NationStates Jolt Archive

Edit: Threadsteal! Vote for Jello!

Hillary Rodham Clinton is the better, more electable choice.
Really? She seems much more divisive than Obama.

And why do you sound so much like a member of Clinton's team?

Shalrirorchia
Pimp

I ain't voting for that ho.

Why would anyone vote for that warmongering harpy? My god what a scary woman.

Barack Obama has continued his rampage by sweeping the Georgia primaries, continuing what may be an unstoppable rush to the nomination.

That is not something that Democrats should aspire to, however. Barack Obama has never faced serious opposition from a Republican candidate in a national election, has little national electoral experience, and is remarkably vague during his debates, offering only glittering generalities such as "change is needed".

Hillary Rodham Clinton is the better, more electable choice. She has experience in this field. Her husband was a very successful President, and if she brings similar policies to the table, I see no reason why she could not be successful herself. She HAS fought Republicans before and won. She offers not the nebulous statements that Obama does, but rather specific policy-driven objectives backed by experience.

If you are in one of the Super Tuesday states and you favor Clinton, by all means get out there and VOTE. She needs your support now, and it is not too late.

Clinton would get thrashed by the opposition if she was nominated. It would give smear-campaign a whole new meaning.

She HAS fought Republicans before and won.

Rick Lazio? :p

If you are in one of the Super Tuesday states and you favor Clinton, by all means get out there and VOTE. She needs your support now, and it is not too late.

Way ahead of you. :) Good call.

Edit: Threadsteal! Vote for Jello!

You make a compelling argument, I'm voting Jello!

The original OP has only made tired retreads of unconvincing arguments.

Politics ultimately boils down to issues.
Such as the issue that over half of the US seems to fucking despise anything remotely connected to the name ‘Clinton’?

Hillary Clinton is not the better speaker, but she has outlined her ideas far more clearly than Senator Obama.
From what I’ve seen of the debates, they both pump out the typical rhetoric-filled meaningless bullshit.

Barack Obama has never faced serious opposition from a Republican candidate in a national election
Has Hillary?
has little national electoral experience
Just like Hillary?
Hillary Rodham Clinton is the better, more electable choice.
More electable, yes, but only because Obama is black. Better, no.
She has experience in this field.
As an executive? No she doesn't.
Her husband was a very successful President, and if she brings similar policies to the table, I see no reason why she could not be successful herself.
I do. She lacks charisma. Plus, we have no reason to believe she would bring similar policies to the table.

Bill wouldn't have invaded Iraq (we know this because he had ample opportunity and just as much cause). Hillary, however, voted for it.

Click Stand;13425467']Clinton would get thrashed by the opposition if she was nominated. It would give smear-campaign a whole new meaning.

Pap smear?











Even I think less of myself after that...

Politics ultimately boils down to issues.
Where have you been? Politics hasn't been about issues since WW2.

Politics is about likeability.

Really?

She seems much more divisive than Obama.

Politics ultimately boils down to issues. Hillary Clinton is not the better speaker, but she has outlined her ideas far more clearly than Senator Obama. She is familiar with the grind of a national campaign, and is less likely to be outmaneuvered by her Republican opponent. Obama is relying chiefly on momentum.

Hillary, however, voted for it.
Yes, but she only did that because she was confused, or not trying to win a presidency nomination... or something.

:p

Nah, Obama has great details on his site about all of his policies.

Hillary isn't trustworthy and voted to let the Bush Jr. have his war.

Hillary is just too divisive anyway and plays old politics. She has too many corporate masters as well. A vote for Hillary is a vote for a Republican president.

Barack Obama has continued his rampage by sweeping the Georgia primaries, continuing what may be an unstoppable rush to the nomination.

Good. Obama is a much better choice than this bitch.

That is not something that Democrats should aspire to, however. Barack Obama has never faced serious opposition from a Republican candidate in a national election, has little national electoral experience, and is remarkably vague during his debates, offering only glittering generalities such as "change is needed".

Which is good. Why make plans when you may not have the support of Congress to make those plans a reality?

Hillary Rodham Clinton is the better, more electable choice.

Now I know you are not a serious poster nor someone who knows something about politics.

Well, I would expect such a response from a conservative.
Then why say Hilary is more electable?

Corny here is a perfect example of why your OP is complete nonsense; those on the right in the US, including those all-important independents, fucking hate Clinton, but seem to be less turned-off by Obama.

Barack Obama has continued his rampage by sweeping the Georgia primaries, continuing what may be an unstoppable rush to the nomination.

That is not something that Democrats should aspire to, however. Barack Obama has never faced serious opposition from a Republican candidate in a national election, has little national electoral experience, and is remarkably vague during his debates, offering only glittering generalities such as "change is needed".

Hillary Rodham Clinton is the better, more electable choice. She has experience in this field. Her husband was a very successful President, and if she brings similar policies to the table, I see no reason why she could not be successful herself. She HAS fought Republicans before and won. She offers not the nebulous statements that Obama does, but rather specific policy-driven objectives backed by experience.

If you are in one of the Super Tuesday states and you favor Clinton, by all means get out there and VOTE. She needs your support now, and it is not too late.


You forgot to add that she's "Hillary Clinton, and I approve this ad."

Hillary is not very electable because she starts out with such high negatives. If 45% feel "I would never, ever, ever vote for Hillary under any circumstances", then she can only work with the other 55%, and getting 90%of those (nearly impossible) would not be enough.

This is one main difference between Obama and Clinton. The Clintons talk about fighting Republicans, and Obama talks about working with them.

If you are in one of the Super Tuesday states and you favor Clinton, by all means get out there and VOTE. She needs your support now, and it is not too late.

oh no, it IS too late. i already voted for obama.

if only you had posted this yesterday...

Good. Obama is a much better choice than this bitch.



Which is good. Why make plans when you may not have the support of Congress to make those plans a reality?



Now I know you are not a serious poster nor someone who knows something about politics.

Well, I would expect such a response from a conservative. After all, the last seven years have been nothing more than glittering generalities from the current Administration.

Well, I would expect such a response from a conservative. After all, the last seven years have been nothing more than glittering generalities from the current Administration.

I'm not as conservative is it may appear. Come to think of it, I'm leaning towards voting for Obama if he gets the nomination. If its Hillary? Not a chance in hell will I vote for her. She's more divisive than Bush is and much more polarizing figure.

If you are in one of the Super Tuesday states and you favor Clinton, by all means get out there and VOTE. She needs your support now, and it is not too late.

Does she?

Really? Well, how about that. I hold the fate of that cold manipulative bitch in the palm of these silly little hands. Wow.

I should get out and vote right now. ... yet.... A beer would be really tasty. Hmm.

*goes to the fridge for a beer instead*

Barack Obama has continued his rampage by sweeping the Georgia primaries, continuing what may be an unstoppable rush to the nomination.

That is not something that Democrats should aspire to, however. Barack Obama has never faced serious opposition from a Republican candidate in a national election, has little national electoral experience, and is remarkably vague during his debates, offering only glittering generalities such as "change is needed".

Hillary Rodham Clinton is the better, more electable choice. She has experience in this field. Her husband was a very successful President, and if she brings similar policies to the table, I see no reason why she could not be successful herself. She HAS fought Republicans before and won. She offers not the nebulous statements that Obama does, but rather specific policy-driven objectives backed by experience.

If you are in one of the Super Tuesday states and you favor Clinton, by all means get out there and VOTE. She needs your support now, and it is not too late.

Just say HELL NO to Hillary. She thinks she knows better than us what video games are safe for us to play, she thinks we aren't capable of owning firearms, she's as pro-war as Bush, and honestly, she scares the shit out of me.

You forgot to add that she's "Hillary Clinton, and I approve this ad."

I am Spartacus, and I approve this Internet meme.

I'm registered non-partisan, and just voted accordingly. If Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, there will be no reason to vote Democratic. Her foreign policy is essentially that of the Republican party. As such, a victory for her is a victory for McCain, who will be sworn into office.

**waves tiny Obama '08 pennant**

She has experience in this field.

Not a whole lot. A couple of years in the Senate, a failed national healthcare plan and sleeping alone in bed in the White House doesn't mean experience.

Her husband was a very successful President

That's nice. So what?

Why would anyone vote for that warmongering harpy? My god what a scary woman.

And McCain 'in Iraq for eternity' isn't a warmonger?

And McCain ‘in Iraq for eternity’ isn’t a warmonger?
Khadgar never said he wasn’t.

They can both be/are warmongers.

Click Stand;13425467']Clinton would get thrashed by the opposition if she was nominated. It would give smear-campaign a whole new meaning.

Clinton stands a good chance of defeating anyone the Republicans can put up against her. Obama is almost certain to defeat any republican with a comfortable margin. Edwards, were he still running, would have beaten the pants of of any Republican alive today.

Khadgar never said he wasn’t.

They can both be/are warmongers.
Well is he just not going to vote if both become the nominees?

Obama sounds almost like Osama.

Politics ultimately boils down to issues. Hillary Clinton is not the better speaker, but she has outlined her ideas far more clearly than Senator Obama. She is familiar with the grind of a national campaign, and is less likely to be outmaneuvered by her Republican opponent. Obama is relying chiefly on momentum.

If you'd pay attention, you would realize that he has outlined his policies.

The real difference is that his policies get less coverage than Hillary's because he can say anything and make it sound great, while Hillary always sounds like a dullard.

This is one main difference between Obama and Clinton. The Clintons talk about fighting Republicans, and Obama talks about working with them.

That's why I have so much respect for Obama.

And McCain 'in Iraq for eternity' isn't a warmonger?

Well, you have to recognize that if we were to leave Iraq immediately, or even quickly, and leave the country destabilized, then it'll do nothing but breed terrorists, which would put the US in a more dangerous position. Not that we should be in there forever...

Obama will never win a national election. Once people start realizing that his entire reputation has been manufactured and the Republicans have not even really gone after him at all, not as a party. I think Hillary would be a better President, but no way does Obama beat McCain in a Presidential election.

Barack Obama has continued his rampage by sweeping the Georgia primaries, continuing what may be an unstoppable rush to the nomination.

Mondeau!

That is not something that Democrats should aspire to, however. Barack Obama has never faced serious opposition from a Republican candidate in a national election, has little national electoral experience, and is remarkably vague during his debates, offering only glittering generalities such as "change is needed".

Parbleu!

Hillary Rodham Clinton is the better, more electable choice.
She has experience in this field. Her husband was a very successful President, and if she brings similar policies to the table, I see no reason why she could not be successful herself. She HAS fought Republicans before and won. She offers not the nebulous statements that Obama does, but rather specific policy-driven objectives backed by experience.

Fondue!

Like "vigorous engagements" when dealing with South America?

If you are in one of the Super Tuesday states and you favor Clinton, by all means get out there and VOTE. She needs your support now, and it is not too late.

Holy Hog Shottis! Do not worry one bit, you can be damn sure I will vote for who I favor!

Well is he just not going to vote if both become the nominees?
Or vote for as third party, or something else.

I am not Khadgar.

Clinton stands a good chance of defeating anyone the Republicans can put up against her. Obama is almost certain to defeat any republican with a comfortable margin. Edwards, were he still running, would have beaten the pants of of any Republican alive today.

Clinton would certainly get beaten by McCain. You seem very optimistic about the democrats this year.

Id write in Karl Marx before Id vote for Billary Clinthullu

That's why I have so much respect for Obama.

And that's where Obama fails, you can talk about 'uniting' and ending partisanism, but history and experience voids and nulls this fact. If anything the terms and elections with Bush have proven that motivating the partisan base is what gets you elected, not 'bridging out to the center', that whole concept is defunct because the center in America these days is just too small, contrary to the positivist rhetoric of the Obama camp, America is more divided on partisan lines than ever, Hillary is right on this.

She is also right in that the Democrats aren't going to win by bridging out to the right, they are going to win by actively taking the fight to the Republicans and beating them, just like Clinton did. Clinton's election over Bush proved that when it all comes down, people get scared away from the ultraconservatism of the GOP when it really rears it's ugly head. Bush only got elected those times by cynically playing wedge politics with the war and terrorism etc, that card this election is less powerful, people are looking at his classist economic policies more than anything, and anti-poor policies etc (look at his recent budget).

Of course McCain will definitely play the war patriotism card (he is already doing it to court the conservative base), but Obama's positive 'unite' and 'hope' message in the face of Republican cynicism and intense attacking will collapse. As far as I see it, Hillary can deal with the Republicans, Bill Clinton was an expert on dealing with them and she is just as good at it. Under such partisan attacks, Obama will not defend himself, he will look weak and the GOP war propaganda will stick, only Hillary could actively defend herself from that.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is the better, more electable choice.

Really? Several polls refute that statement.

"But what are polls, but a collection of statistics meant to show what is going on in reality. And reality has a well known liberal bias."



CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Feb. 1-3, 2008. N=974 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.

.

"If [see below] were the Democratic Party's candidate and [see below] were the Republican Party's candidate, who would you be more likely to vote for: [see below], the Democrat, or [see below], the Republican?" If unsure: "As of today, who do you lean more toward?" Names rotated

.
2/1-3/08
McCain (R) Obama (D) Neither (vol.) Other (vol.) Unsure
44% 52% 3% 1% 1%

McCain (R) Clinton (D) Neither (vol.) Other (vol.) Unsure
47% 50% 2% -% -%

Why, Obama is above the margin of error, and Clinton is not.



Cook Political Report/RT Strategies Poll. Jan. 31-Feb. 2, 2008. N=855 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.4.

.

"I know the election in November is a long way off, but if [see below] were the Democratic Party's candidate and [see below] were the Republican Party's candidate, who would you be more likely to vote for: [see below], the Democrat, or [see below], the Republican?" If neither or unsure: "As of today, do you lean more toward [see below], the Democrat, or [see below], the Republican?" Names rotated

.
1/31 - 2/2/08
McCain (R) Clinton (D) Other (vol.) Unsure
45% 41% 3% 10%

McCain (R) Obama (D) Other (vol.) Unsure
43% 45% 2% 9%

Hmm... Clinton loses... Obama doesn't.



FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Jan. 30-31, 2008. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3. LV = likely voters


"Thinking ahead to the next presidential election, if the 2008 general election were held today for whom would you vote if the candidates were [see below]?" Names rotated

1/30-31/08

John
McCain (R) Hillary Clinton (D) Other (vol.)/Unsure
45% 44% 10%

John
McCain (R) Barack Obama (D) Other (vol.)/Unsure
43% 44% 13%


Obama will never win a national election. Once people start realizing that his entire reputation has been manufactured and the Republicans have not even really gone after him at all, not as a party. I think Hillary would be a better President, but no way does Obama beat McCain in a Presidential election.

First, see above polls. Second, regardless of the fact that I disagree with your characterization of Obama, what makes you think that if people haven't looked at him over the past year and a half that they would look at him now. Those people are not the ones who vote, so your argument is mute.

Hillary loses for 2 reasons. One, she stirs up so much conservative hate that they would come out to vote just to vote against her. Two, there are many democrats who don't like her and would rather stay home on election day.

Obama wins cause he doesn't cause this conservative resentment. People like him, and that helps tremendously from people just voting to vote against him. Bush has so royally screwed over the republicans that the country is wary of voting for another. Why isn't Bush brought up in the Republican race? Cause that won't inspire Republicans to vote. The candidates realize that they aren't going to be able to inspire republicans to vote for them, so they inspire them to vote against the other guy. This works for Hillary; it doesn't for Obama.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is the better, more electable choice. She has experience in this field. Her husband was a very successful President, and if she brings similar policies to the table, I see no reason why she could not be successful herself. She HAS fought Republicans before and won. She offers not the nebulous statements that Obama does, but rather specific policy-driven objectives backed by experience.

If you are in one of the Super Tuesday states and you favor Clinton, by all means get out there and VOTE. She needs your support now, and it is not too late.

Wrong. Wrong, WRONG, WRONG!

Billary is the least electable of any of the remaining major candidates. She has less experience. Bill is a huge deficit.

You are encouraging people to effectively vote for John McCain.

If Hillary gets the nomination, I'm voting for McCain. Otherwise, I'm for Obama.

Note: This is even if (god forbid) Obama takes Clinton's VP slot.
But I don't think he'll do that.

Knotthole Glade;13425589']Obama sounds almost like Osama.

Groundbreaking...

I must think on the implications of this...

:p

Knotthole Glade;13425589']Obama sounds almost like Osama.

http://www.dtmpower.net/forum/attachments/archive-2001-2004/4448d1179298846t-hello-welcome-last-week-lastweek2.jpg

Obama sucks as much as Clinton, only he has a better smile. He has almost the same voting record on Iraq as her (including that fake attempt at a pullout that got shot down), has taken a hawkish position on Iran, has promised to invade Pakistan on the basis of "actionable intelligence", and has been receiving a great deal of indirect support from the special interests he denounces (so that he can maintain the image of being 'pure' and changetastic. Though, of course, that doesn't keep him from taking a good deal of direct support from the special interests, but not "too" much.)

Thank you kind sir.. I was about to make a terrible mistake. Against humanity. Guess I'll vote for Paul now.

oh no, it IS too late. i already voted for obama.

if only you had posted this yesterday...

I know! I totally would have been convinced!

Or.....not.

Barack Obama has continued his rampage by sweeping the Georgia primaries, continuing what may be an unstoppable rush to the nomination.
It is a good thing. We need a bit of freshness.

That is not something that Democrats should aspire to, however. Barack Obama has never faced serious opposition from a Republican candidate in a national election, has little national electoral experience, and is remarkably vague during his debates, offering only glittering generalities such as "change is needed".
Hillary has never faced serious opposition from a Republican candidate in a national election either. Her husband has, but she hasn't. All politicians are vague in their debates. At least Barack doesn't think he knows everything yet and so may be willing to appoint experts to cabinet positions instead of yes-men.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is the better, more electable choice. She has experience in this field. Her husband was a very successful President, and if she brings similar policies to the table, I see no reason why she could not be successful herself. She HAS fought Republicans before and won. She offers not the nebulous statements that Obama does, but rather specific policy-driven objectives backed by experience.
She has not demonstrated to me that she is better, in fact, Obama is more in line with my beliefs. Electable? Half the country already hates Hillary, hell, I agree with her decently often and I don't even like her. She won't be successful because she doesn't have Bill's 'people power,' which is actually quite important. She hasn't fought republicans and won, Bill has. The accomplishments of one's spouse do not count as experience.

And that's where Obama fails, you can talk about 'uniting' and ending partisanism, but history and experience voids and nulls this fact. If anything the terms and elections with Bush have proven that motivating the partisan base is what gets you elected, not 'bridging out to the center', that whole concept is defunct because the center in America these days is just too small, contrary to the positivist rhetoric of the Obama camp, America is more divided on partisan lines than ever, Hillary is right on this.

And yet, Independents and moderates are turning out in record numbers to vote for Obama. He's even gotten quite a few crossover Republican votes. It seems that some people can mobilize voters from many different backgrounds.

He has almost the same voting record on Iraq as her (including that fake attempt at a pullout that got shot down),

Except for the fact that he has been opposed to the war from the start and spoke out against it even as Congress was voting to authorize it.

has taken a hawkish position on Iran,

Hawkish, eh? You mean things like actually opening up diplomatic channels with Iran - something that hasn't been done in over 20 years? Or was it the part where he opposed declaring Iran's military a terrorist organization?

has promised to invade Pakistan on the basis of "actionable intelligence",

Not "invade Pakistan". He promised to go after terrorists if they were in Pakistan. You won't find a single candidate who wouldn't make the promise to go after, for instance, Osama bin Laden, wherever they could. Even Ron Paul has stated that we should be going after Al-Qaeda.

Nah, Obama has great details on his site about all of his policies.

Hillary isn't trustworthy and voted to let the Bush Jr. have his war.

Hillary is just too divisive anyway and plays old politics. She has too many corporate masters as well. A vote for Hillary is a vote for a Republican president.

Your last line should be my sig. Hillary is divisive and will not bring any major change to the way politics gets done in the beltway. Barack Obama has great details as people pointed out earlier. All that is needed is a curious nature and an understanding of a google search.

Hillary Clinton has never made me feel inspired with anything she has ever said. Sure, she's smart and very full of herself no doubt. People do not want to vote for her and it has nothing to do with gender. She's entrenched in the politics of the Bush/Clinton years. Republicans are not going to run to the table of brotherhood with her at the healm. Obama is a transformative leader at the right time. He's smart, charismatic, and has an incredible vision for where he wants to lead the country. He's a fighter who battles back with class, trying to avoid having to go negative, if only to defend a Hillary attack.

What Barack represents for the American People is bigger than the man himself. It's a grassroots movement that gets bigger everywhere he goes. When he talks people are moved to his message. Every now and again there are special people who come to the forefront to lead. Running against Hillary, with her name recognition, he's winning people over every day. As of right now he's doing very well and the delegates are lining up well.

I have a feeling that Thumbless wants Hillary to win because he knows the campaign would be a crapfest of negativity, and deliver the White House to McCain. I like the idea because I like John McCain.

Your last line should be my sig. Hillary is divisive and will not bring any major change to the way politics gets done in the beltway. Barack Obama has great details as people pointed out earlier. All that is needed is a curious nature and an understanding of a google search.

Hillary Clinton has never made me feel inspired with anything she has ever said. Sure, she's smart and very full of herself no doubt. People do not want to vote for her and it has nothing to do with gender. She's entrenched in the politics of the Bush/Clinton years. Republicans are not going to run to the table of brotherhood with her at the healm. Obama is a transformative leader at the right time. He's smart, charismatic, and has an incredible vision for where he wants to lead the country. He's a fighter who battles back with class, trying to avoid having to go negative, if only to defend a Hillary attack.

What Barack represents for the American People is bigger than the man himself. It's a grassroots movement that gets bigger everywhere he goes. When he talks people are moved to his message. Every now and again there are special people who come to the forefront to lead. Running against Hillary, with her name recognition, he's winning people over every day. As of right now he's doing very well and the delegates are lining up well.

I have a feeling that Thumbless wants Hillary to win because he knows the campaign would be a crapfest of negativity, and deliver the White House to McCain. I like the idea because I like John McCain.

I believe Obama's popularity lies not with him, but the empty shell of maybe that he represents. He's different. He's not a Bush, nor a Clinton, and seems genuine. Does this make him a saint? No. Most likely he will be corrupted within two years if elected. But I believe most people are voting for him on the off chance he's not going be corrupted and actually change things. That's what Obama represents not change, but potential change.

I believe Obama's popularity lies not with him, but the empty shell of maybe that he represents. He's different. He's not a Bush, nor a Clinton, and seems genuine. Does this make him a saint? No. Most likely he will be corrupted within two years if elected. But I believe most people are voting for him on the off chance he's not going be corrupted and actually change things. That's what Obama represents not change, but potential change.

All politicans hold "potential" change. Hillary Clinton guarantees no change. I'll accept some chance over none.

Barack Obama has continued his rampage by sweeping the Georgia primaries, continuing what may be an unstoppable rush to the nomination.

That is not something that Democrats should aspire to, however. Barack Obama has never faced serious opposition from a Republican candidate in a national election, has little national electoral experience, and is remarkably vague during his debates, offering only glittering generalities such as "change is needed".

Hillary Rodham Clinton is the better, more electable choice. She has experience in this field. Her husband was a very successful President, and if she brings similar policies to the table, I see no reason why she could not be successful herself. She HAS fought Republicans before and won. She offers not the nebulous statements that Obama does, but rather specific policy-driven objectives backed by experience.

If you are in one of the Super Tuesday states and you favor Clinton, by all means get out there and VOTE. She needs your support now, and it is not too late.
I agree with you. Also, I don't think America's middle class will vote for an African American President. The only possibility I see, and that is slight, is if he is the nominee, then Hillary would have to be his running mate.

Hillary does have a better chance to win the WH.

Except for the fact that he has been opposed to the war from the start and spoke out against it even as Congress was voting to authorize it.

Yes, but he has still voted just like Hillary Clinton. And that he has been terribly vague and noncommital about when he would withdraw from Iraq (he wouldn't even say he would have withdrawn by the end of his term.) Words are cheap, so Obama uses plenty of them.

Hawkish, eh? You mean things like actually opening up diplomatic channels with Iran - something that hasn't been done in over 20 years? Or was it the part where he opposed declaring Iran's military a terrorist organization?

I mean the fact that he has not condemned a pre-emptive strike on Iran. (On 60 Minutes, he said "I think we should keep all options on the table," interesting since he of all people should know the threat from Iran is distant at best.) If that isn't hawkish...*

*Edit: Oh, let's not forget his strongly pro-Israel position either.

Not "invade Pakistan". He promised to go after terrorists if they were in Pakistan. You won't find a single candidate who wouldn't make the promise to go after, for instance, Osama bin Laden, wherever they could. Even Ron Paul has stated that we should be going after Al-Qaeda.

Yes, "invade Pakistan." If he sends soldiers into Pakistan without Pakistan's permission (which he will NEVER have, since it would be horrifically destabilizing), then that is an invasion. And quite honestly I don't care who advocates doing it; it's still a catastrophe waiting for happen. The fact that a supposedly pro-"peace" candidate would advocate this shows just how earnest he is being.

All the pro-Hillary arguments are anti-Hillary arguments if you actually do your research:

Argument 1: Hillary has more experience

Truth: Obama has far more experience holding elected office, and more experience helping people outside of elected office too. Also, experience is as experience does, and Hillary's record is not a wholly positive one.

Argument 2: Hillary has stood up to Republican attacks / has the battle scars / is "vetted"

Truth: Hillary has managed to make herself the most hated Democrat in the nation. Winning an election in freaking New York doesn't mean you've fought anything like what it would take to win any piece of Jesusland. She is steeped in so many scandals its a wonder she's even considered viable. Obama on the other hand gets real hardcore Midwest Republicans to vote for him in large numbers as they did in his Senate campaign, and he does it without hedging his politics.

Argument 3: Hillary is talking about the issues while Obama is talking glittering generalities:

Truth: Hillary recites grade school level talking points mostly about policies that are on Obama's (and every other Democrat's) platform as well. But an in-depth look at the candidates platforms reveals a much more sophisticated understanding of political realities and future challenges in Obama's platform. This is particularly evident in technology and health care. Where Clinton's platform talks about the general directions where she plans on throwing money, Obama's talks about how he can strengthen the various systems of government and society. Furthermore, Obama has given in depth speeches on each part of his platform. The problem I think is that Clinton-supporters are uncomfortable with Obama's meta-narrative, his campaign thesis (something which Clinton lacks) - that in order to make the changes we seek, it's necessary to change the way politics is done, and in order to change the way politics is done, it's necessary to inspire the population and give them the tools to hold their government accountable by improving transparency, ethics legislation, and mechanisms for citizen participation.

I agree with you. Also, I don't think America's middle class will vote for an African American President. The only possibility I see, and that is slight, is if he is the nominee, then Hillary would have to be his running mate.

Hillary does have a better chance to win the WH.As a person who has grown up around and been friends with many black people, middle class people, and conservative Republicans, I can say with complete certainty that even the most racist Republicans hate Hillary Clinton far more than they hate black people. Also, racial prejudice among white people is largely contextual (and self-denied). What they despise is the black man who wears baggy clothes and talks like a gangsta, or the black woman who sasses at them. Obama is a sufficiently transcendent figure that he does not push the same mental buttons that raise all the racial preconceptions in the average prejudiced non-black person.

I mean the fact that he has not condemned a pre-emptive strike on Iran. (On 60 Minutes, he said "I think we should keep all options on the table," interesting since he of all people should know the threat from Iran is distant at best.) If that isn't hawkish...*Of course he hasn't directly condemned a pre-emptive strike on Iran. That would be idiocy, because it sends the message to the Iranians that they can do whatever they want.

Yes, "invade Pakistan." If he sends soldiers into Pakistan without Pakistan's permission (which he will NEVER have, since it would be horrifically destabilizing), then that is an invasion. And quite honestly I don't care who advocates doing it; it's still a catastrophe waiting for happen. The fact that a supposedly pro-"peace" candidate would advocate this shows just how earnest he is being."Striking" doesn't necessarily mean sending soldiers, nor would sending soldiers necessarily constitute an invasion by the definitions usually implied.

none of the BEST choices have ever stood a chance. obama is probably the best choice that DOES.

if we were actually allowed the BEST choices it would have been between kussenich, and gravel for the dems and ron paul would have walked away with it for the replicants.

=^^=
.../\...

none of the BEST choices have ever stood a chance. obama is probably the best choice that DOES.

if we were actually allowed the BEST choices it would have been between kussenich, and gravel for the dems and ron paul would have walked away with it for the replicants.

=^^=
.../\...

Ron Paul isn't the best choice for anything.

None of the candidates are even remotely voteable.

Ron Paul isn't the best choice for anything.

as if mccain, or the huck, was? we're talking about reality here. or are we?

as long as we have a political proccess usurped by major economic intersts, we're not going to get, "best" choices. period.

but we can still try to pick between the best choices they allow us. and right now, that looks like obama.

=^^=
.../\...

Of the candidates who can win, Obama is the least objectionable. While he deserves condemnation for not refusing to rule out attacking Iran, he does deserve credit for at least being willing to try talking to them first, and for wanting to try actually talking to nations who hate us - i.e., Venezuela - rather than being deliberately belligerent towards them.

Of the candidates who can win, Obama is the least objectionable. While he deserves condemnation for not refusing to rule out attacking Iran, he does deserve credit for at least being willing to try talking to them first, and for wanting to try actually talking to nations who hate us - i.e., Venezuela - rather than being deliberately belligerent towards them.Obama has no experience in international affairs whatsoever

Obama has no experience in international affairs whatsoever

So? He's not a belligerent warmongering fascist like Hillary, McCain, or Romney.

So? He's not a belligerent warmongering fascist like Hillary, McCain, or Romney.utter wank

utter wank

?

?

When you've been around longer you'll find that UB is one of the most intolerant people on NSG. It is 100% his way or the highway.

I HATE OBAMA COZ HES BLACK BUT I'M TO SCARED TO ADMIT IT

Fixed.

When you've been around longer you'll find that UB is one of the most intolerant people on NSG. It is 100% his way or the highway.

Ah, okay.

Fixed.

Nah, if that was the case UB would admit it, I'm sure He's as certain of the rightness of his position as AP.

All the pro-Hillary arguments are anti-Hillary arguments if you actually do your research:

Argument 1: Hillary has more experience

Truth: Obama has far more experience holding elected office, and more experience helping people outside of elected office too. Also, experience is as experience does, and Hillary's record is not a wholly positive one.

Argument 2: Hillary has stood up to Republican attacks / has the battle scars / is "vetted"

Truth: Hillary has managed to make herself the most hated Democrat in the nation. Winning an election in freaking New York doesn't mean you've fought anything like what it would take to win any piece of Jesusland. She is steeped in so many scandals its a wonder she's even considered viable. Obama on the other hand gets real hardcore Midwest Republicans to vote for him in large numbers as they did in his Senate campaign, and he does it without hedging his politics.

Argument 3: Hillary is talking about the issues while Obama is talking glittering generalities:

Truth: Hillary recites grade school level talking points mostly about policies that are on Obama's (and every other Democrat's) platform as well. But an in-depth look at the candidates platforms reveals a much more sophisticated understanding of political realities and future challenges in Obama's platform. This is particularly evident in technology and health care. Where Clinton's platform talks about the general directions where she plans on throwing money, Obama's talks about how he can strengthen the various systems of government and society. Furthermore, Obama has given in depth speeches on each part of his platform. The problem I think is that Clinton-supporters are uncomfortable with Obama's meta-narrative, his campaign thesis (something which Clinton lacks) - that in order to make the changes we seek, it's necessary to change the way politics is done, and in order to change the way politics is done, it's necessary to inspire the population and give them the tools to hold their government accountable by improving transparency, ethics legislation, and mechanisms for citizen participation.

As a person who has grown up around and been friends with many black people, middle class people, and conservative Republicans, I can say with complete certainty that even the most racist Republicans hate Hillary Clinton far more than they hate black people. Also, racial prejudice among white people is largely contextual (and self-denied). What they despise is the black man who wears baggy clothes and talks like a gangsta, or the black woman who sasses at them. Obama is a sufficiently transcendent figure that he does not push the same mental buttons that raise all the racial preconceptions in the average prejudiced non-black person.

Of course he hasn't directly condemned a pre-emptive strike on Iran. That would be idiocy, because it sends the message to the Iranians that they can do whatever they want.

"Striking" doesn't necessarily mean sending soldiers, nor would sending soldiers necessarily constitute an invasion by the definitions usually implied.


This pretty much sums up why Obama is a good choice as President, it's worth a shot, better than another Clintonoid.
Go Obama.

Fixed.What a rubbish. Who outside of the US knew who Obama was two years ago? If Clinton gets elected at least folks know what they will get, in the US as well as around the world. Obama wasn't even known to most US Americans two years ago. You just can't tell me that he is an experienced politician. All his drivel about Change without telling to what is in fact somewhat scary.

I'm not as conservative is it may appear. Come to think of it, I'm leaning towards voting for Obama if he gets the nomination. If its Hillary? Not a chance in hell will I vote for her. She's more divisive than Bush is and much more polarizing figure.

case in point for the reason not to vote clinton...obama has broad appeal and can harness the anti republican sentiment in the US

case in point for the reason not to vote clinton...obama has broad appeal and can harness the anti republican sentiment in the USwhat does appeal mean? what about substance?

what does appeal mean? what about substance?

Obama has more substance and Obama has the ability to cross party lines and work with the opposing party. That is something that is currently needed.

Obama has expressed willingness to cross party lines and work with the opposing party.

fixed

The problem with Hillary is there is virtually no one ambivilent torwards her, she's either loved or hated for the most part, and no Democratic politician active today brings out the foaming-at-the-mouth rabid blind hatred that she seems to generate among her detractors. She would probably be a very effective president, with her entire term burdened with the same sort of frantic witch hunts by those detractors that plagued her husbands tenure (the GOP seems to favor such tactics these days, if someones doing a good job, dig up dirt on them, real or imagined).

Obama has generated a sense of optomism and hope among his supporters that hasn't been seen in a while, and America seems ripe for hope right now. Of course if he does get elected he'll face the same opposition, but he's kind of an unknown, sure the conservative far right wingers wanna point their fingers and say 'OMG, he's a black man with an arab sounding name for chrissake!' but that sort of blatant racism usually backfires these days.

Gonna be interesting.. probably gonna have the most important convention for the Dems since '68 because I don't think anyone's gonna lock it.

What a rubbish. Who outside of the US knew who Obama was two years ago? If Clinton gets elected at least folks know what they will get, in the US as well as around the world. Obama wasn't even known to most US Americans two years ago. You just can't tell me that he is an experienced politician. All his drivel about Change without telling to what is in fact somewhat scary.



He's better than Hillary. And his success in NH is due to the fact that, unlike you, the majority of Americans are smart enough to base their choices for president based on a candidates merits rather than their skin colour.

He's better than Hillary. And his success in NH is due to the fact that, unlike you, the majority of Americans are smart enough to base their choices for president based on a candidates merits rather than their skin colour.

It's entirely possible to be skeptical of Obama for reasons other than his level of skin pigmentation.

He's better than Hillary. And his success in NH is due to the fact that, unlike you, the majority of Americans are smart enough to base their choices for president based on a candidates merits rather than their skin colour.What merits does Obama have?

What merits does Obama have?

Well how about the fact that he has in fact served as a legislator longer than Clinton, despite what the Hillary team would like you to believe?

It's entirely possible to be skeptical of Obama for reasons other than his level of skin pigmentation.

See if you can come up with a reason why Barack souldnt be president with out using the N-word.

What merits does Obama have?

Aside from the fact that he is less polarizing than Hillary, he could also appeal to the minorities in America.

See if you can come up with a reason why Barack souldnt be president with out using the N-word.

I was referring to United Beleriand. All I'm saying is, it's entirely possible that he (UB) has reservations about Obama for reasons other than his skin color.

Oh, but if you want a reason why he shouldn't be President, here it is: He refuses to rule out attacking Iran.

Yes, but he has still voted just like Hillary Clinton. And that he has been terribly vague and noncommital about when he would withdraw from Iraq (he wouldn't even say he would have withdrawn by the end of his term.) Words are cheap, so Obama uses plenty of them.

And she has been poignant on this issue? How can you expect him to have a solid date for withdrawel when he is not privy to insider information such as the PDB? In order to make an informed decision about how to drawn down US troops it would make sense to have all available information don't you think?

I mean the fact that he has not condemned a pre-emptive strike on Iran. (On 60 Minutes, he said "I think we should keep all options on the table," interesting since he of all people should know the threat from Iran is distant at best.) If that isn't hawkish...*

Why the hell not? If Iran is threatening the safety of US citizens and it is verifiable then a pre-emtpive strike would not be out of the question. You are also forgetting the many instances where he promotes talking "to our friends as well as our enemies." This means opening up a meaningful discussion with Iran and other hostile powers. A candidate who rules out protecting America from threats will make a President who 1. Put the safety of Americans at risk 2. a flip flopper of the future 3. someone who is unfit to be CIC.

*Edit: Oh, let's not forget his strongly pro-Israel position either.

Do you really want to go down this road in defending Hillary? Cut your losses on this point before it becomes hopeless.



Yes, "invade Pakistan." If he sends soldiers into Pakistan without Pakistan's permission (which he will NEVER have, since it would be horrifically destabilizing), then that is an invasion. And quite honestly I don't care who advocates doing it; it's still a catastrophe waiting for happen. The fact that a supposedly pro-"peace" candidate would advocate this shows just how earnest he is being.\

You may not be an advocate for invasion, but Hillary was when she voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq. So here we have one candidate who opposed that invasion and one who supported it. We have the reality of an actual verifiable vote and your conjecture. Which one is more relevant? Osama Bin Laden and his closest advisors are said to be hiding in the mountain regions between Afghanistan and Pakistan. If there is actionable intelligence that will lead to the death or capture of OBL then a President would be derelict of their duty not to go after him. I am not for GWB, but he is right when he says "we must hunt them down, deny them sanctuary, and bring them to justice." If only he had kept the focus on Al Quaeda instead of switching to Iraq.

Oh, but if you want a reason why he shouldn't be President, here it is: He refuses to rule out attacking Iran.

Of course he hasn't! No sane politician would ever rule out that kind of option. Even I, as a staunch pacifist and Anti-War activist can see that. You must keep your options open. You can't just announce to the world, that you will never back up your diplomatic talk with the threat of military force. Otherwise, it's all for nothing.

Of course he hasn't! No sane politician would ever rule out that kind of option. Even I, as a staunch pacifist and Anti-War activist can see that. You must keep your options open. You can't just announce to the world, that you will never back up your diplomatic talk with the threat of military force. Otherwise, it's all for nothing.

A sane politician (oxymoron if there ever was one) would recognize that Iran poses no threat whatsoever to the U.S.

The fact that Iran hasn't even attacked the U.S. makes all this talk about Iran all the more stupid.

Well how about the fact that he has in fact served as a legislator longer than Clinton, despite what the Hillary team would like you to believe?time in office is not a merit

Aside from the fact that he is less polarizing than Hillary, he could also appeal to the minorities in America.minorities don't make the majority. what does he do for the average citizen? what are his real merits? change and hope don't pay bills, you know.

time in office is not a merit

Then why has it often been touted this primary season by the Hillary team that Hillary has so much more "experience" than Obama? They often remark the fact that Obama has only served as a US senator for 3 years compared to Hillary's 7 years, despite that fact that he also served 7 years as a state legislator in the Illinois Senate.

Yes, but he has still voted just like Hillary Clinton. And that he has been terribly vague and noncommital about when he would withdraw from Iraq (he wouldn't even say he would have withdrawn by the end of his term.) Words are cheap, so Obama uses plenty of them.

Actually, he has point-blank stated that he'd have all combat troops out within 16 months. Unlike Clinton, he has put a timeline on it.

I mean the fact that he has not condemned a pre-emptive strike on Iran. (On 60 Minutes, he said "I think we should keep all options on the table," interesting since he of all people should know the threat from Iran is distant at best.) If that isn't hawkish...*

He's condemned pre-emptive strikes in general.

Yes, "invade Pakistan." If he sends soldiers into Pakistan without Pakistan's permission (which he will NEVER have, since it would be horrifically destabilizing), then that is an invasion. And quite honestly I don't care who advocates doing it; it's still a catastrophe waiting for happen. The fact that a supposedly pro-"peace" candidate would advocate this shows just how earnest he is being.

Pro-peace has to mean that we don't go after those who have attacked us? Sounds like an invitation to be attacked all the time to me.


I agree with you. Also, I don't think America's middle class will vote for an African American President.

Ah, the "let's perpetuate racism" argument against Obama. If you think so poorly of the American people, what makes you think they can overcome sexism enough to vote for a woman?

What a rubbish. Who outside of the US knew who Obama was two years ago? If Clinton gets elected at least folks know what they will get, in the US as well as around the world. Obama wasn't even known to most US Americans two years ago. You just can't tell me that he is an experienced politician. All his drivel about Change without telling to what is in fact somewhat scary.

It's comments like this that make me wonder if the opposition to Obama has any substance at all. He talks about the kinds of change he's looking for all the time. If you missed it, that's your fault, not his.


It's entirely possible to be skeptical of Obama for reasons other than his level of skin pigmentation.

Indeed. However, most of the opposition to him here has been nonsense declarations that make it clear that those affirming it haven't done enough homework to put forth reasoned opposition.

"He's too vague" - someone hasn't bothered looking. Everyone is vague in debates and the like, because there isn't time to put forth all the details. He's actually often less vague than the bulk.

"Other people won't vote for a black man" - Ah yes, we should perpetuate racism by giving in to it. That'll show 'em!

"He's inexperienced." - Less time in Washington does not equate to inexperience. Believe it or not, DC is not the only place to get experience.

"He's hawkish on Iran." - He's the only candidate planning on actually opening up diplomatic ties with Iran, instead of saber rattling at them.

And so on...

Of course, we have at least risen above the "I HEARD HE'S AN EBIL MUSLIM!" argument.

Nah, if that was the case UB would admit it, I'm sure He's as certain of the rightness of his position as AP.

Or, eerily enough, much like a religious fundamentalist, for that matter.

Or, eerily enough, much like a religious fundamentalist, for that matter.

Does his last name end with "-uckabee"? :p

Not to mention that he can cross party lines in hope of reaching a fair compromise.has he?

Aside from the fact that he is less polarizing than Hillary, he could also appeal to the minorities in America.

Not to mention that he can cross party lines in hope of reaching a fair compromise.

Oh, but if you want a reason why he shouldn't be President, here it is: He refuses to rule out attacking Iran.

So has Clinton! What's your point?

Nah, if that was the case UB would admit it, I'm sure He's as certain of the rightness of his position as AP.What do you mean? I don't give a shit whether he's black or whatever. I judge people by what's in their minds. And Obama makes the impression of not having made up his mind yet.

In order to be in the position that he's in now, damn straight.on which occasion? as a senator? or on his campaign? or back in Illinois?

has he?

In order to be in the position that he's in now, damn straight.

Man, your guys' candidates are somewhat lame.

Hillary would be a crappy President, mostly because the whole time in office would be dominated by "so aye, your husband still shagged Monica Lewinsky 10 years ago, let's make a point of this", also having the same two families running the country for 20+ years is ridiculous. Also, flip-flops like hell.

Barack Obama - erm, OK I suppose, but kind of woolly in terms of policies. Hardly the only Democratic candidate to flip-flop a bit. A bit young, perhaps, and no foreign policy experience. Still probably the best of the bunch.

McCain - far, far too old, also tortured in a war. That's the kind of thing that sort of changes your foreign policy outlook towards, say, South-Eastern Asia, no?

Any other Republican candidate - Nah.

So has Clinton! What's your point?

That none of the major douchebags running for President should be elected?

I think Americans should just cut out all this middle-man bullshit and vote for Oprah Winfrey.
:headbang:

on which occasion? as a senator? or on his campaign? or back in Illinois?

yes! Yes! and yes! Considering that republicans are seriously considering voting for Obama says alot.

Okay...

Obama draws in people who refer to Hillary as "bitch", "ho", "warmongering"...

but Obama himself is less polarizing. It's only his supporters who are disgustingly polarizing.

Have I summed that up correctly?

Okay...

Obama draws in people who refer to Hillary as "bitch", "ho", "warmongering"...

but Obama himself is less polarizing. It's only his supporters who are disgustingly polarizing.

Have I summed that up correctly?

um no considering that there are many democrats who consider Hillary to be a Bitch, ho and warmongering as well :D

Not to mention that he can cross party lines in hope of reaching a fair compromise.


This translates as "Cross party lines to demand the other party agree to your proposal, which you and your supporters have already unilaterally decreed is fair."

The only person running who has actually, on record, adopted coalition positions with members of a rival party, for better or worse, is actually McCain.

This is probably why the Right Wing Gasbag bunch hates him.

It is not easy to be Republican, be endorsed by the New York Times, and smeared by Rush Limbaugh, but he managed it.

um no considering that there are many democrats who consider Hillary to be a Bitch, ho and warmongering as well :D

Well that's my point- if you blow off the opposition, even in your own party, as warmongering ho bitch, any claim to "not polarizing" is pretty much out the window.

fixed

No, he was right the first time. IL is a state with a lot of disenfranchised Republicans because of the power of Chicago. And vice versa, because the majority of the state (in terms of area) is Republican, so it's a very divided state. Obama proved to be very successful at bridging that gap while continuing to support the issues of his consituency.

And she has been poignant on this issue? How can you expect him to have a solid date for withdrawel when he is not privy to insider information such as the PDB? In order to make an informed decision about how to drawn down US troops it would make sense to have all available information don't you think?

First of all, you are assuming that I support Hillary, which I made rather clear that I don't. (i.e. when I said Obama is as bad as Hillary.) Obama's obfuscation is just like the fake withdrawal bill that the Democrat Congress passed; he is leaving plenty of loopholes to give a hand-out to the interested parties and not pushing it with any real strength. (Hence why he would keep up to 60,000 troops in Iraq.)

Why the hell not? If Iran is threatening the safety of US citizens and it is verifiable then a pre-emtpive strike would not be out of the question.

Which they aren't. The 'threat' from Iran is so distant that it's hardly worth mentioning; it would take them an eternity to make weapons-grade plutonium, and everyone would know it if they tried.

You are also forgetting the many instances where he promotes talking "to our friends as well as our enemies." This means opening up a meaningful discussion with Iran and other hostile powers. A candidate who rules out protecting America from threats will make a President who 1. Put the safety of Americans at risk 2. a flip flopper of the future 3. someone who is unfit to be CIC.

Which basically means that he will attempt to put Iran in the Federal imperialist fold, like we did with Saddam Hussein before we decided we didn't like him anymore. His insistence upon the 'danger' of Iran is nothing more than preying upon the fears of Americans for the advancement of his own agenda.

Do you really want to go down this road in defending Hillary? Cut your losses on this point before it becomes hopeless.

Fuck Obama AND Hillary. I never said I liked that bitch; in fact, I made it clear in my first post.

You may not be an advocate for invasion, but Hillary was when she voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq. So here we have one candidate who opposed that invasion and one who supported it. We have the reality of an actual verifiable vote and your conjecture. Which one is more relevant?

Again; I despise both Obama and Hillary. Just because Hillary supported a retarded idea previously doesn't make it OK for Obama to like a retarded idea too.

Osama Bin Laden and his closest advisors are said to be hiding in the mountain regions between Afghanistan and Pakistan. If there is actionable intelligence that will lead to the death or capture of OBL then a President would be derelict of their duty not to go after him. I am not for GWB, but he is right when he says "we must hunt them down, deny them sanctuary, and bring them to justice." If only he had kept the focus on Al Quaeda instead of switching to Iraq.

Killing OBL by means which will inflame anti-American sentiment and lead to an even more oppressive state in Pakistan is a victory only for a politician, and a death sentence for the rest of us.

Actually, he has point-blank stated that he'd have all combat troops out within 16 months. Unlike Clinton, he has put a timeline on it.

RUSSERT: “Will you pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term, more than
five years from now, there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq?”
OBAMA: “I think it’s hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be
irresponsible. We don’t know what contingency will be out there.
What I can promise is that if there are still troops in Iraq when I take office—which it
appears there may be, unless we can get some of our Republican colleagues to change
their mind and cut off funding without a timetable—if there’s no timetable—then I will
drastically reduce our presence there to the mission of protecting our embassy,
protecting our civilians, and making sure that we’re carrying out counterterrorism
activities there. I believe that we should have all our troops out by 2013, but I don’t want
to make promises, not knowing what the situation’s going to be three or four years out.”

Obama would disagree.

He's condemned pre-emptive strikes in general.

Yet leaves them on the table as a loophole for himself, as evidenced by his 60 Minutes quote, so that he can point to his prior statements if he decides to change his mind.

Pro-peace has to mean that we don't go after those who have attacked us? Sounds like an invitation to be attacked all the time to me.

Pro-peace means it would be an extremely retarded idea to invade a sovereign country that has been our ally thus far, but would almost certainly become our enemy if we aggress against them. Yet the 'pro-peace' candidate seems to think marching into another country is fine and dandy.

*snip*

It's pretty clear that you're going to read something awful into any policy he puts forth, so it's not really worth it to answer any of this. I will, however, answer one:

Obama would disagree.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/#bring-home

No, he wouldn't

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.

Obama would disagree.

You don't see right in that quote where he supports a timetable, just not for a total pull-out. He does say clearly we should have all our troops out then, but simply allows for unforseen circumstances. I know people aren't used to a politician actually acknowledging they don't know everything, but he's actually speaking in terms that make sense. Absolutes are generally left to pundits and morons.


Yet leaves them on the table as a loophole for himself, as evidenced by his 60 Minutes quote, so that he can point to his prior statements if he decides to change his mind.

As I said, absolutes...

Intelligent people don't rule out things as impossible. Mostly because no matter how sure you are today that something is impossible, if you're remotely reasonable you're going to entertain new solutions when new problems arise. That's what he plainly says.



Pro-peace means it would be an extremely retarded idea to invade a sovereign country that has been our ally thus far, but would almost certainly become our enemy if we aggress against them. Yet the 'pro-peace' candidate seems to think marching into another country is fine and dandy.

Something he explicitly said. He doesn't think it's "fine and dandy". He said it's hard to fathom a reason, but as the nature of diplomacy requires such options, he leaves all options on the table. It's really appalling how little some people understand about diplomacy and, well, just the requirements of reason.

It's pretty clear that you're going to read something awful into any policy he puts forth, so it's not really worth it to answer any of this. I will, however, answer one:



http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/#bring-home

No, he wouldn't

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.

You do notice that our friend is just parroting talking points. There is no new or relevant information and the comments he's bringing forth are intentionally abused or taken out of context. Apparently if you leave any room for error, you're waffling. There aren't a lot of issues that reasonable people can be sure about. None of those issues are on this platform. Intelligent people recognize that new information might actually change a decision. Apparently, for some people, this is a frightening trait. Much better that, say, if we have some rather obviously flawed information that we should attack a sovereign nation and when things go south and we find out more and more information about how badly your strategies are working, you fire everyone giving you that information until you find someone who encourages you to "stay the course".

It's pretty clear that you're going to read something awful into any policy he puts forth,

Because he's a politician! All politicians have a common interest, which is the state, and taking advantage of the privileges it offers them. That is why his voting record on Iraq is the same as Hillary Clinton's, he still accepts millions in special interest money, and he allows those who wish to curry his favor to support him indirectly (such as 527's.) He is the same creature as any of the Beltway Bandits he decries, he just hasn't wallowed in the muck long enough for many to see the dirt on the outside.

I will, however, answer one:



http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/#bring-home

No, he wouldn't

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.

Very well. I will admit that one side of his mouth says he will withdraw within 16 months so that he can please the mob, the other says he is agnostic on when he will pullout, votes on the same lines as Senator Clinton, and will only take out a few soldiers while keeping tens of thousands right in the center of that mess so as to please the powerbrokers in Washington.

You don't see right in that quote where he supports a timetable, just not for a total pull-out. He does say clearly we should have all our troops out then, but simply allows for unforseen circumstances. I know people aren't used to a politician actually acknowledging they don't know everything, but he's actually speaking in terms that make sense. Absolutes are generally left to pundits and morons.

If a politician seems to be talking sense, it generally means he is up to no good. He will still have us in Iraq, regardless if he subtracts a few troops, and leaves a loophole for himself to take advantage of if (probably when) he decides to change his mind.

As I said, absolutes...

You do not seem to realize that Obama is still a politician, and still responds and has responded like the rest of the Beltway in a great many respects. Politicians leave loopholes for themselves so as to fall back upon them when they change their minds (like Bill Clinton did with his promised 'middle-class tax cuts.')

Intelligent people don't rule out things as impossible. Mostly because no matter how sure you are today that something is impossible, if you're remotely reasonable you're going to entertain new solutions when new problems arise. That's what he plainly says.

Obama is a politician, and is not ruling things out because he may change his mind when special interests wish to enlist his help. What he is doing is just the same as that fake withdrawal bill; leaving plenty of loopholes to aid the 'interested parties' in Iraq, and not pushing it with all sincerity so as to be able to bash the other party while maintaining the good will of the various powers in Washington.

Something he explicitly said. He doesn't think it's "fine and dandy". He said it's hard to fathom a reason, but as the nature of diplomacy requires such options, he leaves all options on the table. It's really appalling how little some people understand about diplomacy and, well, just the requirements of reason.

He said he would enter Pakistan without the permission of the Pakistani government, which would with absolute certainty destroy that country as a friend and make many more enemies against the United States. Keeping this option on the table is like keeping the option of 'nuke the United States' on the table, it would be so disastrous.

She is not more electable than Obama. She's not electable at all. She will galvanize the opposition, and Independents will flock to McCain. I think McCain will win anyway, unfortunately, but Obama would have at least a chance agaisnt him.

Because he's a politician! All politicians have a common interest, which is the state, and taking advantage of the privileges it offers them. That is why his voting record on Iraq is the same as Hillary Clinton's, he still accepts millions in special interest money, and he allows those who wish to curry his favor to support him indirectly (such as 527's.) He is the same creature as any of the Beltway Bandits he decries, he just hasn't wallowed in the muck long enough for many to see the dirt on the outside.



Very well. I will admit that one side of his mouth says he will withdraw within 16 months so that he can please the mob, the other says he is agnostic on when he will pullout, votes on the same lines as Senator Clinton, and will only take out a few soldiers while keeping tens of thousands right in the center of that mess so as to please the powerbrokers in Washington.



If a politician seems to be talking sense, it generally means he is up to no good. He will still have us in Iraq, regardless if he subtracts a few troops, and leaves a loophole for himself to take advantage of if (probably when) he decides to change his mind.



You do not seem to realize that Obama is still a politician, and still responds and has responded like the rest of the Beltway in a great many respects. Politicians leave loopholes for themselves so as to fall back upon them when they change their minds (like Bill Clinton did with his promised 'middle-class tax cuts.')



Obama is a politician, and is not ruling things out because he may change his mind when special interests wish to enlist his help. What he is doing is just the same as that fake withdrawal bill; leaving plenty of loopholes to aid the 'interested parties' in Iraq, and not pushing it with all sincerity so as to be able to bash the other party while maintaining the good will of the various powers in Washington.



He said he would enter Pakistan without the permission of the Pakistani government, which would with absolute certainty destroy that country as a friend and make many more enemies against the United States. Keeping this option on the table is like keeping the option of 'nuke the United States' on the table, it would be so disastrous.

Interestingly enough, you undermine your own argument throughout by admitting you have an irrational general issue with politicians. You broad stroke any group and your founding your beliefs on fallacy. What you're saying might be true much of the time, but much of the time is not equal to all of the time.

Apparently, a poliitician takes a firm stance and he's being a politician. He takes a reasonable and, thus, malleable stance and he's being a politician. You've adequately demonstrated that your points are founded on prejudice, not reason. One wonders why you'd do so, if you're actually interested in reasoned debate.

You do notice that our friend is just parroting talking points. There is no new or relevant information and the comments he's bringing forth are intentionally abused or taken out of context.

I will say this: Obama does not walk on water, no matter how much you, or anyone else, would like to believe.

Interestingly enough, you undermine your own argument throughout by admitting you have an irrational general issue with politicians. You broad stroke any group and your founding your beliefs on fallacy. What you're saying might be true much of the time, but much of the time is not equal to all of the time.

It's not an 'irrational general issue.' It is one of the basic parts of human action that people act to maximize their income (whether psychic or monetary.) When we are talking about the state, which is a monopoly on jurisdiction, we can conclude that the act of the state will be to decide in its favor thanks to its unique status as its own third party, just the same as we could conclude that a business would maximize its revenue by selling a product. And seeing as how Obama has voted like Hillary on Iraq and has accepted special interest money, or if that's too much of a hassle, their indirect support through indirect means like 527's, it is obvious he is not an exception to the rule.

Apparently, a poliitician takes a firm stance and he's being a politician. He takes a reasonable and, thus, malleable stance and he's being a politician. You've adequately demonstrated that your points are founded on prejudice, not reason. One wonders why you'd do so, if you're actually interested in reasoned debate.

Because taking a firm or malleable stance does not mean one is acting against those who want the state to decide in their favor. A politician could take a firm stance where there are dispersed costs and focused benefits, like a politician who is in the pockets of the agricultural lobby, or he could take a malleable stance so as to make the special interests compete for his patronage, such as a politician who has to decide between a company that wants to bulldoze a forest or an environmental group. The ultimate factor is that the politician is self-interested, and since Obama is a politician, he, too, is self-interested.

*snip*

How dare you have the audacity to doubt Saint Obama! :mad:

How dare you have the audacity to doubt Saint Obama! :mad:

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/JesusObama.jpg

:D

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/JesusObama.jpg

:D

That may very well be how he looks in the mind of many NSGers.

Obama is a politician? OMG, now we can't vote for him. Quick - tell me who is running that isn't a politician. :rolleyes:

Vote for the person with the best message and hope they follow through or stay home and cry because we have a politician running for government..

I will say this: Obama does not walk on water, no matter how much you, or anyone else, would like to believe.

What a rational argument. Clearly, if you support someone you think they walk on water. I mean, what rational person could think it would be different.

Do you have anything useful or did you choose to jump in to present a strawman?

How dare you have the audacity to doubt Saint Obama! :mad:

Hey, look another strawman argument. You don't have much faith in your ability to make a reasonable argument without fallacious rhetoric, do you?

What a rational argument. Clearly, if you support someone you think they walk on water. I mean, what rational person could think it would be different.

Do you have anything useful or did you choose to jump in to present a strawman?

Please excuse my blasphemy. I'll take my leave now.

Then stop acting like he's some saint. The man is a politician - one step above a whore. For all his hot air and empty rhetoric, the only "change" and "hope" he offers is his nice smile.

Please point out where I acted like Obama was a saint.

OH wait? I just voiced my opinion that I think he is the candidate I like the best? Is that what makes for a saint these days?

Why don't you put up some facts about how Obama is an evil greedy politician for our consideration?

Then stop acting like he's some saint. The man is a politician - one step above a whore. For all his hot air and empty rhetoric, the only "change" and "hope" he offers is his nice smile.


Don't you like the ideas that he will make the govt. transparent, give the general public to weigh in online for 5 days on any bill before he signs it into law and take away the power of corporate lobbyists?

That may very well be how he looks in the mind of many NSGers.

I've got a million of em. :D

http://swordattheready.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/ron-paul-babies.jpg

It's not an 'irrational general issue.' It is one of the basic parts of human action that people act to maximize their income (whether psychic or monetary.) When we are talking about the state, which is a monopoly on jurisdiction, we can conclude that the act of the state will be to decide in its favor thanks to its unique status as its own third party, just the same as we could conclude that a business would maximize its revenue by selling a product. And seeing as how Obama has voted like Hillary on Iraq and has accepted special interest money, or if that's too much of a hassle, their indirect support through indirect means like 527's, it is obvious he is not an exception to the rule.

Again, these are generalizations. You can't apply them to individuals. It's irrational. Since your argument would equally apply to EVERY person, how is your analysis useful at all? Should we just decend into chaos in order to appease your hatred of politicians?

Meanwhile, you claim it's "obvious" but you admitted in earlier posts that you don't actually know. Himm... contradict yourself much?


Because taking a firm or malleable stance does not mean one is acting against those who want the state to decide in their favor. A politician could take a firm stance where there are dispersed costs and focused benefits, like a politician who is in the pockets of the agricultural lobby, or he could take a malleable stance so as to make the special interests compete for his patronage, such as a politician who has to decide between a company that wants to bulldoze a forest or an environmental group. The ultimate factor is that the politician is self-interested, and since Obama is a politician, he, too, is self-interested.

Would a self-defeating argument? We're discussing who is the best politician to take a particular political office and you've presented an argument that applies equally to all politicians. As such, it provides NO argument in any direction whatsoever.

Obama is a politician? OMG, now we can't vote for him. Quick - tell me who is running that isn't a politician. :rolleyes:

Vote for the person with the best message and hope they follow through or stay home and cry because we have a politician running for government..

Then stop acting like he's some saint. The man is a politician - one step above a whore. For all his hot air and empty rhetoric, the only "change" and "hope" he offers is his nice smile.

Please excuse my blasphemy. I'll take my leave now.

Like I said, yet another. Feel free to speak to actual points. You appear to be afraid to do so. You should have more faith in yourself. Certainly, you have actual REASONS behind your opinions, not just made up strawman about people having to worship the politician they support.

I've got a million of em. :D

http://swordattheready.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/ron-paul-babies.jpg

Brilliant, but I don't support Paul, or any other politician.

(Got any of McCain, Hillary, and the rest? :D)

Putting "evil" and "greedy" before "politician" is redundant.

You people reject any criticism of him, and whenever someone like Venndee points out one of Saint Obama's flaws, you are quick to cover it up and ignore it.

What makes Obama any different from the other candidates? He is a politician. He wants what all other politicians want: Power.



So do you just not vote because politicians are inherantly "ebil" so voting for one would be a waste?

My, what a contribution to the democratic process and society you make.

Then stop acting like he's some saint. The man is a politician - one step above a whore. For all his hot air and empty rhetoric, the only "change" and "hope" he offers is his nice smile.

And, shockingly, we're comparing him to other politicians. As such, talking about how being a politician is a bad thing, really doesn't do anything but complain. No one is talking about how he's a politician, since it's an obvious and useless point. We're also not pointing out that he's not a saint, because it's also obvious and useless.

We can keep going though if you want.

He's not 3 feet tall.
He's got two feet.
He breathes air.
He's got a spouse.
He's got fingers.
He was born.
He's human.
He's American.

See how it useful it is to simply make obvious statements that are true of every candidate? What a wonderful addition to the discussion you've been.

You people reject any criticism of him,

Hardly. In fact, I have some criticisms of my own.

and whenever someone like Venndee points out one of Saint Obama's flaws, you are quick to cover it up and ignore it.


If Venndee wants to point out one of Obama's flaws, that would be fine. However, all Venndee has done is bring up refutable talking points and whine about politicians in general.

While I agree that politics tends to have a corrupting effect on even the most idealistic people going in, it's irrational to suggest that all politicians are exactly the same. They are still human beings, with all the variation therein.

Please point out where I acted like Obama was a saint.

OH wait? I just voiced my opinion that I think he is the candidate I like the best? Is that what makes for a saint these days?

Why don't you put up some facts about how Obama is an evil greedy politician for our consideration?

Putting "evil" and "greedy" before "politician" is redundant.

You people reject any criticism of him, and whenever someone like Venndee points out one of Saint Obama's flaws, you are quick to cover it up and ignore it.

What makes Obama any different from the other candidates? He is a politician. He wants what all other politicians want: Power.

He doesn't have facts. Just strawmen. People who actually want to have a reasonable discussion about ideas don't generally start by burning strawmen. Obviously, we're soundly defeated. Who can argue with him? He's firmly established that Obama isn't a saint and is a politician. Thank goodness he joined our discussion.

Indeed. How would I ever have known these things without him telling us?

Please point out where I acted like Obama was a saint.

OH wait? I just voiced my opinion that I think he is the candidate I like the best? Is that what makes for a saint these days?

Why don't you put up some facts about how Obama is an evil greedy politician for our consideration?

He doesn't have facts. Just strawmen. People who actually want to have a reasonable discussion about ideas don't generally start by burning strawmen. Obviously, we're soundly defeated. Who can argue with him? He's firmly established that Obama isn't a saint and is a politician. Thank goodness he joined our discussion.

Brilliant, but I don't support Paul, or any other politician.

(Got any of McCain, Hillary, and the rest? :D)

Yep, but if I post them all at once, It could be considered image spam. There's a good Hillary one in another thread. :)

He's firmly established that Obama isn't a saint and is a politician.

Good, because you people sure haven't. NSG should be renamed The Church of Obama.

Putting "evil" and "greedy" before "politician" is redundant.

You people reject any criticism of him, and whenever someone like Venndee points out one of Saint Obama's flaws, you are quick to cover it up and ignore it.

What makes Obama any different from the other candidates? He is a politician. He wants what all other politicians want: Power.

We discuss criticism of him and give our supported opinions. You're welcome to do the same. The fact that people disagree with your about Obama has little to do with his status as a non-Saint, and much to do with your inability or unwillingness to support your points with reason and evidence.

Yep, but if I post them all at once, It could be considered image spam. There's a good Hillary one in another thread. :)

TG me. :)

Why would anyone vote for that warmongering harpy? My god what a scary woman.


Um we elected Bush ... both father and son .. and had them both in office for two terms .. and remember this .. while Bush Sr. was director of the CIA he trained the very people his son declared war on ( those terrorist cells though at that time they were known as freedom fighters) :sniper:

Personally I find her more palatable to what we have had. Secondly I think she is a better choice than Obama who is honestly untried against a strong opposition... and we know she understands what it is like to be under scrutiny from the press. I think Obama would be better for VP on this run.

Good, because you people sure haven't. NSG should be renamed The Church of Obama.

Do you evidence for this "worship" or just more nonsense? I challenge you to find one person pretending he's a saint or a prophet.

Like I said, when you'd like to try reason and evidence, you might find you do better against people who are dealing in both. Logical fallacies really only appeal to people who tend to get really aggravated running around a forum full of people so adequate at pointing out said fallacies.

Indeed. How would I ever have known these things without him telling us?

Wow the servers are way out of sync today. You're like five posts above me but listed as the last reply.

Apparently, we need to start a thread about whether Obama is the best choice for President by establishing that we are comparing him to other politicians and, thus, don't find it necessary to point out he's a politician and not actually being compared to Mother Theresa.

Good, because you people sure haven't. NSG should be renamed The Church of Obama.

OK we get it, it is pointless in trying to change things democratically.

What do you suggest we do instead instead?

Hardly. In fact, I have some criticisms of my own.



If Venndee wants to point out one of Obama's flaws, that would be fine. However, all Venndee has done is bring up refutable talking points and whine about politicians in general.

While I agree that politics tends to have a corrupting effect on even the most idealistic people going in, it's irrational to suggest that all politicians are exactly the same. They are still human beings, with all the variation therein.

I support this post, therefore I must think you are a Saint. All hail Saint Dempublicents1!

time in office is not a merit

No, but it goes to what people consider as Hillary's strength. She's always talking about "experience" and such. The poster was simply pointing out that Barack has more experience as a legislator than Hillary. He's also not a carpetbagger which is nice :-)

Barack Obama has continued his rampage by sweeping the Georgia primaries, continuing what may be an unstoppable rush to the nomination.

That is not something that Democrats should aspire to, however. Barack Obama has never faced serious opposition from a Republican candidate in a national election, has little national electoral experience, and is remarkably vague during his debates, offering only glittering generalities such as "change is needed".

Hillary Rodham Clinton is the better, more electable choice. She has experience in this field. Her husband was a very successful President, and if she brings similar policies to the table, I see no reason why she could not be successful herself. She HAS fought Republicans before and won. She offers not the nebulous statements that Obama does, but rather specific policy-driven objectives backed by experience.

If you are in one of the Super Tuesday states and you favor Clinton, by all means get out there and VOTE. She needs your support now, and it is not too late.

I'm not sure that any of these arguments are really arguments strictly against Obama. Hillary Clinton has never faced serious opposition from a Republican candidate in a national election, unless Rick Lazio suddenly morphed into someone credible when I wasn't looking. Hillary Clinton also has exactly one more Senatorial election under her belt than Barack Obama; seriously, if experience was your main feature, why the hell weren't you out there fighting for Joe Biden or my man Chris Dodd, who each have about 15-20 more years in the Senate than Hillary does? The glittering generality of his speeches is just beside the point: the same could be said for the I Have a Dream speech or the Gettysburg Address; by contrast, I didn't hear too many people lauding Bush's SotU speech for relying heavily on the nuts-and-bolts aspects of governance. The fact that if you consulted Obama's website, you would be bored to tears with the minutie aside, Nuts-and-bolts seems to equal good only when the other guy is a vastly superior speaker.

That being said, most of the advantages you think Clinton has are actually subject to some debate. First and foremost, she is electable only if you see the country as being in the middle of some intractable Sharks-vs.-Jets turf war and therefore has the moxie to power her way to a 50%+1 victory. I don't. I see about 20% of the country as committed to some kind of functional political insanity, yes, but 20% does not a majority make. Most of the country, even those who still "support" the President, would concede deep down that one way or another Bush has been the worst President since Herbert Hoover. What they don't need is to have their nose rubbed in the dirt about it; Hillary in this case is a paradigmatic nose-rubber.

Second (and third, but I'm getting ahead of myself), I would also say that you must be remembering a different 90's than I do if you think that Bill Clinton did a great job as president. The President that I remember, to use an extended analogy, did a hell of a job of bluffing for 6 years with a pair of twos, and stymied the worst aspects of the Gingrich Congress, a fact that almost but not quite makes up for the fact that Bill Clinton actively stacked the deck in 93-94 and did a pretty miserable job of it. How you can call a guy who could not get healthcare passed through a House and Senate his party controlled a great politician is beyond me. Compounding matters is that what they did manage to pass, NAFTA, sold the American working class down the river, or in this case, across the river; there's a reason why today Mexico exports more into the U.S. than America exports to the world.

Which leads me to the third point, which is I am not a little miffed by how dumb you seem to think I am with the constant selective agglomeration of Hillary with Bill. Hillary is her own woman . . .right up until she needs to talk about her experience, in which case somehow Bill's years count for her. Hillary is seasoned. . .right up until you count the fact that she was never elected to anything until she won carpetbagger of the year award in 2000, in which case Bill's elections count too. Hillary is battle-tested . . .right up until you remember the above, at which point apparently she was impeached too. Hillary is capable . . . right up until you remember how badly Bill mismanaged the country and sold gays, the working poor, and the middle class down the river, in which case that was NOT her fault and a misjudgment about Bill anyway. Seriously, the have-it-all-ways-that-work-to-my-advantage method of spinning her experience is not only lying, it's insulting because I REMEMBER what happened, and the very idea of selectively duck-and-covering behind your husband's coattails is quite frankly appalling for me as a feminist. I suppose she'd do a fantastic job of president of Oceania, but I'm not voting in that particular election.

Um we elected Bush ... both father and son .. and had them both in office for two terms




Bush I only had one term in office.

Then stop acting like he's some saint. The man is a politician - one step above a whore. For all his hot air and empty rhetoric, the only "change" and "hope" he offers is his nice smile.

Putting "evil" and "greedy" before "politician" is redundant.

You people reject any criticism of him, and whenever someone like Venndee points out one of Saint Obama's flaws, you are quick to cover it up and ignore it.

What makes Obama any different from the other candidates? He is a politician. He wants what all other politicians want: Power.

Please excuse my blasphemy. I'll take my leave now.

I will say this: Obama does not walk on water, no matter how much you, or anyone else, would like to believe.

How dare you have the audacity to doubt Saint Obama! :mad:

That may very well be how he looks in the mind of many NSGers.

Good, because you people sure haven't. NSG should be renamed The Church of Obama.

Only Saint Obama can save our economy, our nation, our people, and our souls.




















Sorry, couldn't resist.

Damn, dude, you got another note on that trumpet or just the one?

If you are in one of the Super Tuesday states and you favor Clinton, by all means get out there and VOTE. She needs your support now, and it is not too late.

Vote for Hillary if:

1) You love war

or

2) You want Bill Clinton in for a 3rd term (she won't even listen to him, anyway...)

Bush I only had one term in office.

George W. Bush isn't a Jr.; he doesn't have the middle name "Herbert" like his father.

Or, eerily enough, much like a religious fundamentalist, for that matter.

Same thing, AP is a religious fundamentalist - his religion is Stalinism.

What do you mean? I don't give a shit whether he's black or whatever. I judge people by what's in their minds. And Obama makes the impression of not having made up his mind yet.

What I meant is that if you were against Obama because he was black (or muslim for that matter) you would state it. I've never seen you back down from a position because it was 'unpopular'.

No, he was right the first time. IL is a state with a lot of disenfranchised Republicans because of the power of Chicago. And vice versa, because the majority of the state (in terms of area) is Republican, so it's a very divided state. Obama proved to be very successful at bridging that gap while continuing to support the issues of his consituency.

Whether he can once in the Oval office is something that has yet to be demonstrated

If that was what he said, you'd have a point. It wasn't. He said he has the ability to cross party lines and that's been proven true.

It is what he implied.

has he?

yup

http://www.thinkyouth.org/2007/08/26/barack-obama-crossing-party-lines/

Whether he can once in the Oval office is something that has yet to be demonstrated

If that was what he said, you'd have a point. It wasn't. He said he has the ability to cross party lines and that's been proven true.

It is what he implied.

Um, what he implied is that he has the ability, not that he would necessarily accomplish it or do it. Your argument would be like me claiming in a discussion about who would win the Super Bowl a week ago, that when I say that Eli Manning has the ability to throw a game-winning pass, that it's an incorrect statement since it's not been proven. It's proven he has the ability. Whether he would do it in the Super Bowl at that point was yet to be seen.

Obama has that ability. Whether it will work out for him the Presidency is at question, certainly, but his statement was accurate as written, taken in context.

Again, these are generalizations. You can't apply them to individuals. It's irrational. Since your argument would equally apply to EVERY person, how is your analysis useful at all? Should we just decend into chaos in order to appease your hatred of politicians?

Yes, you can apply them to individuals, since self-interest is not a generalization about action but a necessary component of it. And from Obama's track record (such as the donations and 527's), it is obvious his self-interest is the same as any other politician's. Quite frankly, giving as little power as possible to politicians would reduce the chaos that THEY cause from their exchanges of favors.

Meanwhile, you claim it's "obvious" but you admitted in earlier posts that you don't actually know. Himm... contradict yourself much?

Where did I say I didn't know whether or not he was an exception to the rule? I have always said he is as bad as the next person.

Would a self-defeating argument? We're discussing who is the best politician to take a particular political office and you've presented an argument that applies equally to all politicians. As such, it provides NO argument in any direction whatsoever.

I am not providing no direction; you are begging the question of why there should be a political office in the first place. As I said before, the statist's interest is to use the privilege of a monopoly on jurisdiction to decide in their favor as their own third party. As such, no person can be trusted with such power.

Obama isn't accepting PAC money


The Problem

Lobbyists Write National Policies: For example, Vice President Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force of oil and gas lobbyists met secretly to develop national energy policy.

Secrecy Dominates Government Actions: The Bush administration has ignored public disclosure rules and has invoked a legal tool known as the "state secrets" privilege more than any other previous administration to get cases thrown out of civil court.

Wasteful Spending is Out of Control: The current administration has abused its power by handing out contracts without competition to its politically connected friends and supporters. These abuses cost taxpayers billions of dollars each year.


Barack Obama's Plan
Shine the Light on Washington Lobbying

* Centralize Ethics and Lobbying Information for Voters: Obama will create a centralized Internet database of lobbying reports, ethics records, and campaign finance filings in a searchable, sortable and downloadable format.
* Require Independent Monitoring of Lobbying Laws and Ethics Rules: Obama will use the power of the presidency to fight for an independent watchdog agency to oversee the investigation of congressional ethics violations so that the public can be assured that ethics complaints will be investigated.
* Support Campaign Finance Reform: Obama supports public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. Obama introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and is the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold's (D-WI) tough bill to reform the presidential public financing system.

Shine the Light on Federal Contracts, Tax Breaks and Earmarks

* Create a Public “Contracts and Influence” Database: As president, Obama will create a "contracts and influence" database that will disclose how much federal contractors spend on lobbying, and what contracts they are getting and how well they complete them.
* Expose Special Interest Tax Breaks to Public Scrutiny: Barack Obama will ensure that any tax breaks for corporate recipients — or tax earmarks — are also publicly available on the Internet in an easily searchable format.
* End Abuse of No-Bid Contracts: Barack Obama will end abuse of no-bid contracts by requiring that nearly all contract orders over $25,000 be competitively awarded.
* Sunlight Before Signing: Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.
* Shine Light on Earmarks and Pork Barrel Spending: Obama's Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act will shed light on all earmarks by disclosing the name of the legislator who asked for each earmark, along with a written justification, 72 hours before they can be approved by the full Senate.

Bring Americans Back into their Government

* Hold 21st Century Fireside Chats: Obama will bring democracy and policy directly to the people by requiring his Cabinet officials to have periodic national broadband townhall meetings to discuss issues before their agencies.
* Make White House Communications Public: Obama will amend executive orders to ensure that communications about regulatory policymaking between persons outside government and all White House staff are disclosed to the public.
* Conduct Regulatory Agency Business in Public: Obama will require his appointees who lead the executive branch departments and rulemaking agencies to conduct the significant business of the agency in public, so that any citizen can see in person or watch on the Internet these debates.
* Release Presidential Records: Obama will nullify the Bush attempts to make the timely release of presidential records more difficult.

Free the Executive Branch from Special Interest Influence

* Close the Revolving Door on Former and Future Employers: No political appointees in an Obama administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration.
* Free Career Officials from the Influence of Politics: Obama will issue an executive order asking all new hires at the agencies to sign a form affirming that no political appointee offered them the job solely on the basis of political affiliation or contribution.
* Reform the Political Appointee Process: FEMA Director Michael Brown was not qualified to head the agency, and the result was a disaster for the people of the Gulf Coast. But in an Obama administration, every official will have to rise to the standard of proven excellence in the agency's mission.

Barack Obama's Record:

* Federal Ethics Reform: Obama and Senator Feingold (D-WI) took on both parties and proposed ethics legislation that was described as the "gold standard" for reform. It was because of their leadership that ending subsidized corporate jet travel, mandating disclosure of lobbyists' bundling of contributions, and enacting strong new restrictions of lobbyist-sponsored trips became part of the final ethics bill that was signed into law. The Washington Post wrote in an editorial, "The final package is the strongest ethics legislation to emerge from Congress yet."
* Google for Government: Americans have the right to know how their tax dollars are spent, but that information has been hidden from public view for too long. That's why Barack Obama and Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) passed a law to create a Google-like search engine to allow regular people to approximately track federal grants, contracts, earmarks, and loans online. The Chicago Sun-Times wrote, "It would enable the public to see where federal money goes and how it is spent. It's a brilliant idea."
* Illinois Reform: In 1998, Obama joined forces with former U.S. Sen. Paul Simon (D-IL) to pass the toughest campaign finance law in Illinois history. The legislation banned the personal use of campaign money by Illinois legislators and banned most gifts from lobbyists. Before the law was passed, one organization ranked Illinois worst among 50 states for its campaign finance regulations.
* A High Standard: Unlike other candidates Obama's campaign refuses to accept contributions from Washington lobbyists and political action committees.

It's pretty clear that you're going to read something awful into any policy he puts forth, so it's not really worth it to answer any of this. I will, however, answer one:



http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/#bring-home

No, he wouldn't

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.

That's the funniest thing. You gave him the quote from Obama and he said he'd disagree. Why would he disagree with himself?

Further, my only respnse to the tired argument possessed by this poster is that catching/killing OBL is #1. He may only be a figurehead, but it would be a crushing blow to see their leader taken out. Sure there will be a vacuum to be filled, but it won't be filled by someone as high profile. Terrorism will always exist, but OBL doesn't have to.

-snip-

Obama's presidential campaign has received nearly $5 million dollars from securities and investment firms and $866,000 from commercial banks through October of 2007. Obama's top contributor so far is Goldman Sachs (provider of $369,078 to Obama), identified by Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) investigators as "a major proponent of privatizing Social Security as well as legislation that would essentially deregulate the investment banking/securities industry." Eight of Obama's top twenty election investors are securities and investment firms: Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bros. (number 2 at $229,090), J.P. Morgan Chase and Co. (# 4 at $216,759), Citadel Investment Group (#7 at 4166,608), UBS AG ($146,150), UBS-America ($106,680), Morgan Stanley ($104,421), and Credit Suisse Group ($92,300). The last two firms are also known to be leading privatization advocates (Center for Responsive Politics 2007a).

And Obama's sixth largest contributor is Exelon, the proud Chicago-based owner and operator of more nuclear power plants than any entity on earth (Center for Responsive Politics 2007a).

As for his "lobbyist ban," last August the Los Angeles Times reported that Obama "raised more than $1 million in the first three months of his presidential campaign from law firms and companies that have major lobbying operations in the nation's capital."

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080205150059AAaxUoO

Yes, you can apply them to individuals, since self-interest is not a generalization about action but a necessary component of it. And from Obama's track record (such as the donations and 527's), it is obvious his self-interest is the same as any other politician's. Quite frankly, giving as little power as possible to politicians would reduce the chaos that THEY cause from their exchanges of favors.

Uh, no, it isn't. You're failure to understand the nuances of being human is really sad.


Where did I say I didn't know whether or not he was an exception to the rule? I have always said he is as bad as the next person.

You said you were making an assumption. People don't assume what they already know.


I am not providing no direction; you are begging the question of why there should be a political office in the first place. As I said before, the statist's interest is to use the privilege of a monopoly on jurisdiction to decide in their favor as their own third party. As such, no person can be trusted with such power.

So your goal is to hijack every topic about the government to discuss whether there should be one. It's against the site rules. Start a thread if that's your goal. Here we are discussing whether or not Obama is the best choice for President. Whether or not it SHOULD exist, it DOES exist and affects our lives. So, we, being reasonable people are discussing who should hold that office. If you'd like to continue your little anti-goverment silliness, please start a thread. I really do mean, please, because I always enjoy watching unrealistic OPs getting owned within three pages.

And, it really is against the rules. Discuss it in its own topic. It has nothing to do with this topic.

That's the funniest thing. You gave him the quote from Obama and he said he'd disagree. Why would he disagree with himself?


Ask Obama, he's the one who contradicted himself at Dartmouth.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080205150059AAaxUoO

Surely that isn't your best source?

Ask Obama, he's the one who contradicted himself at Dartmouth.

No, he didn't. He recognizes the nuances of language even if you don't. He admitted his policies are subject to change, but pointed out his current stance and the direction he is pointing. As said, only unreasonable people don't weigh new information into their understanding of things. He simply recognizes the potential for new information.

Uh, no, it isn't. You're failure to understand the nuances being a human being is really sad.

The basis of human action is the substitution of a less satisfactory state of affairs for a better one; self-interest. To suggest otherwise is to suggest absolute randomness in decision-making.

You said you were making an assumption. People don't assume what they already know.

Assumption = deduction. From the strong evidence I have seen I feel very strong in my deduction concerning what he will do.

-snip-

If you don't want to back up your assumptions but attack me, that is perfectly fine, because you should be free to say what you want.

Surely that isn't your best source?

It cites it sources, so I don't see what complaints you could have.

The basis of human action is the substitution of a less satisfactory state of affairs for a better one; self-interest. To suggest otherwise is to suggest absolute randomness in decision-making.

False dilemma. Neither one of them must be absolutely true. Regardless, please stick to the topic.


Assumption = deduction. From the strong evidence I have seen I feel very strong in my deduction concerning what he will do.

Heh. Nice bit of backpedaling. Given your liberal use of fallacies, I'll go ahead and giggle now. I hope you don't mind.


If you don't want to back up your assumptions but attack me, that is perfectly fine, because you should be free to say what you want.

I'm not attacking you. I'm telling you the rules of site require you to discuss this topic. This topic has nothing to do with whether or not there should be a President of the United States or even a United States. You can discuss either of those topics to your heart's content. In a thread about them.

If you don't wish to discuss this topic, you don't have. If you wish to discuss this topic, then realize that since the office exists, discussing who belongs in it does not beg the question unless you don't know what that particular fallacy is.

This is the second discussion of the Presidency that you've attempted to hijack. Please stop.

It cites it sources, so I don't see what complaints you could have.

That some idiot on yahoo answers is taking old information and using it out of context to lie about Obama.

Obama doesn't take PAC or special interest money for his presidential campaign.

A real source of information for you:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/09/pacs_and_lobbyists_aided_obamas_rise/

In Obama's eight years in the Illinois Senate, from 1996 to 2004, almost two-thirds of the money he raised for his campaigns -- $296,000 of $461,000 -- came from PACs, corporate contributions, or unions, according to Illinois Board of Elections records. He tapped financial services firms, real estate developers, healthcare providers, oil companies, and many other corporate interests, the records show.

Obama's US Senate campaign committee, starting with his successful run in 2004, has collected $128,000 from lobbyists and $1.3 million from PACs, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit organization that tracks money in politics. His $1.3 million from PACs represents 8 percent of what he has raised overall. Clinton's Senate committee, by comparison, has raised $3 million from PACs, 4 percent of her total amount raised, the group said.

but Obama has returned thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from registered federal lobbyists since he declared his candidacy in February

and

Obama's campaign is relying almost exclusively on an unprecedented network of grass-roots donors and activists -- nearly 260,000 of them had given him money through June alone.

And some good-government activists say that, past fund-raising practices aside, Obama has genuinely been a champion for ethics and campaign reform, both in the Illinois Legislature and in Congress.

"On the one hand, sure, he rose to power as many people do in this town, which is to raise money from the people who have the money," said Gary Kalman, of the advocacy group US PIRG.

At the same time, he added, Obama has championed public financing for elections and he fought hard to pass the federal ethics reform bill.

OK we get it, it is pointless in trying to change things democratically.

What do you suggest we do instead instead?

Isn't it obvious? Dissolve the government is what he's getting at.

It cites it sources, so I don't see what complaints you could have.

I think the actual sources might have been better, since the citing didn't include followable links or specific references, so it requires a lot of hunting and pecking to find what he's referring to leaving an unsavory "take my word for it" taste in the mouth. Thing is, I'm not dismissing it out of hand, it does raise a serious concern-but since the concern is serious I don't want hearsay.

I looked up on of his major and more reliable sources, the Center for Responsive Politics (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080205150059AAaxUoO)

It shows that the initial premise was more or less right, listing Obama's PAC contributions totaling $25.

Now, this is only in relation to his run for the office of president.

The article/blog piece/whatever did mention that it was in relation to his Senatorial campaign, which rings true (http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.asp?CID=N00009638&cycle=2006), but not as true from past that (http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.asp?CID=N00009638&cycle=2008).

Something interesting from that source-
In almost all cases, the complexion of candidates' financial backers changes once they win public office. The proportion of business dollars tends to rise, for Republicans and Democrats, as members get their committee assignments and begin tapping the industries they oversee for campaign contributions. Among incumbents, only the most liberal Democrats tend to get more money from labor unions than from business groups.
It seems, looking at the listings, that this seems to be exactly not the case with Obama.

What I would like to see is a correlation with the claims of interest in his early contributions and with his activities in the senate. Without that, I'm not nearly as concerned.

Ultimately, the source given while not dismissable out of hand, does leave one wanting.

Isn't it obvious? Dissolve the government is what he's getting at.

Apparently, he can't people to discuss the topic in a thread about that topic, so instead he has to try and turn every thread related to government to that topic. Don't take the bait.

I'm happy to show him why his theories make me laugh when he starts a thread about them. He seems to think that everything even remotely touching government opens that discussion. By fact, it doesn't. Much like a discussion of whether Christ exists is not a discussion of whether Buddhism is the best religion for mankind.

Surely that isn't your best source?
I imagine that this is a better source:

Obama’s Refusal of Lobbyists’ Money Has its Limits (http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/22/681/)

I imagine that this is a better source:

Obama’s Refusal of Lobbyists’ Money Has its Limits (http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/22/681/)

You know that's a year old, right? Those percentages are outdated. By a lot.

You know that's a year old, right? Those percentages are outdated. By a lot.
8 1/2 months give a day or two. However, it does tend to demonstrate the fact that those who wish to run for President need big bucks.

It is great to proclaim the need for more government transparency, whilst adding a bevelled medium. :p

8 1/2 months give a day or two. However, it does tend to demonstrate the fact that those who wish to run for President need big bucks.

It is great to proclaim the need for more government transparency, whilst adding a bevelled medium. :p

The point is that since then he's redoubled his efforts at making us a part of his campaign. Greatly improved upon it. Made a deeper effort to seperate himself from the need for BIG money. And it's working, which, frankly, I'm shocked by. People aren't just willing to go out and vote for him, but they're willing to pay for the right to do so. Think about that for a moment.

And you suck at math. It's 365 - 28 - 31 - 16 days. In other words it's about 75 days or 290 days. That's a somewhere in the neighborhood of 9.5 months.

From what I’ve seen of the debates, they both pump out the typical rhetoric-filled meaningless bullshit.

Good call. However, I do take particular offence at Obama's idiosyncratically bombastic, consciously vernacular style. Perhaps he ought to ask William Hague for lessons?:)

And you suck at math. It's 365 - 28 - 31 - 16 days. In other words it's about 75 days or 290 days. That's a somewhere in the neighborhood of 9.5 months.
You are quibbling about one month? At least I was closer. You were 2 1/2 months off, so your math is worst than mine? :p

Surely that isn't your best source?

That's what I was thinking. Yahoo answers is not the place I go for solid news or data.

The Hillary argument I find to be hilarious, besides the experience thing, is that she is the one who can win the general election especially against McCain. Data suggests quite the opposite and has been doing so for a while. Mac V. Clinton (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_clinton-224.html) and again (http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm) v. Obama (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html) The 2nd link also has Obama v. McCain. Nobody denies that Hillary is polarizing and people have said that Obama is not a reality because of this polarization. If you follow the numbers throughout every contest you'll find Independents go for Obama. With the closeness of the recent election that means the difference between a "mandate" or a loss. If McCain cannot unify his party conservative evangelicals will stay home rather than vote for a Dem. All of this works to Obama as these people sure as hell will come out to vote against Hillary. I don't hate her, these people sure as hell do. Make no doubt about it that. A vote for Hillary is a vote for a McCain presidency. This suits me just fine as a libertarian minded Republican. Democrats blew the last two elections against a soft target and that's just what they'll do if they nominate Hillary. They can't resist stepping in shit right after they washed it off the first time.

What a rational argument. Clearly, if you support someone you think they walk on water. I mean, what rational person could think it would be different.

Do you have anything useful or did you choose to jump in to present a strawman?

"Obama, he gives you wiiiinnngs." Obama is not perfect like any other man. He is, however, a whole lot better than Hill.

Please excuse my blasphemy. I'll take my leave now.

The point is, well... I guess that you didn't make a point. You paint with broad strokes and then deny debate by creating the illusion that those who support Obama thing he is a God. It's called a logical fallacy and you are radiating it. Obama is a leader who has the power to truly unify America for Americans. Hillary will be a "uniter" in the sense of GWB and will be relegated to calling herself "the decider part duex."

Then stop acting like he's some saint. The man is a politician - one step above a whore. For all his hot air and empty rhetoric, the only "change" and "hope" he offers is his nice smile.

Well, we saw the way Jesus treated whores so...Read his "empty rhetoric" in his position papers. They are available to you if you so choose to research. Your argument makes no sense. If we follow your logic to its end we cannot engange in politics for everyone in it is a politician. Clearly one cannot vote in this way because politicians are one step above a whore. So now all we have to do is elect a politician who is not a politician and does not engage in politics. Smashing idea good sir.

The basis of human action is the substitution of a less satisfactory state of affairs for a better one; self-interest. To suggest otherwise is to suggest absolute randomness in decision-making.



Assumption = deduction. From the strong evidence I have seen I feel very strong in my deduction concerning what he will do.



If you don't want to back up your assumptions but attack me, that is perfectly fine, because you should be free to say what you want.

Ok, share with us your "deduction" in the form of evidence. We have been very prompt in providing you with Obama's positions and polling data. So far your have provided no evidence to suggest you've done little more than listen to talk radio. Please expound upon your evidence or stop troubling us with the "politicians suck and Obama is a politician so there!"

Reasons Hillary clinton i find Hillary clinton to be both corrupt and incapable of being elected:
1. The scandals that took place back in the 1990s that involved her and Bill
2. Her consistent inconistency ie: living in Illinois, moving to arkansas, becoming state senator of New York, Switching from being vehemently republican to vehemently a democrat, At one point being on the board at walmart and claiming that she has the working class people's interests at heart?
3. Her vision of a "vast right wing conspiracy." Sound paranoid and "Nixonesque" to anyone else?
4. The devisive hatred felt for her by most conservatives, especially those in the south. Obama, on the other hand, has a lot of support by blacks and other minorities in the south.

8 1/2 months give a day or two. However, it does tend to demonstrate the fact that those who wish to run for President need big bucks.

It is great to proclaim the need for more government transparency, whilst adding a bevelled medium. :p

So your argument is that it takes a lot of money to run for President. Thanks, I'm going to tell all of my friends this astonishing news. CH, I like you, not that it matters though. Of course it requires money, all politics does. As I've said before it's McCain or Obama for me. I'm not going to hate Hillary if she gets elected. I just don't think she can. A vote for her is giving the election to McCain.

Barack Obama has continued his rampage by sweeping the Georgia primaries, continuing what may be an unstoppable rush to the nomination.
Good.

That is not something that Democrats should aspire to, however.
Yes it is. He is a uniter and inspires like JFK and others did.

Barack Obama has never faced serious opposition from a Republican candidate in a national election
And Hillary has?

, has little national electoral experience
Neither did George Washington. And I didn't know that was a prerequisite for the job.

, and is remarkably vague during his debates
No, he outlines his plans just as much as everyone else. Regardless, like the issues ever win people over. If that's true, Kerry should've won a landslide.

, offering only glittering generalities such as "change is needed".
So?

Hillary Rodham Clinton is the better, more electable choice.
She's neither better nor more electable. She's divisive and would barely get above 52% of the popular vote--if that. More likely she'd get in the high 40s. Her husband didn't ever get 50% in either of his elections.

She has experience in this field.
She's not running for re-election so that's impossible.

Her husband was a very successful President
Debatable. Irrelevant. Meaningless.

, and if she brings similar policies to the table, I see no reason why she could not be successful herself.
His policies were not insanely popular, if at all.

She HAS fought Republicans before and won.
"Vast right-wing conspiracy" counts as fighting and winning? WTF are you smoking...

She offers not the nebulous statements that Obama does, but rather specific policy-driven objectives backed by experience.
What experience?

If you are in one of the Super Tuesday states and you favor Clinton, by all means get out there and VOTE. She needs your support now, and it is not too late.
God no.


You, sir, seem to be exactly the reason why Hillary even exists: you think you're getting Bill Clinton. Regardless of his presidency, you're not getting him, you're getting her. You only seem to support her because she was married to him, which has a value of ~0.

Hillary isn't trustworthy and voted to let the Bush Jr. have his war.

People keep bringing this up, which I find a bit unfair. Clinton did vote for the war in Iraq, but so did everyone else in Congress, more or less. Few politicians are going to vote against a war, especially one that most citizens support. It's un-American, I tells ya!
Had Barack Obama been elected senator before 2004, I would be very surprised (albeit impressed) if he voted against the resolution.

EDIT: 77-23 was the vote. That's actually not as much as I thought, but it's still a supermajority.

Hillary is just too divisive anyway and plays old politics. She has too many corporate masters as well. A vote for Hillary is a vote for a Republican president.

No, a vote for John McCain is a vote for a Republican president. Her health care plan is basically the same as Obama's, in fact I think they came from the same guy, and her plan for Iraq is just as pleasantly vague as Obama's. You're right though, she is divisive, whereas Obama is attractive even to Republicans. Because it appears that the Republicans will nominate a candidate that could be attractive to Democrats and independents, I think he should be chosen for that reason alone.

People keep bringing this up, which I find a bit unfair. Clinton did vote for the war in Iraq, but so did everyone else in Congress, more or less. Few politicians are going to vote against a war, especially one that most citizens support. It's un-American, I tells ya!
Had Barack Obama been elected senator before 2004, I would be very surprised (albeit impressed) if he voted against the resolution.

EDIT: 77-23 was the vote. That's actually not as much as I thought, but it's still a supermajority.



No, a vote for John McCain is a vote for a Republican president. Her health care plan is basically the same as Obama's, in fact I think they came from the same guy, and her plan for Iraq is just as pleasantly vague as Obama's. You're right though, she is divisive, whereas Obama is attractive even to Republicans. Because it appears that the Republicans will nominate a candidate that could be attractive to Democrats and independents, I think he should be chosen for that reason alone.

Prior to the invasion he expressed his doubts on having such a war.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=sXzmXy226po&mode=related&search=

And there you go.

They're both horrible canidates.

Prior to the invasion he expressed his doubts on having such a war.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=sXzmXy226po&mode=related&search=

And there you go.

I know, but Obama did not actually have to vote for or against the resolution, which amounted to voting for or against the war. When your job is not on the line, it's a little easier to be anti-war.

I still think Obama is more anti-war than Clinton. But in terms of what he would have done, or what he will do, I think he's pretty close to her.

I know, but Obama did not actually have to vote for or against the resolution, which amounted to voting for or against the war. When your job is not on the line, it's a little easier to be anti-war.

I still think Obama is more anti-war than Clinton. But in terms of what he would have done, or what he will do, I think he's pretty close to her.

If you hold Barack's inability to vote on the issue against him, you cannot give Hillary any credit for anything that happened under Bill.

If you hold Barack's inability to vote on the issue against him, you cannot give Hillary any credit for anything that happened under Bill.

I don't. In fact, I don't give Bill much credit for anything that happened under Bill. :)

I know, but Obama did not actually have to vote for or against the resolution, which amounted to voting for or against the war. When your job is not on the line, it's a little easier to be anti-war.Obama's job WAS on the line. He was running in a primary for US Senate at the time, when the war was quite popular.

I don't. In fact, I don't give Bill much credit for anything that happened under Bill. :)I'd totally vote for Newt Gingrich over Hillary, and I'm quite liberal.

the BEST choice for president would probably be someone NONE of us have ever heard of and would never stand a snowflakes chance of getting elected either.

obama is mearly the best choice among those enough people have heard of TO elect, and who has some kind of a chance of getting there.

any of the top five dem's would be ok, and ron p, for the reps even might, but none of the top replicants are worth a dam, except maybe on commedy central.

but if you look at the top dems, who is the most electable who is likely to make any sort of signifigant positive chainges, and that pretty much leaves obama.

=^^=
.../\...

Edit: Threadsteal! Vote for Jello!

Biafra?

People keep bringing this up, which I find a bit unfair. Clinton did vote for the war in Iraq, but so did everyone else in Congress, more or less. Few politicians are going to vote against a war, especially one that most citizens support. It's un-American, I tells ya!
Had Barack Obama been elected senator before 2004, I would be very surprised (albeit impressed) if he voted against the resolution.

I don't see why. He spoke out against it at the time, even though it was no more politically safe for him to do so than any other politician.

I know, but Obama did not actually have to vote for or against the resolution, which amounted to voting for or against the war. When your job is not on the line, it's a little easier to be anti-war.

What makes you think it wasn't? Support for the war was pretty high nationwide when it first started. Obama was still an elected official. Speaking out against it wasn't a "good move" in the realm of politics at the time, but he did so anyways.

IWhat makes you think it wasn't? Support for the war was pretty high nationwide when it first started. Obama was still an elected official. Speaking out against it wasn't a "good move" in the realm of politics at the time, but he did so anyways.

And gained respect for doing so.

i have read only 2 pages at the beggining and 2 at the end of this thread. and i want to ask you some questions.
1)what different will bring a new president of the united states in the world?
clinton bombed yugoslavia, bush destroied iraq and avganistan, all former presidents have made wars, killing innocent people that would never hurt USA so that too achieve world domination and much oil so that us companies can make more money.
so whoever the president will be USA will still kill innocent people.
sorry for my p[oor english that is not my other language.

i have read only 2 pages at the beggining and 2 at the end of this thread. and i want to ask you some questions.
1)what different will bring a new president of the united states in the world?
clinton bombed yugoslavia, bush destroied iraq and avganistan, all former presidents have made wars, killing innocent people that would never hurt USA so that too achieve world domination and much oil so that us companies can make more money.
so whoever the president will be USA will still kill innocent people.
sorry for my p[oor english that is not my other language.

Are you under the impression that there were no presidents before Bush? It is not true that all former presidents have led the country to war.

As a liberal-minded individual living in the UK, I think it best for the world that there is not a republican president in the Whitehouse. However, only the Americans have the power to change their president, so we have to rely on them to do so. If Hillary would cause someone like John McCain to be elected, then she is worse for the world in general.

I don't know why, but I just prefer Obama. I get the feeling he does the same thing to others. If this is the case, he would have a significant advantage over McCain, and I think the important thing for the democrats is to depose the Republicans and right the wrongs of the previous administration.

i have read only 2 pages at the beggining and 2 at the end of this thread. and i want to ask you some questions.
1)what different will bring a new president of the united states in the world?
clinton bombed yugoslavia, bush destroied iraq and avganistan, all former presidents have made wars, killing innocent people that would never hurt USA so that too achieve world domination and much oil so that us companies can make more money.
so whoever the president will be USA will still kill innocent people.
sorry for my p[oor english that is not my other language.


I guess now would be the time that we helped out in Yugoslavia at the request of the UN and many other Europian countries.


I could also name many presidents who did lead a country through war. And finally...youre right. The US intentionally targets civillians just for shits and giggles.

"How can you kill innocent women and children?!?"
"It's easy, you just have to lead em a little more..."