are going to vote for a black man? Yes really, I can see not many people voting for Obama in the mid west and southern states. Just my view.

Secondly, America is ruled by a millionaires club, although I respect the fact that one wouldnt want it to get any further into that territory with unofficial dynasties.

Thirdly, Barak has been involved in corruption before, hes no angel although most if not all many politicians dont have clean slates.

Then again in an ideal world I probably would vote for him over Hillary

Innaccurate. Cutting funding for the war is demanding that our troops be brought home. It is the balancing power that rightfully belongs in the congresses hands. That is the way that the President's power to make war is checked. It is pure and simple spin to present it as an attack on the troops.

No matter how it is spunned, it is cutting and running. Not something that the Democratic Party wants to be associated with. Besides, it will not get through the Senate.

No matter how it is spunned, it is cutting and running. Not something that the Democratic Party wants to be associated with. Besides, it will not get through the Senate.

Dude I don't know what polls you've been looking at, but what you call "cutting and running" is now favored by roughly 60% of the population, depending on how you ask the question. (http://pollingreport.com/iraq.htm) Sometimes it's higher, sometimes it's lower, but it never drops below half.

Colin Powell is the only black person suitable to be preseident but even he is not bainwashed enough to run. How about FL govenor Jeb Bush 2012

Obama. Easy.

Colin Powell is the only black person suitable to be preseident but even he is not bainwashed enough to run. How about FL govenor Jeb Bush 2012
He's not very black though, is he..?

Dude I don't know what polls you've been looking at, but what you call "cutting and running" is now favored by roughly 60% of the population, depending on how you ask the question. (http://pollingreport.com/iraq.htm) Sometimes it's higher, sometimes it's lower, but it never drops below half.

And the breakdown. I do not honestly care what the polls say. I will not support ANY CADIDATE who favors it.

Colin Powell is the only black person suitable to be preseident but even he is not bainwashed enough to run. How about FL govenor Jeb Bush 2012

Doubtful.

Colin Powell is the only black person suitable to be preseident but even he is not bainwashed enough to run. How about FL govenor Jeb Bush 2012

Dude I don't know what polls you've been looking at, but what you call "cutting and running" is now favored by roughly 60% of the population, depending on how you ask the question. (http://pollingreport.com/iraq.htm) Sometimes it's higher, sometimes it's lower, but it never drops below half.
Uh oh, time warped! (I think)

Colin Powell is the only black person suitable to be preseident but even he is not bainwashed enough to run. How about FL govenor Jeb Bush 2012

as someone who took part in an attempted cover up of the My Lai massacre Powell is hardly suitable to run for President

why not hillary as president and obama as vice?

why not hillary as president and obama as vice?
Too many firsts. Not a problem for me, but it would make easy prey for right-wingers to yell Political Correctness, and trump common sense and individual thought.

And the breakdown. I do not honestly care what the polls say. I will not support ANY CADIDATE who favors it.

Fair enough--we all have our deal breakers, and if that's a deal breaker for you, then you ought to stand by it, even if it means you're voting third party in 2008.

Too many firsts. Not a problem for me, but it would make easy prey for right-wingers to yell Political Correctness, and trump common sense and individual thought.

Far right conservatists will yell and scream at least. The moderate right wingers probably not as much.

as someone who took part in an attempted cover up of the My Lai massacre Powell is hardly suitable to run for President

His snowjob at the UN before the Iraq War began is more significant to me than that is. My Lai was a long time ago, and Powell isn't necessarily the same man now that he was then, but the Iraq thing shows a recent bout of poor judgment. That's far more damning in my opinion.

It's a difficult choice. I have to choose the lesser of the two evils here; on one hand, Hitler started a world war, and executed millions of innocent people. But on the other hand, Osama is a bloodthirsty terrorist who would like nothing more than to behead or forcibly convert us to Islam.

You are rofl fussy!
You bin the threat!
Gypos are inheritably funky!

In shoot, you wink!

You know, I know she's a despicable person who would run for any position that would get her votes and focuses on issues poorly, but do we have any real proof of it? I need some to convince my father that Hillary is not the saint he seems to be worshipping.

His snowjob at the UN before the Iraq War began is more significant to me than that is. My Lai was a long time ago, and Powell isn't necessarily the same man now that he was then, but the Iraq thing shows a recent bout of poor judgment. That's far more damning in my opinion.

I think if you watch the speech to the UN where he outlined the 'evidence' of Saddams wmd's, his manner and body language show reluctance. He didn't believe what he was saying, he didn't want to meet any other delegate's eye, and while he emoted at appropriate points in the address, the overall tone was reluctance.
Watch it without the sound. You'll see what I mean.

Yet I agree. If he'd refused to be GWB's secretary of state, or stood down when first asked to lie, he'd be a much more attractive candidate now.

His snowjob at the UN before the Iraq War began is more significant to me than that is. My Lai was a long time ago, and Powell isn't necessarily the same man now that he was then, but the Iraq thing shows a recent bout of poor judgment. That's far more damning in my opinion.

shows a trend doesn't it, he hasn't changed...he lied when he attempted to cover up My Lai and he lied at the UN...this man hasn't changed he'll lie when ever it suits his purpose whether it's covering up mass murder/genocide or starting an illegal war...

I think if you watch the speech to the UN where he outlined the 'evidence' of Saddams wmd's, his manner and body language show reluctance. He didn't believe what he was saying, he didn't want to meet any other delegate's eye, and while he emoted at appropriate points in the address, the overall tone was reluctance.
Watch it without the sound. You'll see what I mean.

Yet I agree. If he'd refused to be GWB's secretary of state, or stood down when first asked to lie, he'd be a much more attractive candidate now.

reluctance or body language showing him to be lying?...how do you know it was reluctant?