NationStates Jolt Archive

In recent days (and I suppose the last year or so) I've heard a lot of stuff from Hillary supporters. Just today, I heard two of her supporters on TV lambasting Obama for not talking about solutions, and not having experience. What experience does Hillary have exactly? What's so great about her? If you support her (or don't), why? What are your views on the other candidates, their experience, and plans?

What about Huckabee people? I know he's kind of crazy, but he can't be that bad? How about Guiliani's total fail in Iowa, and Paul's decent showing? What are your opinions on the other Republican candidates?

Basically, feel free to discuss anything related to the US Presidential Elections, though I'm looking forward to hearing why so and so (particularly what's so good about Hillary) is better than so and so.

Who's the most qualified?

That'd be me, of course.

Vote Skaladora in '08! :D

Hillary is a ruthless warmonger, but with more brains than Bush.

The most qualified people to be President never run. Look at Jimmy Carter. He was a far better Ex-President than he ever was a President. Now that he'd make an awesome President, he doesn't run(He's too old really). :(

The "Obama hasn't enough experience" mantra is a tosh talking point perpetuated by the Hillary Campaign and others who are very afraid of Obama winning the nomination and hence the presidency.

Senatorial and Congressional duty is not particularly apt experience for going into the Presidential occupation. Legislative and executive duties are completely different from one another.

A governorship would be better experience for a potential President, as a Governor is an executive position, who actually leads a state government. Huckabee was a Governor of Arkansas for 9 years, BTW.

Even if legislative experience was a good prerequisite for Presidential duty, Obama already has plenty. He has served 7 years in the Illinois state legislature, and 3 years in the US Senate, which is longer than Hillary Clinton has been a legislator (8 years US Senate).

The "Obama hasn't enough experience" line constantly being repeated over and over is nothing but an insulting lie.

Who's the most qualified?

That'd be me, of course.

Vote Skaladora in '08! :D

I dunno...are you at least thirty-five? Are you a naturally-born citizen of the United States, and have you lived the past fourteen years of your life on United States soil?

If so, you qualify. If not, you don't.

It's that age thing that kills me. :( Well, that and I have very little experience in any sort of management position, and I'd kinda want that experience first...

Edwards. There we go.

Hilary has Senatorial experience, but far greater then that, she lived with a President for 8 years. I have no doubt that she would be best qualified for the Presidency. It would also be a huge boost for the women of America.

How about Guiliani's total fail in Iowa, and Paul's decent showing?

It shouldn't come as a surprise that Giuliani didn't take Iowa, because the people who vote Republican in Iowa are what we call the Guns and Gays votes, and Giuliani will probably receive more primary votes from the Gay Pride community and free-market oriented feminists then he will from the Guns and Gays population. What DOES comes as a surprise is Clinton's dismal failure after investing so much of her resources in that state.

And further, with all three of the Big Tuesday states (California, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey) effectively in his knapsack, Giuliani will most certainly have his day.

May I add that the Iowa victor (Mike Huckabee) has already had his, and the majority of Republicans outside of union-labor strongholds like Iowa are not going to vote for a folksy, church-affiliated Father Knows Best socialist. If anything, Huckabee has increased Giulianis chances of winning by sphoning away votes from more serious competitors like Romney and McCain.

Add to this the fact that most Americans are pissed off beyond belief at Iowa, and Giulianis chances of winning are greatly increased.

Still though, it is very true that Paul had a very good day.

Hilary has Senatorial experience, but far greater then that, she lived with a President for 8 years. I have no doubt that she would be best qualified for the Presidency. It would also be a huge boost for the women of America.
It'd be a complete kick in the teeth for the whole world if we basically just got a female recut of Bush, though.

Plus 24+ years of the same two families in power?

Eugh.

Hillary is a ruthless warmonger, but with more brains than Bush.

This means anything how?

It'd be a complete kick in the teeth for the whole world if we basically just got a female recut of Bush, though.

Plus 24+ years of the same two families in power?

Eugh.

She'd be different from Bush in her social policies, but yeah, her foreign policy probably won't be too different.

In my opinion, just about any of the other democrats would be preferrable to Hillary. But keeping the same two families in power isn't really a good reason. I don't want to have a repeat of Bush's foreign policy, and I see no reasons to prefer her to any of the other democrats.

This means anything how?

It means while she'll be a warmonger, she'll be a smart warmonger. Think Hitler-esque smart when it comes to manipulating other countries to do her bidding.

She'd be different from Bush in her social policies, but yeah, her foreign policy probably won't be too different.

In my opinion, just about any of the other democrats would be preferrable to Hillary. But keeping the same two families in power isn't really a good reason. I don't want to have a repeat of Bush's foreign policy, and I see no reasons to prefer her to any of the other democrats.
To be honest, almost every single candidate is basically unelectable, due to some fairly large flaws in the Democrats - Obama's utter lack of charisma and foreign policy experience, Clinton's hawkishness and Edwards' comical accent and utterly unreasonable policy on Iran. The Republican Candidates are mostly just batshit insane and wouldn't stand a chance here in Europe.

...


I'm not sure how well Rudy will do. I mean, if the Republicans pick Rudy, it's a pretty big change from picking Bush. It could happen, but I'm not so sure.

If Giuliani gets the nomination though, he'd probably have a better shot than any of the other Republicans, we'll have to see how things turn out though.

To be honest, almost every single candidate is basically unelectable, due to some fairly large flaws in the Democrats - Obama's utter lack of charisma and foreign policy experience, Clinton's hawkishness and Edwards' comical accent and utterly unreasonable policy on Iran. The Republican Candidates are mostly just batshit insane and wouldn't stand a chance here in Europe.
You can bet, though, if they were in Europe they'd be electable there. They're not electable there now because they've groomed themselves for a different political environment, just as your candidates wouldn't be electable here because they're groomed for your political environment.

To be honest, almost every single candidate is basically unelectable, due to some fairly large flaws in the Democrats - Obama's utter lack of charisma and foreign policy experience, Clinton's hawkishness and Edwards' comical accent and utterly unreasonable policy on Iran. The Republican Candidates are mostly just batshit insane and wouldn't stand a chance here in Europe.

Obama lacks charisma? Who has any real foreign policy experience? It's not like we're electing diplomats and ambassadors.

It could get him some approval down south. I'll be honest, I haven't heard much of Edwards this year, the media has kind of been shutting him out (other than that haircut, damn the media!). So I've never heard of his policy on Iran.

I'm not sure how well Rudy will do. I mean, if the Republicans pick Rudy, it's a pretty big change from picking Bush. It could happen, but I'm not so sure.

If Giuliani gets the nomination though, he'd probably have a better shot than any of the other Republicans, we'll have to see how things turn out though.

Exactly. A lot of Republicans are no more pleased with Bush then the democrats are, and many blame the gay-hating unreasonable side of their party for many of it's problems. Meanwhile, Rudy is the most economically and fiscally conservative of the bunch, which helps him in states like New Jersey, New York, California, Washington, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Nevada, and also has a great track record with security, while his great success as mayor of New York and childhood as a New Yorker will be a huge bonus in places like inner city LA, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Seattle, and the rapidly growing metro areas of the New South.

To be honest, almost every single candidate is basically unelectable, due to some fairly large flaws in the Democrats - Obama's utter lack of charisma and foreign policy experience, Clinton's hawkishness and Edwards' comical accent and utterly unreasonable policy on Iran. The Republican Candidates are mostly just batshit insane and wouldn't stand a chance here in Europe.

I personally believe Obama is the most charasmatic out of the bunch. I don't think any of the contenders are qualified for Presidency. I just have a feling whoever it is will be better than Bush.

It would also be a huge boost for the women of America.

If I was American I'd rather have the first female President be good. Although if she stays far away from Iran she may not be bad she would be a far cry from good.

Exactly. A lot of Republicans are no more pleased with Bush then the democrats are, and many blame the gay-hating unreasonable side of their party for many of it's problems. Meanwhile, Rudy is the most economically and fiscally conservative of the bunch, which helps him in states like New Jersey, New York, California, Washington, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Nevada, and also has a great track record with security, while his great success as mayor of New York and childhood as a New Yorker will be a huge bonus in places like inner city LA, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Seattle, and the rapidly growing metro areas of the New South.

Regardless, I think if Giuliani gets elected it shows that a major shift within the party is occurring. On social issues, he is essentially the opposite of what some in the party vote almost entirely on (being abortion, gay rights). He also seems one of the least religious republicans (which may not be a bad thing, but won't help him get votes in the US). But again, the kind of views he has will help him out a lot in the general election, I'm just not sure that he'll get the nomination.

If I was American I'd rather have the first female President be good. Although if she stays far away from Iran she may not be bad she would be a far cry from good.

Maybe we should start slowly and just elect someone who looks like a woman. What about:

Annika Sorenstam (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1yrgMcuoD0) :)

Let's see, I'm not quite 35 yet, so...

Lunatic Goofballs.

Or General Zod (http://www.zod2008.com/).

But by and large not Skaladora.

But by and large not Skaladora.
But... but... why not? :(

Also : I would totally vote for Zod if I was a US citizen or he ran for office here in Canada.

Romney, Guliani, Clinton, Obama, I don't care who it is, so long as it isn't Huckabee. That man is dangerous, I keep saying this!

Anyone who attributes his success to "divine intervention" and plans to "take back the nation for Christ", CANNOT be given the presidency.

The "Obama hasn't enough experience" mantra is a tosh talking point perpetuated by the Hillary Campaign and others who are very afraid of Obama winning the nomination and hence the presidency.

ROFLMAO. President Obama http://www.nearlygood.com/smilies/rofl462.gif

Basically, feel free to discuss anything related to the US Presidential Elections, though I'm looking forward to hearing why so and so (particularly what's so good about Hillary) is better than so and so.

Where are Ross Perot and Steve Forbes when you need them?

You can bet, though, if they were in Europe they'd be electable there. They're not electable there now because they've groomed themselves for a different political environment, just as your candidates wouldn't be electable here because they're groomed for your political environment.
Probably. There we go, though.
Obama lacks charisma?
Yep. Doesn't look particularly confident. As do the whole of the list for both sides. Hillary lacks the common touch, Edwards is a bit dull, the GOP candidates know how to please the Midwest with shouty comments about Christianity and that kind of shite, but that doesn't cut much ice with anyone else.
Who has any real foreign policy experience? It's not like we're electing diplomats and ambassadors.
Bit of a shame that everyone involved lacks foreign policy experience.

And a President should be a diplomat and ambassador as well as being a solid ruler at home, because it helps a lot to have the world on-side, no?
It could get him some approval down south.
He's pretty much black and has a name that sounds a wee bit like Osama. No chance of any popularity down south to be honest.
I'll be honest, I haven't heard much of Edwards this year, the media has kind of been shutting him out (other than that haircut, damn the media!).
Edwards is a pretty solid candidate. But some of his policy choices are a bit... optimistic, let's say.
So I've never heard of his policy on Iran.
"I don't want to invade them, but I think that we should stop them getting a nuclear capability by negotiation. Although I don't think that we should negotiate with them until they start recognising Israel's right to exist."

I don't want to invade them - spiffing, waste of everyone's time.

Not negotiating with them until they start giving Israel respect? You'll be wasting your time right there.

Where are Ross Perot and Steve Forbes when you need them?
Too old!

The Republican Candidates are mostly just batshit insane and wouldn't stand a chance here in Europe.

I hate it when Northern Ireland is a pretty good exception to that statement

I hate it when Northern Ireland is a pretty good exception to that statement
Ah well. At least you've got your... erm... nice accents or something. That must make live worth living, no?

Ah well. At least you've got your... erm... nice accents or something. That must make live worth living, no?

Yeah yeah gimme some of that goold old pity :p

Probably. There we go, though.

Yep. Doesn't look particularly confident. As do the whole of the list for both sides. Hillary lacks the common touch, Edwards is a bit dull, the GOP candidates know how to please the Midwest with shouty comments about Christianity and that kind of shite, but that doesn't cut much ice with anyone else.

Bit of a shame that everyone involved lacks foreign policy experience.

And a President should be a diplomat and ambassador as well as being a solid ruler at home, because it helps a lot to have the world on-side, no?

He's pretty much black and has a name that sounds a wee bit like Osama. No chance of any popularity down south to be honest.

Edwards is a pretty solid candidate. But some of his policy choices are a bit... optimistic, let's say.

"I don't want to invade them, but I think that we should stop them getting a nuclear capability by negotiation. Although I don't think that we should negotiate with them until they start recognising Israel's right to exist."

I don't want to invade them - spiffing, waste of everyone's time.

Not negotiating with them until they start giving Israel respect? You'll be wasting your time right there.

Obama is, in my opinion, the single most charismatic person that could end up being in office this year.

I agree, it would be great to have people with real foreign policy experience, but remarking that none of the current candidates are diplomats (or have any foreign policy experience).

I was talking about Edward's accent.

Interesting strategy, but he'll end up never talking with them then.

Anyone but the following.*Ahem* Democrats, Republicans, Anarchists, Nazis, facists of any kind, Commies, drunk people, socialists, statists, frothing war dogs, Hippies, anti-drug "I'm so much more moral than you" idiots, darth vader, darth sideous, Sith, Jedi, Sauron, drunk anti-drug commies, Semi-commies, centrist wimps, semi-socialists, semi-war dogs, anybody without at least 1/4 of a brain, polticians, Pro-censorship anti-constitutional politicians, wigs, whigs, greens,scaremongerers, and Scientists. So yeah, pretty much only clowns, Libertarians, and constitutionalists:D

ROFLMAO. President Obama http://www.nearlygood.com/smilies/rofl462.gif

Laugh all you will, our lovely old bean. We'll be seeing it. Just you wait.

We need another Ronald Reagan, but with more socially libertarian views.

We need another Ronald Reagan, but with more socially libertarian views.

It's time for a dead President! (http://www.jibjab.com/view/127339)

Bit of a shame that everyone involved lacks foreign policy experience.

And a President should be a diplomat and ambassador as well as being a solid ruler at home, because it helps a lot to have the world on-side, no?


Richardson? He has foreign policy experience by having been an ambassador.

I think if the system was changed, then it would give a better chance for better politicians to become President, the past ones have been typically rich billionaries.
Good luck, no good intelligence, luck runs out.

It means while she'll be a warmonger, she'll be a smart warmonger. Think Hitler-esque smart when it comes to manipulating other countries to do her bidding.

I wonder how she feels about the Jews???

On a side note her favorite toy as a little girl was an easy bake oven.

Qualified is subjective at best. Take James Madison. You would think he would be eminently qualified for President and yet he was not that great.

I guess in the age of sound bites and infotainment; qualifications really aren't as much of an issue. How many people really look into the background of the candidate?

Qualified is subjective at best. Take James Madison. You would think he would be eminently qualified for President and yet he was not that great.

I guess in the age of sound bites and infotainment; qualifications really aren't as much of an issue. How many people really look into the background of the candidate?

The media, for candidates they don't like...

He's pretty much black and has a name that sounds a wee bit like Osama. No chance of any popularity down south to be honest.


This is assuming that almost all of the white southern democrats are racist and stupid, and that there are no black democrats in the south.

We need another Ronald Reagan, but with more socially libertarian views.

ROBOT NIXON '08

Qualified is subjective at best. Take James Madison. You would think he would be eminently qualified for President and yet he was not that great.

I guess in the age of sound bites and infotainment; qualifications really aren't as much of an issue. How many people really look into the background of the candidate?

The motivation for this thread was me seeing a bunch of Hillary supports (a day after the primaries) rant on and on about how unqualified and inexperienced Obama was, and how Hillary should be elected.

The media, for candidates they don't like...

And those are the sound bites I mentioned.

The motivation for this thread was me seeing a bunch of Hillary supports (a day after the primaries) rant on and on about how unqualified and inexperienced Obama was, and how Hillary should be elected.

That's the point. Qualifications are just a nice catch phrase. If we demanded qualifications, the shrub would never have been elected.

When you get down to it, people mainly care if the President looks good and sounds good.

Would Roosevelt been elected if people TV was around in his day?

That's the point. Qualifications are just a nice catch phrase. If we demanded qualifications, the shrub would never have been elected.

When you get down to it, people mainly care if the President looks good and sounds good.

Would Roosevelt been elected if people TV was around in his day?

My hope was that I would hear what "qualifications" Hillary had that made her so much better than Obama. I mean, Obama's had just as much experience in the legislature as her, so unless one counts being First Lady as a qualification, I was confused at how Obama was less qualified than Hillary. And, if we were to go by qualifications and experience, why isn't Richardson owning everyone?

But I didn't want to restrict the thread too much, so I made it much more general.