NationStates Jolt Archive

How about Hillary supporters fight for their candidate instead of just bashing Obama all the time? There aren't any Hillary threads, just a bunch about Obama. This election, let's make an effort to discuss the platforms of the candidates rather than "your candidate is just as bad".

I can say some things I like about Hillary regardless of who she's running against:
I think she has strong convictions.
She believes in universal health care
She cares about the environment
She's intelligent
She's a hard worker
She's a strong leader

Things I dislike:
She says that she believes it's right to give war powers to the President if it's the right President (in other words, it's okay to centralize power in the President as Bush has done... if it's her)
Her stance on video games
She is unwilling to say voting to give war powers to Bush was a mistake (I know that's the same as one, sort of, but I really feel like we need to start admitting mistakes)
She has said that certain states and certain voters don't matter, that she more concerned with becoming the candidate
She supported the removal of Michigan and FL delegates until she realized she needed them and then did a 180.

I have more both positive and negative, but I figured I'd let others chime in first.

I figured I'd let others chime in first.

Boy, howdy.

She won't be getting the nomination if current trends keep up. :D

What, that's one of the thing (and the only thing) I like about her.

I can't find anything to like about her, politically speaking.

Honestly they're very alike, and that's part of why this campaign has been so close. She might have the more robust health care program, but under either candidates I'll still not be covered. I'm a freelance worker who doesn't make much money, so i can't afford another bill no matter how small it is and you can't really garnish my wages.

Tying minimum wage to senate pay increases was a kind of symbolic move but I liked that.

Policy wise they're very similar and I think thats why for the most part you've seen a lot of exit polls saying that voters would be satisfied either way.

It's come down to how they conduct business, who I feel I can disagree with because I'm not going to agree with everything either of them do so I want to know who will have the discourse. That's what has swayed my decision.

She has an awesome Husband. :D

his nice too, he is even willing to risk ruining his legacy by helping her get nominated.

oddly I trust her more with women's rights what with all her work promoting them

She cares about the environment

that's almost believable

She's a hard worker

like the special student who always comes last is called a hard worker? :p

i'm not convinced of her conviction or her stand on the environment. nor the degree to which she really understands either one.

of course that can also be said of ANY politician, especially any running for the u.s. presidency any time in the last 50 years, who actually stands a chance of getting elected.

i don't have anything else AGAINST her though, not that i know of.

i just think the odds are better for the policies on the issues i favor and am interested in with obama, then anyone else seriously remaining in the running.

and it is a question of odds when it comes down to it. corporate economic intrests have the american government so tied up in knots, its amazing any of them are ever able to do anything even slightly off the party line of both major partys of kissing it you know where.

so again, hillary may, and probably does to at least some degree, have her heart in the right place, but with obama, i think the thing is, you know i don't think any of them will or can absolutely stand for any given possition, whatever they tell us, it's just that i think obama, will keep them guessing enough to give himself enough slack to be able a little more often then any of the others to use what judgement he has. which, while no one can ever be certain of any of them on that either, i do believe both he and hillary have better then anything the right wingers have fielded or are ever likely to.

so i'm not anti-hillary entirely, although i really don't see her making for herself as much opportunity to not give the corporatocracy everything it wants, as i expect obama to be able to and likely will.

its those fine points on the odds like that, that it really comes down to. i mean if you think about it, that's really all we have to go on.

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

How about Hillary supporters fight for their candidate instead of just bashing Obama all the time? There aren't any Hillary threads, just a bunch about Obama. This election, let's make an effort to discuss the platforms of the candidates rather than "your candidate is just as bad".

I can say some things I like about Hillary regardless of who she's running against:
I think she has strong convictions.
She believes in universal health care
She cares about the environment
She's intelligent
She's a hard worker
She's a strong leader

Things I dislike:
She says that she believes it's right to give war powers to the President if it's the right President (in other words, it's okay to centralize power in the President as Bush has done... if it's her)
Her stance on video games
She is unwilling to say voting to give war powers to Bush was a mistake (I know that's the same as one, sort of, but I really feel like we need to start admitting mistakes)
She has said that certain states and certain voters don't matter, that she more concerned with becoming the candidate
She supported the removal of Michigan and FL delegates until she realized she needed them and then did a 180.

I have more both positive and negative, but I figured I'd let others chime in first.

Here's a short list of reasons I dislike Clinton:

Who she is:
She's married to a former president and that sets a bad precident for our democratic republic.
She has an abrasive personality and lacks the tact needed for a national leader.
She claims to be independent from Bill while leaning on him as a selling point.
She represents the baby-boom generation that's screwed up so much.
She is devisive when my country needs someone willing and able to reach across the divide of the culture wars.
Part of here "35 years of experience" includes being a corporate lawyer and board member for Walmart. As such, she contributed to anti-union activities.
She is dishonest, underhanded, and exsessively secretive.

Foreign Policy:
She supports the war in Iraq.
She supports a war on Iran.
She's overly hawkish.
She represents a continuation of the disasterous foreign policies that have made the name of my country mud abroad.
Her desicions, as I see and measure them, show a lack of good judgement and understanding when it comes to foreign policy, the most important part of the job she seeks.

Domestic Policy:
She's authoritarian.
She supports censorship.
She supports the Patriot act.
She supports making flag burning illegal.
She supported "No Child Left Behind".
She opposes same-sex marriages.
She wishes to censor video games.


She has an awesome Husband. :D

his nice too, he is even willing to risk ruining his legacy by helping her get nominated.

Bill is neither awsome nor nice. He's the jackass who set up the current foreign policy mess we're in, while sexually harrassing and getting blowjobs from ugly women and perjuring himself about it.

She represents the baby-boom generation that's screwed up so much.

Err, aren't all the candidates part of that generation?

Otherwise, I heartily concur.

I admire what she has done for the self-esteem of women everywhere: even the homeliest can say "At least I don't look like Hillary Clinton".

I really like how she's about to lose. I suppose that's my favorite thing about Hillary.

Her stance on video games.

This may be the only reason I'm not voting for her.

Err, aren't all the candidates part of that generation?

Otherwise, I heartily concur.

Nope. Neither John McCain nor Obama are boomers.

Bill is neither awsome nor nice. He's the jackass who set up the current foreign policy mess we're in, while sexually harrassing and getting blowjobs from ugly women and perjuring himself about it.

Our foreign policy mess comes directly from Bushes' message to the rest of the world wich consists of "Yeah? Well fuck you!", and has been since 2001.
The rest of the world is convinced we are indeed the arrogant warmongering bastards they suspected us of being all along.

The unsucsessful invasions of two soverign governments who posed no immediate threat to the United States, may have had something to do with that.
Seeing as how Bill wasnt in office, that kinda lets him off that hook of yours.

as for Hillary...

Im sure that if elected, Hillary would do what she believed to the right thing.
She may even get a few remarkable things done. Providing health care for all, would indeed, be great.
But she isnt going to change how things are done in Washington.
She represents the status quo, as does McCain.

Neither of the two will have any affect on the downward trend this country is taking.
Neither will change how our political system is working, so that accomplishment for the American people will take precedence over partisan back-stabbing and endless gridlock.

Ive decided that the only person who we, the American people can have even a shred of hope for much needed change, is Barrack Obama.
In all likelyhood, he wont accomplish much in that department either, BUT....if he can change ONE thing for the better, in terms of how this country is being run.....then he is the ONLY candidate, we the people should elect.


So many of you Republicans now worship at the altar of Reagan.
Okay..so be it.

Does anyone remember the speech Reagan used against Carter, in one of the debates, that won him over with the American people?

"If you are better off today, than you were four years ago, then by all means, vote for President Carter, if you are worse off, then you should vote for me."
Since folks were experiencing a recession at the time, with record fuel prices, and even shortages, most people obviously felt they were most assuredly NOT better off.

Now, I point that same question back at you all.
If you are better off today, then you, (or we as a nation) were in 2000, then you should most defintely vote for John McCain, or even Hillary, as they are going to run things largely as they are now.

However, if you, like most people, are experiencing the finacial crunch our nation is in, with some states reaching unemployment rates of over 7%, with no health insurance, and are tired of seeing this country, and our lives fall apart due to political circumstances we have absolutely no control over....

..then maybe its time we elect a fresh face.

Maybe we elect the viable candidate that has the best shot at pushing this country back on track, to where we ought to be.

I think that guy is Obama.

snip

so negative, you are supposed to give your likes :p

Nope. Neither John McCain nor Obama are boomers.

Obama's on the leading edge of Generation X...that's a weird thought...

Our foreign policy mess comes directly from Bushes' message to the rest of the world wich consists of "Yeah? Well fuck you!", and has been since 2001.
The rest of the world is convinced we are indeed the arrogant warmongering bastards they suspected us of being all along.

How quickly people forget. The current Iraq war did not originate with George II, but with George I and Billary I.

The unsucsessful invasions of two soverign governments who posed no immediate threat to the United States, may have had something to do with that.
Seeing as how Bill wasnt in office, that kinda lets him off that hook of yours.

If Billary I had conducted US foreign policy properly, we wouldn't be in as much of a mess.

as for Hillary...

Im sure that if elected, Hillary would do what she believed to the right thing.
She may even get a few remarkable things done. Providing health care for all, would indeed, be great.
But she isnt going to change how things are done in Washington.
She represents the status quo, as does McCain.

Neither of the two will have any affect on the downward trend this country is taking.
Neither will change how our political system is working, so that accomplishment for the American people will take precedence over partisan back-stabbing and endless gridlock.

Ive decided that the only person who we, the American people can have even a shred of hope for much needed change, is Barrack Obama.
In all likelyhood, he wont accomplish much in that department either, BUT....if he can change ONE thing for the better, in terms of how this country is being run.....then he is the ONLY candidate, we the people should elect.


So many of you Republicans now worship at the altar of Reagan.
Okay..so be it.

Does anyone remember the speech Reagan used against Carter, in one of the debates, that won him over with the American people?

"If you are better off today, than you were four years ago, then by all means, vote for President Carter, if you are worse off, then you should vote for me."
Since folks were experiencing a recession at the time, with record fuel prices, and even shortages, most people obviously felt they were most assuredly NOT better off.

Now, I point that same question back at you all.
If you are better off today, then you, (or we as a nation) were in 2000, then you should most defintely vote for John McCain, or even Hillary, as they are going to run things largely as they are now.

However, if you, like most people, are experiencing the finacial crunch our nation is in, with some states reaching unemployment rates of over 7%, with no health insurance, and are tired of seeing this country, and our lives fall apart due to political circumstances we have absolutely no control over....

..then maybe its time we elect a fresh face.

Maybe we elect the viable candidate that has the best shot at pushing this country back on track, to where we ought to be.

I think that guy is Obama.

Err... I'm supporting Obama...

so negative, you are supposed to give your likes :p

When I can think of a positive, I'll post it.

Until then, I'll continue following the Churchillian paraphrasic comment:
If Billary invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.

Obama's on the leading edge of Generation X...that's a weird thought...

It was just a few months ago that this was pointed out to me, and the connections in attitudes that went with it that helped explain why I liked Obama so much more than anyone else...

It was just a few months ago that this was pointed out to me, and the connections in attitudes that went with it that helped explain why I liked Obama so much more than anyone else...

It does make some things make a certain degree of sense.

so negative, you are supposed to give your likes :p

Mostly I was hoping for focusing some discourse on Hillary's policy. There are numerous Hillary supporters on this board, but mostly I see them spending their time attacking Obama. There are several threads focused on Obama. I was hoping ONE could focus on Hillary, or at least Hillary in comparison to Obama. In that sense, this thread is right on point.

Nope. Neither John McCain nor Obama are boomers.

Oops, forgot about McCain. Obama though...

As is often the case after a major war, the end of World War II brought a baby boom to many countries, notably those in Europe, Asia, North America, and Australasia. There is some disagreement as to the precise beginning and ending dates of the post-war baby boom, but the range most commonly accepted is 1946 to 1964.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-World_War_II_baby_boom

Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. (pronounced /bəˈɹɑːk huˈseɪn oʊˈbɑːmə/;[1] born August 4, 1961)

*shrug*

Oops, forgot about McCain. Obama though...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-World_War_II_baby_boom



*shrug*
The term was first used in popular culture in the late 1970s by UK punk rock band Generation X led by Billy Idol. It was later expanded on by Canadian novelist Douglas Coupland in Generation X: Tales for an Accelerated Culture (1991), which describes the angst of those born between roughly 1960 and 1965, who felt no connection to the cultural icons of the baby boom generation. Coupland himself was born in 1961.
...
In the 1991 book Generations, William Strauss and Neil Howe called this generation the "13th Generation" because it's the 13th to know the flag of the United States (counting back to the peers of Benjamin Franklin). Strauss and Howe defined the birth years of the 13th Generation as 1961 to 1981 based on examining peaks and troughs in cultural trends rather than simply looking at birth rates.
Generation X (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_X)

I am, personally, indifferent to who gets the nomination.

I would like to see Hillary win, but in the end I will vote for the Democrat.

It will be a cold day in hell before I will ever vote Republican. McCain may have appeal to some centrist Dems, but in the end: He's a Republican. That means he believes all Americans must pray to Jesus in order to be citizens and that the idea of socializing medicine the same way we've socialized our police force is repugnant. (Don't take my word for it, read the Republican Party Platform)

So ... no .... I will never, ever, ever, ever, ever vote Republican. No matter what.

Bill is neither awsome nor nice.

... getting blowjobs.you didnt get the memo?

awesome old men get blowjobs.
McRambo isnt getting any these days, because he can -no longer- get it up :D

How about Hillary supporters fight for their candidate instead of just bashing Obama all the time?
Because they have nothing they can attack Obama for, nothing tangible anyway - that is why Hillary is failing at it.

I think she has strong convictions.
She believes in universal health care
She cares about the environment
She's intelligent
She's a hard worker
She's a strong leader
So the best you have are a bunch of non-specific generals and a UHC stance? Obama has a UHC stance that isn't as absurd and is intelligent, hard working, and obviously a strong leader - or he wouldn't be leading the pack.

Things I dislike:
She says that she believes it's right to give war powers to the President if it's the right President (in other words, it's okay to centralize power in the President as Bush has done... if it's her)
Her stance on video games
She is unwilling to say voting to give war powers to Bush was a mistake (I know that's the same as one, sort of, but I really feel like we need to start admitting mistakes)
She has said that certain states and certain voters don't matter, that she more concerned with becoming the candidate
She supported the removal of Michigan and FL delegates until she realized she needed them and then did a 180.
So the only things you like about her are general descriptions that can apply to any candidate, and do apply to her opponent, but what you dislike about her are a bunch of specific, actual stances?


This is just a joke topic isn't it?

POTUS isn't allowed to enact or propose legislation. Hillary has the power now, as a US Senator, to enact video game censorship, but has not done so.

Drop this as an "against" in the Hillary column. If she hasn't done it as a Legislator, she won't - and cannot - do it as President.
Wrong. She has publicly made statements against video games and as president she would have the clout to push through an agenda. Even the most senior members of Congress can propose random shit, but the President, who can't, has far more clout in encouraging and getting through legislation.

Her stance on video games


POTUS isn't allowed to enact or propose legislation. Hillary has the power now, as a US Senator, to enact video game censorship, but has not done so.

Drop this as an "against" in the Hillary column. If she hasn't done it as a Legislator, she won't - and cannot - do it as President.

POTUS isn't allowed to enact or propose legislation. Hillary has the power now, as a US Senator, to enact video game censorship, but has not done so.

Drop this as an "against" in the Hillary column. If she hasn't done it as a Legislator, she won't - and cannot - do it as President.

http://www.senate.gov/~clinton/news/statements/details.cfm?id=249860

She's already tried. She failed. That's not the same as "has not done so". She's done as much as she has the power to accomplish.

As far as your second claim. Let's see if it holds water.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060906-6.html

Yup. Clearly the President has no ability to push legislation into Congress. None. Never before has a President been instrumental in introducing legislation in the Congress. Obviously, if I searched for decades I could not find one example.

0 for 2. So close.

Because they have nothing they can attack Obama for, nothing tangible anyway - that is why Hillary is failing at it.


So the best you have are a bunch of non-specific generals and a UHC stance? Obama has a UHC stance that isn't as absurd and is intelligent, hard working, and obviously a strong leader - or he wouldn't be leading the pack.


So the only things you like about her are general descriptions that can apply to any candidate, and do apply to her opponent, but what you dislike about her are a bunch of specific, actual stances?


This is just a joke topic isn't it?

No, it's not a joke topic. Some people actually try to focus on issues. If you're not interested, just restrain from pressing your finger to the mouse button while hovering over the link. It's difficult but I'm sure you're capable.

She's already tried. As far as your claim. Let's see if it holds water.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060906-6.html

Yup. Clearly the President has no ability to push legislation into Congress. None. Never before has a President been instrumental in introducing legislation in the Congress. Obviously, if I searched for decades I could not find one example.

Meh ... the Bush administration is incidental as it has been unlike any US Presidency.

Hillary pushed for warning labels, which are not censorship. They simply warn parents. Are you saying a 12 year old kid should have unfettered access to whatever they want without regard to parental ignorance?

Sometimes a parent is working and trying hard to feed and clothe and tend to the business of family and can't sit down and play every video game or listen to every album on the planet. I see no issue with a warning label.

Meh ... the Bush administration is incidental as it has been unlike any US Presidency.

Hillary pushed for warning labels, which are not censorship. They simply warn parents. Are you saying a 12 year old kid should have unfettered access to whatever they want without regard to parental ignorance?

Sometimes a parent is working and trying hard to feed and clothe and tend to the business of family and can't sit down and play every video game or listen to every album on the planet. I see no issue with a warning label.

Her "poster child" was a game that had hidden content that only a programmer could access. Yeah, clearly children just have unfettered access. Her introduced legislation was a stepping stone, something she made very clear.

There are already warning labels. They already exist and work. It's self-policing just like the movie and television industries (referring to the shows themselves not the use of federal airwaves).

As far as the Bush administration, so you admit that the POTUS can and does introduce legislation. Good. Then the point stands. The rest of your post is about why you agree with her. Fine. Put it in your positive column. I don't. So it goes in my negative. I believe it takes a village to raise a child. It does not however take a government to do it.

Well I can't promise anything because I'll certainly be beaten by someone with a better grasp of the issues but...

1. Iraq - For Senator Obama to assert that a phased withdrawal over 16 months is, to me, utterly naive. I truly don't think that a: he's the magic bullet to suddenly waltz in and ease ME relations through dialogue and talking and b. able to, in any way, predict what's going to happen over the next 16 months.

I also think it's extremely attackable by the Republicans, I suspect theres a sizeable Democratic population who feel that withdrawal is not the best option and this becomes a swayable point.

So on both policy terms and election strategy, I think this is not good news.


Seriously, is it physically impossible to talk about her plans, rather than Obama's?

Meanwhile, he's said the exact same thing you did. He admits to being swayed by new information.


2. The economy - in debates, Senator Clinton has beaten Senator Obama on the issues, he's great at soundbites but when it comes to a grasp of details and the issues at hand, he doesn't equal her.

What issues? Vague.

I propose that Obama is better than her at some things. See, I can be incredibly vague too.


3. Ultimately, I just don't think he's capable of bringing around the change he's promising. I think politics is far murkier than a simple 'let's work together' attitude, which has been used countless times before.

This is just incredibly sad. "I support Hillary because Obama can't do X, Y and Z." Seriously try ACTUALLY talking about what Hillary can or cannot do. It's not impossible. I promise.


I don't really mind that so much, as I said, many people have promised but here, if and when he lets people down by being unable to change things, will the backlash, not against him, but against politics overall, be far more damaging than the expected divisiveness that Senator Clinton will bring.

These would be my concerns, he's riding a wave of support at the moment but there is some credence to 'living the dream' among voters that may come crashing back to earth if he gets elected.

I suppose it truly is impossible. You're a seasoned debator. You don't have anything positive to say about Clinton, just a bunch of rhetoric about Obama. Hmmm...

Meh ... the Bush administration is incidental as it has been unlike any US Presidency.

Hillary pushed for warning labels, which are not censorship. They simply warn parents. Are you saying a 12 year old kid should have unfettered access to whatever they want without regard to parental ignorance?

Sometimes a parent is working and trying hard to feed and clothe and tend to the business of family and can't sit down and play every video game or listen to every album on the planet. I see no issue with a warning label.

Umm...no. Video games already have warning labels. Pick up the nearest game to you and look at the ratings box. It says right there exactly what was in the game to make it warrant such a rating. For example: F.E.A.R.: rated M for Strong Language, Intense Violence, and (Intense?) Blood and Gore.

What Hillary wants is to start instituting fines against retailers that sell M and above rated games to minors (about the only good idea in this bill, Illinois has been doing that for some time now), start auditing the ESRB to ensure that the ratings work, and get the FTC involved in investigating the industry and fielding complaints about "misleading ratings."

That's a bit more than "just a warning label."

Mostly I was hoping for focusing some discourse on Hillary's policy. There are numerous Hillary supporters on this board, but mostly I see them spending their time attacking Obama. There are several threads focused on Obama. I was hoping ONE could focus on Hillary, or at least Hillary in comparison to Obama. In that sense, this thread is right on point.

Ok, I screwed this up just now by attacking Obama but, on reflection, I'm going to post it because I think it's relevant in terms of why Senator Clinton can be a good alternative. I've tried to slightly change the focus'ish.

Well I can't promise anything because I'll certainly be beaten by someone with a better grasp of the issues but...

1. Iraq - For Senator Obama to assert that a phased withdrawal over 16 months is, to me, utterly naive. I truly don't think that a: he's the magic bullet to suddenly waltz in and ease ME relations through dialogue and talking and b. able to, in any way, predict what's going to happen over the next 16 months.

I also think it's extremely attackable by the Republicans, I suspect theres a sizeable Democratic population who feel that withdrawal is not the best option and this becomes a swayable point.

So on both policy terms and election strategy, I think this is not good news and I think Senator Clinton is more realistic.

2. The economy - in debates, Senator Clinton has beaten Senator Obama on the issues, he's great at soundbites but when it comes to a grasp of details and the issues at hand, he doesn't equal her.

3. Ultimately, I just don't think he's capable of bringing around the change he's promising. I think politics is far murkier than a simple 'let's work together' attitude, which has been used countless times before.

I don't really mind that so much, as I said, many people have promised but here, if and when he lets people down by being unable to change things, will the backlash, not against him, but against politics overall, be far more damaging than the expected divisiveness that Senator Clinton will bring.

These would be my concerns, he's riding a wave of support at the moment but there is some credence to 'living the dream' among voters that may come crashing back to earth if he gets elected.

Her "poster child" was a game that had hidden content that only a programmer could access. Yeah, clearly children just have unfettered access. Her introduced legislation was a stepping stone, something she made very clear.

If only the programmer could access it, then Hillary wouldn't know about it. Unless she's one of the programmers ....

There are already warning labels. They already exist and work. It's self-policing just like the movie and television industries (referring to the shows themselves not the use of federal airwaves).

Clearly, they don't work that well. Another step needs to be taken. I'm not about to let my 11 year old daughter have access to pornography, but I can't be in all places at all times. It takes a village. So if someone else in the village notices something, would be nice if they'd point it out to me.

If only the programmer could access it, then Hillary wouldn't know about it. Unless she's one of the programmers ....

She knows about it because a programmer hacked the code and created an unauthorized mod. Look it up. Seriously, if you're going to argue on this point, you really should investigate it just a bit.


Clearly, they don't work that well. Another step needs to be taken. I'm not about to let my 11 year old daughter have access to pornography, but I can't be in all places at all times. It takes a village. So if someone else in the village notices something, would be nice if they'd point it out to me.

And they do. Mature isn't a good enough rating to make it clear it's not meant for your children? GTA has a rating of mature. It makes no bones about its content. It's about running around the streets, killing people, running from cops or killing them, beating hookers, etc. It's not for your children. The warning signs on this game are everywhere. The village has done it's work. It's totally pointing it out to you. The government is not "the village".

*snip*

All fair enough, I had deleted the original post to add a caveat and I knew I was making myself very open to attack.

On Iraq, I think the point stands to some extent, he had a naive platform. He has the luxury of changing his position whereas Senator Clinton would not.

I'm not willing to trawl through the debates, a poor excuse, but it's fairly commonly held that Senator Clinton beats him in debates, hence she's calling for more and he''s holding back for just 2.

I also think he's an over-promise - he may be smart enough to tone it down when it comes down to him vs. McCain, he is very smart that's for sure, but he should.

Ultimately though, you're setting up any support of Senator Clinton's policies for attack, it's an unfair premise when your aim is not so much to have a reasonable discourse than jump on points.

Senator Clinton is up against the popular tide and it makes any discussion rather worthless.

If only the programmer could access it, then Hillary wouldn't know about it. Unless she's one of the programmers ....

Programmers are unable to communicate with other humans now?

All fair enough, I had deleted the original post to add a caveat and I knew I was making myself very open to attack.

On Iraq, I think the point stands to some extent, he had a naive platform. He has the luxury of changing his position whereas Senator Clinton would not.

I'm not willing to trawl through the debates, a poor excuse, but it's fairly commonly held that Senator Clinton beats him in debates, hence she's calling for more and he''s holding back for just 2.

By whom? I watched him slaughter her repeatedly. That's why he's more likeable and considered a better speaker than she is. I'll give you an example.

She was asked how she can be for change when there has been a Clinton or a Bush on the ticket for three decades. Her reply was that she is her own candidate and wants to be judged on her own merits.

Good answer, no? Then the rest of her answer was about all the good things her husband did. Nothing like actually contradicting yourself in the same answer.

Later when she was challenged about how Bill has been a little wild on the campaign trail she again seperates herself from him. She wants to have it both ways. She wants credit for his victories and none for his negative issues. It's all or nothing, my friend.

Another example from the same debate is when she was challenged on her vote to give war powers to Bush. Her reply was so convoluted and generally had nothing to do with the question. Wolf B. called her out on that and tried to nail her down, at which point she admitted it was pretty effective, then she FINALLY clarified that she agree with the idea of giving the President war powers, of concentrating power in the Presidency, provided it was her. Yeah, that's right, she admitted she agreed with Bush's effort to concentrate power in the Presidency, just she thinks he didn't use it well. Is that a problem to anyone else.

Obama's wrap up - friendly, complimentary and addressed the final question - "Would you be willing to have your opponent as a running mate?"

Clinton's wrap up - an ad for her site. She didn't address the question at all. She gets creamed in the debates. Obama just recognizes the limited value of those debates and recognizes that more isn't always better. She's out of money and he knows it. Allowing her free advertising is not to his advantage.

Now, support your claim or admit you can't.

I also think he's an over-promise - he may be smart enough to tone it down when it comes down to him vs. McCain, he is very smart that's for sure, but he should.

Ultimately though, you're setting up any support of Senator Clinton's policies for attack, it's an unfair premise when your aim is not so much to have a reasonable discourse than jump on points.

Senator Clinton is up against the popular tide and it makes any discussion rather worthless.
I'm not setting her up for attacks. I'm tired of Obama's policies being the focus of every discussion. Fear politics suck and unfortunately, it appears that it's the order of the day for McCain and Hillary supporters. Prove me wrong. Here's your chance. Champion her. If her policies are so easy to attack that you dare not mention them, that's a problem.

She knows about it because a programmer hacked the code and created an unauthorized mod. Look it up. Seriously, if you're going to argue on this point, you really should investigate it just a bit.

I did and, well, maybe so should you. As a US Legislator, GTA is still in place for any adult to purchase and enjoy including the mod. So whatever she tried was ineffective. Just as you can still turn on the radio and hear The Who scream "Who the fuck are you" on the airwaves, regardless of Tipper Gore's attempts. It's a moot point and shouldn't be a negative in Clinton's case. She tried, she failed. She recognizes her failure.

And they do. Mature isn't a good enough rating to make it clear it's not meant for your children? GTA has a rating of mature. It makes no bones about its content. It's about running around the streets, killing people, running from cops or killing them, beating hookers, etc. It's not for your children. The warning signs on this game are everywhere. The village has done it's work. It's totally pointing it out to you. The government is not "the village".

I am a single case among many in a country that will sue over coffee being hot. We are a stupid, stupid species. Surely you know this by now. If you don't hit them in the face with a hammer, they don't get the message.

Programmers are unable to communicate with other humans now?

My point was that it's not only the programmers who are aware of modifications to programs.

As a US Legislator, GTA is still in place for any adult to purchase and enjoy including the mod.

Poorly worded sentence .... gah ... need more coffee ... add in the words "Hillary Clinton knows" after the comma

I did and, well, maybe so should you. As a US Legislator, GTA is still in place for any adult to purchase and enjoy including the mod. So whatever she tried was ineffective. Just as you can still turn on the radio and hear The Who scream "Who the fuck are you" on the airwaves, regardless of Tipper Gore's attempts. It's a moot point and shouldn't be a negative in Clinton's case. She tried, she failed. She recognizes her failure.

What I shouldn't consider it a negative because she failed? Um, yeah, no, I don't think so. It shows her mindset, where she's coming from and given that I disagree with that mindset, I'll happily claim it as a negative.

Meanwhile, she recognizes her failure? Where? When did she say she's given up on attempting to ban certain video games?

I am a single case among many in a country that will sue over coffee being hot. We are a stupid, stupid species. Surely you know this by now. If you don't hit them in the face with a hammer, they don't get the message.

Sorry, but I don't buy it. For centuries we somehow survived without the government holding our peepees while we made water. That politicians have bastardized the system to the point where a hit in the face with a hammer is necessary is not a reason to not consider it a negative that they continue to do so.

My point was that it's not only the programmers who are aware of modifications to programs.

Yes, it's true. Hackers can actually access and change code. Clearly, the makers of the game, who don't want the hackers to make mods, are responsible for hackers illegally modifying their games. Of course. It just makes so much sense. Absent the efforts of an unauthorized modification or a hacker, the content that she objected to, could not be seen. If someone breaks into my house, turns my big screen TV on and puts on the porn I left in the DVD player am I corrupting the children of my neighborhood as well?

No, it's not a joke topic. Some people actually try to focus on issues.
By which you mean not you?
NONE of the things you like about Clinton are things actually specific or unique to Clinton (and not only that, but only two of them even count as issues in the most generic sense) while all the things you dislike about her are specific actions and stances.

If this isn't a joke topic, your political position is a joke.

I did and, well, maybe so should you. As a US Legislator, GTA is still in place for any adult to purchase and enjoy including the mod. So whatever she tried was ineffective. Just as you can still turn on the radio and hear The Who scream "Who the fuck are you" on the airwaves, regardless of Tipper Gore's attempts. It's a moot point and shouldn't be a negative in Clinton's case. She tried, she failed. She recognizes her failure.
The fact The Who isn't on the radio any more aside, on no public airwaves can you hear anyone scream the word "fuck."

*snip*

Apologies - a Seinfeld re-run came on so I logged off.

Look, there's very few issues between the two, of these perhaps the following are differences.

Iraq: of which I think Senator Clinton has a more realistic plan
Healthcare: of which I think Senator Clinton's plan is more comprehensive and more detailed

Half my problem is that even in those 'attacks on Obama' threads, it hasn't really been about specific policy, it has been, and presidential elections will always be, about personalities and it's impossible to deny that Senator Clinton has large problems with that, in terms of how she's perceived and the legacy of her husband.

I feel that a reasonable amount of support for Senator Obama comes from previous Republicans, distraught by President Bush but mindful of the 90's and absolutely against another Clinton in office.

The Iraq issue is a real one, much of what Senator Obama has said about it has been that he didn't support the Iraq war at the start and the claim has bandied around the fact that he wasn't in possession of all the facts. It's all speculation.

Yet to adamantly state a 16 month withdrawal, regardless of recent information, was both naive and attackable. It wasn't very good policy.

Again, it's very hard to put up Senator Clinton's policies, of which you can read on her site, without simple putting them on a pedestal for attack.

In the end, my heart isn't really in it, I feel the debate's over and Senator Obama is a rightful winner, but for personality and legacy issues not policy issues. In terms of personality, I think his proposed style of leadership over the top-down decision making of Senator Clinton is decisive for me.

I think the Clinton camp underestimated his intellligence, they were used to being the smart kids in the kindergarten - they'd assumed a win and they were wrong.

In a final nod to the Seinfeld episode I watched - yadda yadda yadda.

EDIT: I'm also off to sleep now so can't respond to anything til later.

Off the top of my head?

Things I like about Clinton:
- The idea of tying minimum wage increases to senate wage increases. I thought that was a good one.


And, since I only gave one like, I'll only give one dislike to add to the list:
- She places national security above human rights. Sounds a bit like the president we have now and the screwed-up foreign policy we've had for decades, doesn't it?

Here's a short list of reasons I dislike Clinton:

Who she is:
She's married to a former president and that sets a bad precident for our democratic republic.


I agree with your whole post, and I'll use it as my reasons against Clinton as well. But I must say that the United States isn't a Democratic Republic - it's a Federal Presidential Constitutional Republic.

The difference is that the citizens have all voting powers in a Democratic Republic. If the USA was like this, then Gore would've won in 2000 (because a Democratic Republic elects based on the popular vote). However, a Constitutional Republic is a Republic in which the citizens vote for a Representative who in turn votes for the President.

To me, Hillary Clinton has more detailed plans, and discusses those plans more than the ability to use rhetoric. I concede Senator Obama is a magnificent speaker. But if the ability to use words elected a President we would have more author and poet President's, no? What I like about Senator Clinton is she is open about where she stands on the issues. She focuses her rallies around the issues and I saw that first hand when she came down here in Cinci for her round table discussion.

I will vote democrat whoever it is, but I just like Senator Clinton more.

Oops, forgot about McCain.

He's Mr. older than my "silent gen" parents. ;)

Obama though...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-World_War_II_baby_boom

*shrug*

As pointed out, the dividing point between boober and Xer's a bit fuzzy date wise. Attitudewise, he's no boomer.

I am, personally, indifferent to who gets the nomination.

I would like to see Hillary win, but in the end I will vote for the Democrat.

It will be a cold day in hell before I will ever vote Republican. McCain may have appeal to some centrist Dems, but in the end: He's a Republican. That means he believes all Americans must pray to Jesus in order to be citizens and that the idea of socializing medicine the same way we've socialized our police force is repugnant. (Don't take my word for it, read the Republican Party Platform)

So ... no .... I will never, ever, ever, ever, ever vote Republican. No matter what.

This is what concerns me. The party faithful will vote for either. But the swing voters, like myself, can go for McCain or Obama. I'd like to see Obama, but I'll vote for McCain over Clinton. I don't think the dem faithful have quite understood the difference yet...

you didnt get the memo?

awesome old men get blowjobs.
McRambo isnt getting any these days, because he can -no longer- get it up :D

He's in the Robby Dole camp, mayhapse...

POTUS isn't allowed to enact or propose legislation. Hillary has the power now, as a US Senator, to enact video game censorship, but has not done so.

Drop this as an "against" in the Hillary column. If she hasn't done it as a Legislator, she won't - and cannot - do it as President.

Err.. POTUS certainly proposes legislation...

I agree with your whole post, and I'll use it as my reasons against Clinton as well. But I must say that the United States isn't a Democratic Republic - it's a Federal Presidential Constitutional Republic. -snip-

:) Somebody had to bring in the age old discussion of the exact derfinition of the US government.

To me, Hillary Clinton has more detailed plans, and discusses those plans more than the ability to use rhetoric. I concede Senator Obama is a magnificent speaker. But if the ability to use words elected a President we would have more author and poet President's, no? What I like about Senator Clinton is she is open about where she stands on the issues. She focuses her rallies around the issues and I saw that first hand when she came down here in Cinci for her round table discussion.

I will vote democrat whoever it is, but I just like Senator Clinton more.

And those "detailed plans" are nothing more than a continuation of the "detailed plans" of the last 40 years...

This is what concerns me. The party faithful will vote for either. But the swing voters, like myself, can go for McCain or Obama. I'd like to see Obama, but I'll vote for McCain over Clinton. I don't think the dem faithful have quite understood the difference yet...

I cannot, in good conscious, vote for a Republican so long as the Republican Party Platform is so gestapo and oppressive. McCain is a dedicated party loyalist. He is a Republican through and through and has admitted as such.

Barack Obama is also a Party loyalist, even signing an oath to the Democratic Party.

So you're not voting for a candidate, but for the Party they represent. Does the Republican Party really stand for what you believe?

i got a question about universal health care... Who pays for it all?

i got a question about universal health care... Who pays for it all?

We all do ... just like we all pay for the police and fire departments and the public school system.

<snip>

I am not happy with any of the candidates. I think we are finding our nation sadly being forced to elect the cream of the losers. Which does not bode well for us as a nation in my opinion.

So where is Hills in this cream? Probably at the top for Democrat purposes for me. Obama's complete lack of experience simply cannot be ignored. Brain child maybe more personable no doubt. Not a characteristic I give a crap about though. I want a President that will kick ass when it needs kicking and isn't a smiley doormat. Hillary isn't a doormat in anything except her marriage. I am not willing to see if Obama is a doormat after he is in office.

We did that with Carter.:rolleyes:


I hate this whole election, they all suck. :(

So you're not voting for a candidate, but for the Party they represent. Does the Republican Party really stand for what you believe?

Err... my indication that I'll vote for either Obama or McCain pays lie to that.

I am not happy with any of the candidates. I think we are finding our nation sadly being forced to elect the cream of the losers. Which does not bode well for us as a nation in my opinion.

So where is Hills in this cream? Probably at the top for Democrat purposes for me. Obama's complete lack of experience simply cannot be ignored. Brain child maybe more personable no doubt. Not a characteristic I give a crap about though. I want a President that will kick ass when it needs kicking and isn't a smiley doormat. Hillary isn't a doormat in anything except her marriage. I am not willing to see if Obama is a doormat after he is in office.

We did that with Carter.:rolleyes:


I hate this whole election, they all suck. :(

The two fold Billary camp lie of "Obama has no experience and is thus unsuited for presidency" has a hold on you I see. First off, Obama has more experience than she does (unless you really want to count her years as a Walmart lawyer...) and his experience is outside of Washington (unlike Ms. "first lady counts as experience!" Clinton...)

Finally, if one completely discounts Obama's experience, the comparison of a Lincoln or JFK still holds in judging how well "experience" is a measure of potential...

So you're not voting for a candidate, but for the Party they represent. Does the Republican Party really stand for what you believe?

No, I'm not. I vote for a candidate. The party is significant only if the candidate isn't worth a damn, in which case I'm not really voting for anyone. I'm voting against the worst.

Yes, it's true. Hackers can actually access and change code. Clearly, the makers of the game, who don't want the hackers to make mods, are responsible for hackers illegally modifying their games. Of course. It just makes so much sense. Absent the efforts of an unauthorized modification or a hacker, the content that she objected to, could not be seen. If someone breaks into my house, turns my big screen TV on and puts on the porn I left in the DVD player am I corrupting the children of my neighborhood as well?

Honestly, I find it hard to be on Rockstar's side on the matter. They tried to pull a fast one and nearly brought shit down on the entire industry and you have to play naive to think that they didn't. There is a rating above M for Mature, it's AO for Adults Only. Wal-Mart won't carry an AO game. So "Hot Coffee" was an 'Easter Egg'. I don't buy the 'hackers' argument because they didn't make the game do anything that wasn't there, they didn't patch movements or skins like a naked Lara Croft, they used a Game Shark to access a part of the game that had been 'disabled.' To argue that Rockstar didn't think people would find it would be to argue that Rockstar is comically unaware of its own industry. If they really didn't want people to find it they would have taken it out of the game entirely.

They have been around as a company long enough to know that if it was there someone would find it. Little hidden things in the game have been part of the games draw since its first iteration.

Here's the thing that pisses me off-it's the best selling game of all time, or was at the time they pulled this shit. This was a follow up to an already successful series and was so anticipated people were peeing their pants. On top of that, it's a game about a fucking gangster who goes on drive-bys, starts gang wars, picks up hookers, and in general does just about every bad thing you can think of. To say that consensual sex with his girlfriend is somehow worse than all of that reflects badly on our priorities. Had they been upfront about content they knew people would find on the game I would have been their loudest defender because those are fucked up priorities. But it would have meant that they'd have gotten an AO rating and it wouldn't be in Wal*Mart. So they disconnected it from the regular game knowing full well that modders would find it, got their M-rating and a place on big retailer shelves, despite the fact that they had such a high demand for the game that they still would have set sales records due to demand even if there was an AO on there and they could have shown the finger to big retailers.

Let me say again-in a game were you play a criminal, fucking your girlfriend is pretty much nothing. But to have the mode in the game and then pretend that they didn't know there was such a thing as a Game Shark or people who unlock shit on a game requires me to assume they are comically naive about their own industry. They should have taken the AO they knew they deserved, still set sales records and made the debate about priorities, instead they used a callous move to get themselves on big retailer shelves and brought heat down on their entire industry while they tried to play stupid.

Apologies - a Seinfeld re-run came on so I logged off.

Look, there's very few issues between the two, of these perhaps the following are differences.

Iraq: of which I think Senator Clinton has a more realistic plan
Healthcare: of which I think Senator Clinton's plan is more comprehensive and more detailed

Again, be specific. What specifically do you like about her health care plan? That it makes it mandatory that you buy-in? I mean, I know that's MY favorite part.


Half my problem is that even in those 'attacks on Obama' threads, it hasn't really been about specific policy, it has been, and presidential elections will always be, about personalities and it's impossible to deny that Senator Clinton has large problems with that, in terms of how she's perceived and the legacy of her husband.

I feel that a reasonable amount of support for Senator Obama comes from previous Republicans, distraught by President Bush but mindful of the 90's and absolutely against another Clinton in office.

The Iraq issue is a real one, much of what Senator Obama has said about it has been that he didn't support the Iraq war at the start and the claim has bandied around the fact that he wasn't in possession of all the facts. It's all speculation.

Yet to adamantly state a 16 month withdrawal, regardless of recent information, was both naive and attackable. It wasn't very good policy.

Good thing he specifically said that he was open to new information and adjustments repeatedly, huh. How about we stick to what he said without all the modifications.


Again, it's very hard to put up Senator Clinton's policies, of which you can read on her site, without simple putting them on a pedestal for attack.

Why? What's so wrong with her policies that the natural reaction to them would be to attack them?


In the end, my heart isn't really in it, I feel the debate's over and Senator Obama is a rightful winner, but for personality and legacy issues not policy issues. In terms of personality, I think his proposed style of leadership over the top-down decision making of Senator Clinton is decisive for me.

I think the Clinton camp underestimated his intellligence, they were used to being the smart kids in the kindergarten - they'd assumed a win and they were wrong.

In a final nod to the Seinfeld episode I watched - yadda yadda yadda.

EDIT: I'm also off to sleep now so can't respond to anything til later.

No need to apologize, by the way. Reply when you have time.

McCain signed Republican Party loyalty oath.
Obama signed Democratic Party loyalty oath.

Need proof of that? Look to the States that require a loyalty oath to be on their ballot. If either of those two are on the ballot, they signed the Oath.

I will use Texas as the example. Texas requires a Party loyalty oath to be on the ballot - which is why Dennis Kucinich would not be on the Texas ballot, as he refused to sign a loyalty oath. Obama and McCain are both on the ballot in Texas.

So ... both candidates have sworn under oath that they will tow the Party line, no matter what.

You're voting Party. A vote for McCain is a vote for the Republican Party.

That is just fact.

So what party am I voting for when I'll vote for Obama or McCain but not Clinton or Huckabee?

Err... my indication that I'll vote for either Obama or McCain pays lie to that.

McCain signed Republican Party loyalty oath.
Obama signed Democratic Party loyalty oath.

Need proof of that? Look to the States that require a loyalty oath to be on their ballot. If either of those two are on the ballot, they signed the Oath.

I will use Texas as the example. Texas requires a Party loyalty oath to be on the ballot - which is why Dennis Kucinich would not be on the Texas ballot, as he refused to sign a loyalty oath. Obama and McCain are both on the ballot in Texas.

So ... both candidates have sworn under oath that they will tow the Party line, no matter what.

You're voting Party. A vote for McCain is a vote for the Republican Party.

That is just fact.

Honestly, I find it hard to be on Rockstar's side on the matter. They tried to pull a fast one and nearly brought shit down on the entire industry and you have to play naive to think that they didn't. There is a rating above M for Mature, it's AO for Adults Only. Wal-Mart won't carry an AO game. So "Hot Coffee" was an 'Easter Egg'. I don't buy the 'hackers' argument because they didn't make the game do anything that wasn't there, they didn't patch movements or skins like a naked Lara Croft, they used a Game Shark to access a part of the game that had been 'disabled.' To argue that Rockstar didn't think people would find it would be to argue that Rockstar is comically unaware of its own industry. If they really didn't want people to find it they would have taken it out of the game entirely.

They have been around as a company long enough to know that if it was there someone would find it. Little hidden things in the game have been part of the games draw since its first iteration.

Here's the thing that pisses me off-it's the best selling game of all time, or was at the time they pulled this shit. This was a follow up to an already successful series and was so anticipated people were peeing their pants. On top of that, it's a game about a fucking gangster who goes on drive-bys, starts gang wars, picks up hookers, and in general does just about every bad thing you can think of. To say that consensual sex with his girlfriend is somehow worse than all of that reflects badly on our priorities. Had they been upfront about content they knew people would find on the game I would have been their loudest defender because those are fucked up priorities. But it would have meant that they'd have gotten an AO rating and it wouldn't be in Wal*Mart. So they disconnected it from the regular game knowing full well that modders would find it, got their M-rating and a place on big retailer shelves, despite the fact that they had such a high demand for the game that they still would have set sales records due to demand even if there was an AO on there and they could have shown the finger to big retailers.

Let me say again-in a game were you play a criminal, fucking your girlfriend is pretty much nothing. But to have the mode in the game and then pretend that they didn't know there was such a thing as a Game Shark or people who unlock shit on a game requires me to assume they are comically naive about their own industry. They should have taken the AO they knew they deserved, still set sales records and made the debate about priorities, instead they used a callous move to get themselves on big retailer shelves and brought heat down on their entire industry while they tried to play stupid.

First, sorry, but if you have to break the intended use, you have to bypass the standard code in order to get to a part like that, I would say that's adequate safeguards. You think the people who create a game like that aren't going to have parts in their for their amusement that they know aren't for general consumption. As a former software programmer, I can tell you that we used to do that, and I'll be damned if right before we shipped I was gonna take out one line of code I didn't absolutely need to take out, at the risk of breaking anything.

Second, I find it incredibly amusing that a game that is DESIGNED around murder, theft, destruction, copkilling, beating hookers, etc. is acceptable, but it's the sex that makes it just unpalletteable for children. What the hell is wrong with our country? It's okay for kids to watch movies that show the inside of people's heads splattering on walls, but dear God, if a nipple pops out, you better cover their eyes.

This is just more of the same. It's patently ridiculous to suggest that we should be concerned that parents might not realize that GTA isn't for children. What the hell is wrong with parents if that's true?

Honestly, I find it hard to be on Rockstar's side on the matter. They tried to pull a fast one and nearly brought shit down on the entire industry and you have to play naive to think that they didn't. There is a rating above M for Mature, it's AO for Adults Only. Wal-Mart won't carry an AO game. So "Hot Coffee" was an 'Easter Egg'. I don't buy the 'hackers' argument because they didn't make the game do anything that wasn't there, they didn't patch movements or skins like a naked Lara Croft, they used a Game Shark to access a part of the game that had been 'disabled.' To argue that Rockstar didn't think people would find it would be to argue that Rockstar is comically unaware of its own industry. If they really didn't want people to find it they would have taken it out of the game entirely.

They have been around as a company long enough to know that if it was there someone would find it. Little hidden things in the game have been part of the games draw since its first iteration.

Here's the thing that pisses me off-it's the best selling game of all time, or was at the time they pulled this shit. This was a follow up to an already successful series and was so anticipated people were peeing their pants. On top of that, it's a game about a fucking gangster who goes on drive-bys, starts gang wars, picks up hookers, and in general does just about every bad thing you can think of. To say that consensual sex with his girlfriend is somehow worse than all of that reflects badly on our priorities. Had they been upfront about content they knew people would find on the game I would have been their loudest defender because those are fucked up priorities. But it would have meant that they'd have gotten an AO rating and it wouldn't be in Wal*Mart. So they disconnected it from the regular game knowing full well that modders would find it, got their M-rating and a place on big retailer shelves, despite the fact that they had such a high demand for the game that they still would have set sales records due to demand even if there was an AO on there and they could have shown the finger to big retailers.

Let me say again-in a game were you play a criminal, fucking your girlfriend is pretty much nothing. But to have the mode in the game and then pretend that they didn't know there was such a thing as a Game Shark or people who unlock shit on a game requires me to assume they are comically naive about their own industry. They should have taken the AO they knew they deserved, still set sales records and made the debate about priorities, instead they used a callous move to get themselves on big retailer shelves and brought heat down on their entire industry while they tried to play stupid.

Well, there goes the post I was just about to make. Seconded on all counts. :)

McCain signed Republican Party loyalty oath.
Obama signed Democratic Party loyalty oath.

I will use Texas as the example. Texas requires a Party loyalty oath to be on the ballot - which is why Dennis Kucinich would not be on the Texas ballot, as he refused to sign a loyalty oath. Obama and McCain are both on the ballot in Texas.

So ... both candidates have sworn under oath that they will tow the Party line, no matter what.


The Texas oath:

"I, ______________ of __________________, __________ County/Parish, _____________, being a candidate for the Office of President of the United States, swear that I will support and defend the constitution and laws of the United States. I further swear that I will fully support the Democratic nominee for President whoever that shall be."

Where does that say that they will toe the party line? All it says is that they will swear to support the Democratic nominee.

You're voting Party. A vote for McCain is a vote for the Republican Party.

That is just fact.

A specific candidate within a party is not going to be the same as the next specific candidate. Party platforms have changed quite a bit over time - often in response to a given president.

If you're voting for a party, you've already lost. Your candidate isn't worth a damn.

By which you mean not you?
NONE of the things you like about Clinton are things actually specific or unique to Clinton (and not only that, but only two of them even count as issues in the most generic sense) while all the things you dislike about her are specific actions and stances.

If this isn't a joke topic, your political position is a joke.

Pray tell, what's my political position? Of course, it's not possible that you jumped to conclusion without applying the tiniest bit of logic. Certainly, you must actually know my political position, right? So what is it?

The fact The Who isn't on the radio any more aside, on no public airwaves can you hear anyone scream the word "fuck."

Um, yes. That's because they're public airwaves. That was my point. It's not the same as private industries policing themselves, which they do. None of the media industries are policed by Congress, nor should they be. It's only when they use airwaves borrowed from the public where the government has a say.

Second, I find it incredibly amusing that a game that is DESIGNED around murder, theft, destruction, copkilling, beating hookers, etc. is acceptable, but it's the sex that makes it just unpalletteable for children. What the hell is wrong with our country? It's okay for kids to watch movies that show the inside of people's heads splattering on walls, but dear God, if a nipple pops out, you better cover their eyes.

This is just more of the same. It's patently ridiculous to suggest that we should be concerned that parents might not realize that GTA isn't for children. What the hell is wrong with parents if that's true?

...sadly, I've met some frighteningly stupid parents. (Still, I would HOPE we could all agree that the violence in games like GTA really, really ought to be of greater concern than some stupid sex scene.)

First, sorry, but if you have to break the intended use, you have to bypass the standard code in order to get to a part like that, I would say that's adequate safeguards. You think the people who create a game like that aren't going to have parts in their for their amusement that they know aren't for general consumption. As a former software programmer, I can tell you that we used to do that, and I'll be damned if right before we shipped I was gonna take out one line of code I didn't absolutely need to take out, at the risk of breaking anything.

As a software programmer, especially of video games, to pretend no one was going to find it is to pretend to be comically naive about their own industry. I don't buy the innocent act because it requires me to play too stupid.

Second, I find it incredibly amusing that a game that is DESIGNED around murder, theft, destruction, copkilling, beating hookers, etc. is acceptable, but it's the sex that makes it just unpalletteable for children. What the hell is wrong with our country? It's okay for kids to watch movies that show the inside of people's heads splattering on walls, but dear God, if a nipple pops out, you better cover their eyes.

This is just more of the same. It's patently ridiculous to suggest that we should be concerned that parents might not realize that GTA isn't for children. What the hell is wrong with parents if that's true?

I stated twice that I agree with that. And had they taken the AO rating I'd be screaming that point with a megaphone. But instead they played games to get their M rating so they'd be in big retail stores. After they did that they lost my support on the issue.

The Texas oath:

"I, ______________ of __________________, __________ County/Parish, _____________, being a candidate for the Office of President of the United States, swear that I will support and defend the constitution and laws of the United States. I further swear that I will fully support the Democratic nominee for President whoever that shall be."

Where does that say that they will toe the party line? All it says is that they will swear to support the Democratic nominee.

I agree with Ker here. If you feel strongly enough that a person is not a good candidate for President that you'll invest millions to run against them (which is at least sometimes the case), then isn't it possible you'd be completely against supporting them in the general election.

I don't think it would have been weird for Huckabee to completely refuse to support McCain given their respective histories. That clause flies in the face of integrity and puts party before principles. Good for Kucinich.

Err... my indication that I'll vote for either Obama or McCain pays lie to that.



The two fold Billary camp lie of "Obama has no experience and is thus unsuited for presidency" has a hold on you I see. First off, Obama has more experience than she does (unless you really want to count her years as a Walmart lawyer...) and his experience is outside of Washington (unlike Ms. "first lady counts as experience!" Clinton...)

Finally, if one completely discounts Obama's experience, the comparison of a Lincoln or JFK still holds in judging how well "experience" is a measure of potential...


I realize that is a Clinton camp selling point. But I happen to agree. Being a Senator for 2 years just isn't enough to suit me. And though Hillary hasn't been in office for much more if any, she has been at a President's side in office and at least has a clue what it actually entails. She does hold the inside info on that count and has been on the front lines of the political horizon for many years. While she may have been decoration only she isn't a complete newb.

I don't like her, but I dislike her less than I dislike the pop star. And not in any form or fashion do I see Obama as a Lincoln or even a JFK. Is that his come back pitch?

As a software programmer, especially of video games, to pretend no one was going to find it is to pretend to be comically naive about their own industry. I don't buy the innocent act because it requires me to play too stupid.

They don't have to not know. They simply shouldn't have to be responsible for people violating their terms of use. I recognize that someone could break into my computer and steal my files, but I'm not going to apologize if someone comes across nude pictures of me.

I stated twice that I agree with that. And had they taken the AO rating I'd be screaming that point with a megaphone. But instead they played games to get their M rating so they'd be in big retail stores. After they did that they lost my support on the issue.

Frankly, I think it's highlighted the real problem in our country and I thank them for doing that. I'm tired of moves like Saw IV cutting out a boob scene so they can lower their rating. Our country is FUBAR in that regard and I applaud anyone who molests that system till it tells on them.

The system encourages those games I don't blame the makers of games for attempting to maximize their profits by simply and appropriately masking a part of the product to get a rating rather than rebuilding it entirely, which is what happens when you remove that much code.

People who rate these kinds of things think it's like a movie where they tell you what part to cut out and, bang, no problem, the can cut it out or cover it up. Not so with games. The code is so interwoven that taking out a chunk of code like that could require you to completely re-QA the entire product. They took adequate measures to protect against that. Those offering the mod are responsible for keeping them from children. The game itself made reasonable efforts to meet the rating requirements. To expect more of them, to protect some sensitivites, is nonsense. Making a company spending 100 grand to prevent someone from dying is totally reasonable. Making a company spend 100 grand to prevent some from illegally modifying their product in a way where no one dies or is injured in any real way is nonsense.

I realize that is a Clinton camp selling point. But I happen to agree. Being a Senator for 2 years just isn't enough to suit me. And though Hillary hasn't been in office for much more if any, she has been at a President's side in office and at least has a clue what it actually entails. She does hold the inside info on that count and has been on the front lines of the political horizon for many years. While she may have been decoration only she isn't a complete newb.

I don't like her, but I dislike her less than I dislike the pop star. And not in any form or fashion do I see Obama as a Lincoln or even a JFK. Is that his come back pitch?

And what was Bush's qualifications? He was the son of a President, then? You realize he wasn't on the national stage either. Nor was Bill Clinton. By your definition, Bill Clinton was a complete newb.

I realize that is a Clinton camp selling point. But I happen to agree. Being a Senator for 2 years just isn't enough to suit me. And though Hillary hasn't been in office for much more if any, she has been at a President's side in office and at least has a clue what it actually entails. She does hold the inside info on that count and has been on the front lines of the political horizon for many years. While she may have been decoration only she isn't a complete newb.

I don't like her, but I dislike her less than I dislike the pop star. And not in any form or fashion do I see Obama as a Lincoln or even a JFK. Is that his come back pitch?

It's a matter of which shell game you want to buy. The bulk of Clinton's experience has been as a first lady of some kind, first in Arkansas and then in the White House. In the meantime, Obama's experience doesn't begin and end in the Senate, but includes experiences in his state legislature, where he has held public office himself rather than be a rider for much more time. If we're to dismiss state level politics then we have to remove the 'years experience' that Clinton had as First Lady of Arkansas.

Before political office Clinton was a corporate lawyer while Obama was an community activist.

When it comes down to it both are anemic on public office experience, it's a matter of which shells you want to ignore and which ones you want to make more of to create the illusion that the gulf is wider than it is.

...sadly, I've met some frighteningly stupid parents. (Still, I would HOPE we could all agree that the violence in games like GTA really, really ought to be of greater concern than some stupid sex scene.)

I frankly don't care. It's for the state to remove children from that household then, not jump into every industry to protect children from the frighteningly stupid parents.

What can't I argue on those grounds? Illegal drugs, why? Stupid parents. No smoking, why? Stupid parents. Schools have ultimate authority over children, why? Stupid parents. I'm afraid the stupidity of some people just isn't going to be a reason for me to expand government, particularly when it proves by and large to be vastly more capable at being stupid.

The Texas oath:

"I, ______________ of __________________, __________ County/Parish, _____________, being a candidate for the Office of President of the United States, swear that I will support and defend the constitution and laws of the United States. I further swear that I will fully support the Democratic nominee for President whoever that shall be."

Where does that say that they will toe the party line? All it says is that they will swear to support the Democratic nominee.

That's the Texas oath ... shall we examine other States?

I used it as an example, not as completion.

Party platforms have changed quite a bit over time - often in response to a given president.

Actually, Platforms change every 2 years under caucus rules. The delegates/electorate tend to the Platform. But that's not important.

I see what you're saying, I just disagree with your stance. The Party's candidate is chosen by being the person who will best represent the Party, not the other way around.

Voting for a Candidate means you are voting for the person that the Delegates have decided best represent the Party Platform. Hence, you're voting along Party lines anyway, so I submit that it's best to vote for the person you believe best represents *you*, not vote against someone.

But you'll vote McCain, who was among those who raised his hand when asked who didn't believe in evolution, without regard to science. McCain, who has stated that under no certain terms that this nation was founded on Christian principles and is a Christian nation, without regard to historical proof. Rather than Hillary Clinton?

That's great and all, just curious. I'd also like to know why.

They don't have to not know. They simply shouldn't have to be responsible for people violating their terms of use. I recognize that someone could break into my computer and steal my files, but I'm not going to apologize if someone comes across nude pictures of me.
And if that was the same thing you'd have a point. However, your files aren't offered for public sale.



Frankly, I think it's highlighted the real problem in our country and I thank them for doing that. I'm tired of moves like Saw IV cutting out a boob scene so they can lower their rating. Our country is FUBAR in that regard and I applaud anyone who molests that system till it tells on them.

The system encourages those games I don't blame the makers of games for attempting to maximize their profits by simply and appropriately masking a part of the product to get a rating rather than rebuilding it entirely, which is what happens when you remove that much code.

People who rate these kinds of things think it's like a movie where they tell you what part to cut out and, bang, no problem, the can cut it out or cover it up. Not so with games. The code is so interwoven that taking out a chunk of code like that could require you to completely re-QA the entire product. They took adequate measures to protect against that. Those offering the mod are responsible for keeping them from children. The game itself made reasonable efforts to meet the rating requirements. To expect more of them, to protect some sensitivites, is nonsense. Making a company spending 100 grand to prevent someone from dying is totally reasonable. Making a company spend 100 grand to prevent some from illegally modifying their product in a way where no one dies or is injured in any real way is nonsense.
The rating board didn't ask them to remove it, they never knew it was there because it was hidden because they knew full well it would get them an AO rating. To paint this as some sort of MPAA type thing is erroneous. For the fourth time, had they acknowledged it instead of pretending no one would find it (Game Sharks are not illegal) I would have stood shoulder to shoulder, but such a callous move to get them on retail shelves means they're on their own.

I agree with Ker here. If you feel strongly enough that a person is not a good candidate for President that you'll invest millions to run against them (which is at least sometimes the case), then isn't it possible you'd be completely against supporting them in the general election.

I don't think it would have been weird for Huckabee to completely refuse to support McCain given their respective histories. That clause flies in the face of integrity and puts party before principles. Good for Kucinich.

I'm not supporting the oath - I think it's stupid.

However, it doesn't say or mean what Ker is trying to suggest it does.


I realize that is a Clinton camp selling point. But I happen to agree. Being a Senator for 2 years just isn't enough to suit me.

If that was all the experience Obama had, you might have a point...

Or is it specifically "Washington experience" that you require?

And though Hillary hasn't been in office for much more if any, she has been at a President's side in office and at least has a clue what it actually entails.

I'm married to a computer programmer. Does that mean that I am qualified to be a computer programmer?

It's a matter of which shell game you want to buy. The bulk of Clinton's experience has been as a first lady of some kind, first in Arkansas and then in the White House. In the meantime, Obama's experience doesn't begin and end in the Senate, but includes experiences in his state legislature, where he has held public office himself rather than be a rider for much more time. If we're to dismiss state level politics then we have to remove the 'years experience' that Clinton had as First Lady of Arkansas.

Before political office Clinton was a corporate lawyer while Obama was an community activist.

When it comes down to it both are anemic on public office experience, it's a matter of which shells you want to ignore and which ones you want to make more of to create the illusion that the gulf is wider than it is.

I agree with you completely. As I have said we are being offered the cream of the losers in my opinion. If experience were my only criteria then McCain is who I would have to vote for, but I didn't say it was my only criteria. I just said that I can appreciate that she has more political savvy than he does. And she does, she is mean and deceitful and knows exactly how this works. We don't need "nice" guys in the White House in reality. Corporate lawyer vs community activist? Easy choice, corporate lawyer without question.

Your shells analogy is exactly right, there will never be any candidate that is exact in matching what I personally would like to see. All I can hope for is to find a candidate that comes the closest to matching what I feel are the important issues. No candidate it going to embrace everything each individual favors.

I realize that is a Clinton camp selling point. But I happen to agree. Being a Senator for 2 years just isn't enough to suit me. And though Hillary hasn't been in office for much more if any, she has been at a President's side in office and at least has a clue what it actually entails. She does hold the inside info on that count and has been on the front lines of the political horizon for many years. While she may have been decoration only she isn't a complete newb.

I don't like her, but I dislike her less than I dislike the pop star. And not in any form or fashion do I see Obama as a Lincoln or even a JFK. Is that his come back pitch?

So, you're solkd on continuing the same BS as the last 20 years?

And what was Bush's qualifications? He was the son of a President, then? You realize he wasn't on the national stage either. Nor was Bill Clinton. By your definition, Bill Clinton was a complete newb.

Indeed.

It's a matter of which shell game you want to buy. The bulk of Clinton's experience has been as a first lady of some kind, first in Arkansas and then in the White House. In the meantime, Obama's experience doesn't begin and end in the Senate, but includes experiences in his state legislature, where he has held public office himself rather than be a rider for much more time. If we're to dismiss state level politics then we have to remove the 'years experience' that Clinton had as First Lady of Arkansas.

Before political office Clinton was a corporate lawyer while Obama was an community activist.

When it comes down to it both are anemic on public office experience, it's a matter of which shells you want to ignore and which ones you want to make more of to create the illusion that the gulf is wider than it is.

There's a lot to that. To expand, do we want to gamble that the same shell game of the last 20 years will produce a new result?

Voting for a Candidate means you are voting for the person that the Delegates have decided best represent the Party Platform. Hence, you're voting along Party lines anyway, so I submit that it's best to vote for the person you believe best represents *you*, not vote against someone.

But you'll vote McCain, who was among those who raised his hand when asked who didn't believe in evolution, without regard to science. McCain, who has stated that under no certain terms that this nation was founded on Christian principles and is a Christian nation, without regard to historical proof. Rather than Hillary Clinton?

That's great and all, just curious. I'd also like to know why.

If the country's going to vote for a hawk (Billary or McCain), I'll support the one who's actually been there and done that...

Seeing as how Bill wasnt in office, that kinda lets him off that hook of yours.



Know anything about the situation the movie Black Hawk Down was based off of? That was Billy. He isnt off the hook yet.



Anyway, I like:
She is not a Bush
She is not Huckabee
She is not McCain
That she isnt a republican
Shes not going to be the nominee
She doesnt talk about Ronald Regan or the "Regan Revolution" every five fucking minutes

I dislike:
Shes a Clinton
She is authoritarian
She was a corperate lawyer
She worked for WALMART. ARGH!
She is a hawk
She is pro-censorship
She tries to convince everyone shes a woman. I can see through the drag;)
I dont trust her any farther than Id go with "her"

That's the Texas oath ... shall we examine other States?

Even finding the text for that one was difficult. But if you have the others, I'd be happy to look at them.

Actually, Platforms change every 2 years under caucus rules. The delegates/electorate tend to the Platform. But that's not important.

I see what you're saying, I just disagree with your stance. The Party's candidate is chosen by being the person who will best represent the Party, not the other way around.

I don't care about The Party - any of them. A political party should be a tool to get things done, not the main focus.

There is a reason that the primaries include the voters as well as the party leadership. These types of elections let the party get a feel for where the electorate wants the party to go. To pretend that a strong candidate won't sway the party platform in his/her own direction seems a bit silly, to me.

Voting for a Candidate means you are voting for the person that the Delegates have decided best represent the Party Platform. Hence, you're voting along Party lines anyway, so I submit that it's best to vote for the person you believe best represents *you*, not vote against someone.

If I'm voting for the candidate that best represents me, I'm voting for them, not their party.

Obviously, they wouldn't be a member of that party if their views and goals didn't align fairly well, but there are things about both parties I adamantly disagree with. Luckily, different candidates have different priorities. I'm going to have trouble stomaching one who prioritizes the planks I don't like in a given party and puts the ones I do care about on the back-burner.

If I have to vote based on party, it means that there are no strong candidates. Only party patsies.

But you'll vote McCain, who was among those who raised his hand when asked who didn't believe in evolution, without regard to science. McCain, who has stated that under no certain terms that this nation was founded on Christian principles and is a Christian nation, without regard to historical proof. Rather than Hillary Clinton?

That's great and all, just curious. I'd also like to know why.

I actually don't know who I'd vote for in a McCain/Clinton race. One way or another, it would be another "hold my nose and vote for the lesser evil" kind of election for me. I'm hoping not to have to make that choice. That type of election is getting old.

If the country's going to vote for a hawk (Billary or McCain), I'll support the one who's actually been there and done that...

If hawk is the main issue, I have to agree.

It really boils down to what each of us feels are the main issues, right? We embrace the candidate that bothers to address the issues important to us and do so with like mindedness. Maybe not exact but close enough we feel represented by such.

Like I said he is a pop star, a flash in a pan in my opinion. I hear people talking here (where I live) why they like him, most common response from the women here? He is nice looking. :rolleyes:

I do enjoy all the info here (forum), it is nice to at least hear people voice real reasons they like him and not some dippitydodah crap like he is nice looking. My biggest concern at this point in the game, no matter who wins the camp, I am very very interested in who they choose as running mate. That to me will determine this entire election.

I think she has strong convictions.
Bad.

She believes in universal health care

Cute.

She cares about the environment

Meh.

She's intelligent
True.

She's a hard worker

Wrong.

She's a strong leader


Strong? http://www.planetc1.com/n/images/governor-schwarzenegger.jpg like Hrun the Barbarian?

Ok ... calling her "Billary" speaks more about where your opinion lies than anything. She is Senator Clinton. I'm sure she's earned that.

She's a United States Senator. Let's give her a little respect, shall we?

To be fair, she tries to use her husband's experience as her own, when it's convenient. She's her own woman when she thinks that's what people want to hear, and they're a single entity when she thinks people want to hear that her presidency will be just like Bill's.

While I think the use of the term "Billary" is a bit immature, I can certainly see where it comes from.

If the country's going to vote for a hawk (Billary or McCain), I'll support the one who's actually been there and done that...

Ok ... calling her "Billary" speaks more about where your opinion lies than anything. She is Senator Clinton. I'm sure she's earned that.

She's a United States Senator. Let's give her a little respect, shall we?

I agree with you completely. As I have said we are being offered the cream of the losers in my opinion. If experience were my only criteria then McCain is who I would have to vote for, but I didn't say it was my only criteria. I just said that I can appreciate that she has more political savvy than he does. And she does, she is mean and deceitful and knows exactly how this works. We don't need "nice" guys in the White House in reality. Corporate lawyer vs community activist? Easy choice, corporate lawyer without question.

Your shells analogy is exactly right, there will never be any candidate that is exact in matching what I personally would like to see. All I can hope for is to find a candidate that comes the closest to matching what I feel are the important issues. No candidate it going to embrace everything each individual favors.

Here it can be a difference of preferences. For me, I'd be far more concerned that corporate lawyer would sell me down the river than a community activist. For me I'd be far more concerned that someone who is mean and deceitful and doesn't favor transparency is likely to do harm without me knowing than someone who is open to discourse and favors transparency. I think we've had our fill of mean and deceitful, of 'corporate lawyers,' I'm willing to give something else a try.

But at least this is an honest difference of preferences.

She tries to convince everyone shes a woman. I can see through the drag;)

That made me laugh and I'm a Hillary supporter.

I frankly don't care. It's for the state to remove children from that household then, not jump into every industry to protect children from the frighteningly stupid parents.

What can't I argue on those grounds? Illegal drugs, why? Stupid parents. No smoking, why? Stupid parents. Schools have ultimate authority over children, why? Stupid parents. I'm afraid the stupidity of some people just isn't going to be a reason for me to expand government, particularly when it proves by and large to be vastly more capable at being stupid.

Well, I think there's a grey area here between "no government involvement" and "the government jumps into every industry." I don't mind limited government oversight - e.g. creating a ratings system and requiring that all games be rated. I think that's a fairly sensible way to help protect the children of stupid but well-meaning parents. Now, if the government started outright banning games, I would have a big problem with that.

I have little sympathy for Rockstar because, as CToaN pointed out, they deliberately tried to cheat the system. If they had put the sex scene in their game openly and argued publicly that the sex scene should not affect the game's rating, I could have gotten behind them. But they very deliberately let people be deceived as to what content the game would effectively contain, and that's pretty lame in my view. (And I understand that deleting that content would have been a giant pain in the butt - but not writing it in the first place wouldn't have been.)

To me, Hillary Clinton has more detailed plans, and discusses those plans more than the ability to use rhetoric. I concede Senator Obama is a magnificent speaker. But if the ability to use words elected a President we would have more author and poet President's, no? What I like about Senator Clinton is she is open about where she stands on the issues. She focuses her rallies around the issues and I saw that first hand when she came down here in Cinci for her round table discussion.

I will vote democrat whoever it is, but I just like Senator Clinton more.
Poets and authors are not inherently good orators (hell, half the time they arn't even good poets or authors).

Here it can be a difference of preferences. For me, I'd be far more concerned that corporate lawyer would sell me down the river than a community activist. For me I'd be far more concerned that someone who is mean and deceitful and doesn't favor transparency is likely to do harm without me knowing than someone who is open to discourse and favors transparency. I think we've had our fill of mean and deceitful, of 'corporate lawyers,' I'm willing to give something else a try.

But at least this is an honest difference of preferences.

I remember this being much of the same feelings during Carter's run. He is a super intelligent man, super humanitarian, genuinly loving marriage and family, even Miss Lilly his mother and her misguided support showed the country a human family front. All good things for the country. Yet he was one of the worst Presidents in my lifetime. Not because he wasn't a good man, he was indeed an excellent man. He was simply too nice, it is exactly why the foriegn leaders and terrorists tromped all over him during his administration.

While our society does actually teach that we play nice, much of the world does not. We know this. A President that only knows to play nice puts our country in a weak position at the table. We saw that and exactly how playing nice worked for a group of hostages for a year among other things. This country was a mess and had no direction in the least during his administration. But never can it be said he isn't an excellent man. I shook his hand once, he is a fine man. His ability at being President of our nation....terrible.

The world is not a Sunday School classroom where everyone is going to be polite and reasonable. Hillary knows that, a corporate lawyer knows that and knows how to deal with it. Knowing how to get down and dirty is an asset in my opinion.

We all have our reasons as I said. I have done the 'nice guy' President. ;)

If hawk is the main issue, I have to agree.

Well, remember that the president's job is first and foremost foreign policy.

It really boils down to what each of us feels are the main issues, right? We embrace the candidate that bothers to address the issues important to us and do so with like mindedness. Maybe not exact but close enough we feel represented by such.

Like I said he is a pop star, a flash in a pan in my opinion. I hear people talking here (where I live) why they like him, most common response from the women here? He is nice looking. :rolleyes:

I do enjoy all the info here (forum), it is nice to at least hear people voice real reasons they like him and not some dippitydodah crap like he is nice looking. My biggest concern at this point in the game, no matter who wins the camp, I am very very interested in who they choose as running mate. That to me will determine this entire election.

Indeed the running mate will be interesting. I support an ide that was floated elsewhere, of an Obama/Hagel ticket...

Ok ... calling her "Billary" speaks more about where your opinion lies than anything. She is Senator Clinton. I'm sure she's earned that.

She's a United States Senator. Let's give her a little respect, shall we?

Indeed it does show how much I despise the Billary collective...

BTW, you have yet to answer my question in regards to which party line I'm supporting if I'll vote Obama or McCain but not Billary or Huckabee...

And if that was the same thing you'd have a point. However, your files aren't offered for public sale.

Actually, I'm gonna backpedal a bit. I wasn't aware of the ability to access the code on PS2 using only cheat codes. I would consider that adequate protection. Though technically it requires a gameshark, which mods the base code (which as I understand it is a violation of the terms, but not technically illegal in the US).

The rating board didn't ask them to remove it, they never knew it was there because it was hidden because they knew full well it would get them an AO rating. To paint this as some sort of MPAA type thing is erroneous. For the fourth time, had they acknowledged it instead of pretending no one would find it (Game Sharks are not illegal) I would have stood shoulder to shoulder, but such a callous move to get them on retail shelves means they're on their own.

I'm making a point. General practice is to discuss a game or movie with ratings boards long before you get there. Meanwhile, do you have a link? I would be surprised if they never even discussed this mod with the ratings board. Have they given an official position on it, because I can't find one. (Not saying you're wrong necessarily, just that it doesn't match up with my experience.)

Meanwhile, I just can't get behind the stink behind this mod. It's absurd. I can't. They show Sex and the City on regular TV now. Hell, have you ever seen NYPD Blue?

Pray tell, what's my political position? Of course, it's not possible that you jumped to conclusion without applying the tiniest bit of logic. Certainly, you must actually know my political position, right? So what is it?
Excellent job completely avoiding the fact you like and are for Hillary because she holds generic Democratic positions and you believe she has very unspecific characteristics.

Well, I think there's a grey area here between "no government involvement" and "the government jumps into every industry." I don't mind limited government oversight - e.g. creating a ratings system and requiring that all games be rated. I think that's a fairly sensible way to help protect the children of stupid but well-meaning parents. Now, if the government started outright banning games, I would have a big problem with that.

I have little sympathy for Rockstar because, as CToaN pointed out, they deliberately tried to cheat the system. If they had put the sex scene in their game openly and argued publicly that the sex scene should not affect the game's rating, I could have gotten behind them. But they very deliberately let people be deceived as to what content the game would effectively contain, and that's pretty lame in my view. (And I understand that deleting that content would have been a giant pain in the butt - but not writing it in the first place wouldn't have been.)

I'm willing to back down on this a bit, but, sorry, this is just not content of the game. You have to buy third-party products, jump through a series of hoops including modifying the base code, in order to get to this mini-game. To suggest that not broadcasting the existence of that content is deceitful is just ludicrous.

To be fair, she tries to use her husband's experience as her own, when it's convenient.

Ok ... when?

Not arguing with you, just wondering. Can you back this claim? Quotes? Campaign speech? Anything?

I'm only asking because everything I've seen, she's distanced herself from Bill's Presidency at every turn. Even through that god awful "pant suit" joke.

If you have further information, please enlighten. I'm a Democrat and my Primary isn't until March 4th. I crave any and all information on both of my candidates.

Ok ... when?

Not arguing with you, just wondering. Can you back this claim? Quotes? Campaign speech? Anything?

I'm only asking because everything I've seen, she's distanced herself from Bill's Presidency at every turn. Even through that god awful "pant suit" joke.

If you have further information, please enlighten. I'm a Democrat and my Primary isn't until March 4th. I crave any and all information on both of my candidates.

I don't have particular quotes. I've been watching this election much more closely than usual, but I don't save every speech, transcript, etc.

What I have seen is her trying to distance herself from some of Bill's policy, while constantly invoking it as the "good times" she'll bring back. I see Bill saying that Obama is ignoring his presidency when he's supposed to be debating Hillary, not Bill. I see a lot of what "we" will do, instead of what Hillary will do.

I see her answering a question as to how she can represent change by first saying she is her own person and should be judged as such and then immediately talking about how great things were when Bill was president.

She obviously doesn't come right out and say it - she's too shrewd for that. But the manipulative tactics she's using seem pretty obvious to me.


Not to mention the fact that her general party line of being more experienced requires us to include her time as First Lady as part of that experience. Otherwise, Obama has been a part of the political process for a longer period of time and all she could possibly claim is a slightly longer period of time in Washington politics.

And, I'm sorry, but I suggest that calling her "Billary" is suggesting that a woman cannot act independently of her husband and, as a feminist, I find that way of thinking repugnant.



A woman can. However, Hillary choose to do so only when it benefits her.


For example, she often talks about her experiance and cites being the first lady, thus linking her experiance with her husband's presidency.

Then, when people bring up Clinton policies or quotes, she says she is not her husband. For example, torture was brought up. Hillary says, "Torture bad." A quote from Bill Clinton is said, along the lines of "it is our responsibility to beat information out of someone to save lives".

Hillary gets pissy and says, "Well hes not standing here, is he?"


This is just one example. I will scoure YouTube and try to find you a linky.

Excellent job completely avoiding the fact you like and are for Hillary because she holds generic Democratic positions and you believe she has very unspecific characteristics.

I'm for Hillary? Really? Please, show me where I said I support Hillary. You're a card. Do you really want to champion your ignorance as an argument?

I'm a HUGE Obama supporter. I'm from Illinois and have found him to be an excellent politician and to very effectively do what he says. I'm sorry that it's beyond your scope of understanding that someone might start a thread about Hillary so people could focus on her policies for a change, rather than every conversation being pro- or anti-Obama, and not being a Hillary supporter. I like her fine. I think she's a better candidate than McCain. But I much, much prefer Obama to her. Now, you done embarrassing yourself or would you care to continue?

Bad.


Cute.



Meh.


True.



Wrong.



Strong? http://www.planetc1.com/n/images/governor-schwarzenegger.jpg like Hrun the Barbarian?

What a sad state of affairs. ^This passes for political debate in our country.

I'm for Hillary? Really? Please, show me where I said I support Hillary. You're a card. Do you really want to champion your ignorance as an argument?

I'm a HUGE Obama supporter. I'm from Illinois and have found him to be an excellent politician and to very effectively do what he says. I'm sorry that it's beyond your scope of understanding that someone might start a thread about Hillary so people could focus on her policies for a change, rather than every conversation being pro- or anti-Obama, and not being a Hillary supporter. I like her fine. I think she's a better candidate than McCain. But I much, much prefer Obama to her. Now, you done embarrassing yourself or would you care to continue?



Hey, where in IL are you from?

BTW, you have yet to answer my question in regards to which party line I'm supporting if I'll vote Obama or McCain but not Billary or Huckabee...

Both Hillary and Huckabee are Party loyalists as well. Otherwise, they'd be running as Independents.

If you walk into your Primary and vote Obama, you're voting for the Democratic Party (for example). There's no way around this unless you caucus as an Independent.

And, I'm sorry, but I suggest that calling her "Billary" is suggesting that a woman cannot act independently of her husband and, as a feminist, I find that way of thinking repugnant.

Not arguing with you, just wondering. Can you back this claim? Quotes? Campaign speech? Anything?

I'm only asking because everything I've seen, she's distanced herself from Bill's Presidency at every turn. Even through that god awful "pant suit" joke.

If you have further information, please enlighten. I'm a Democrat and my Primary isn't until March 4th. I crave any and all information on both of my candidates.

And, I'm sorry, but I suggest that calling her "Billary" is suggesting that a woman cannot act independently of her husband and, as a feminist, I find that way of thinking repugnant.

If she weren't using Bill as a prop, I'd not call her Billary.

Both Hillary and Huckabee are Party loyalists as well. Otherwise, they'd be running as Independents.

If you walk into your Primary and vote Obama, you're voting for the Democratic Party (for example). There's no way around this unless you caucus as an Independent.

I've been an independent for ages. The only reason I'm formally listed as a dem now is that I strongly want to see Obama as the next president, and had to register as a dem in Iowa when I caucused. I was 50/50 on caucusing
for Obama or Dr. Paul until shortly before the Caucus...

Hey, where in IL are you from?

I'm originally from a few blocks west of Chicago Heights (south suburbs). I now live in Bolingbrook.

If you walk into your Primary and vote Obama, you're voting for the Democratic Party (for example). There's no way around this unless you caucus as an Independent.

No, you're voting for Obama in the Democratic primary. This does not, in any way, suggest that you are voting for the Democratic party as a whole. It means that, of the Democrats, you think Obama is the best-suited for the job.

Meanwhile, there seems to be a tacit suggestion here that Independent voters should just sit back and wait for whatever the parties happen to throw at us before we get involved in the political process. Screw that.

I am not a Democrat. I am not a Republican. I am not a member of any other party. I vote in both primary elections (the party depends on the candidates/offices up for grabs) and general elections. Sometimes I vote for a Democrat. Sometimes I vote for a Republican. Sometimes I vote for a Libertarian. Sometimes I vote for an Independent.

In this election, out of all the candidates, I think Obama is the best candidate. This means that I voted in the Democratic primary. I may or may not vote for the Democratic candidate in the general election.

And, I'm sorry, but I suggest that calling her "Billary" is suggesting that a woman cannot act independently of her husband and, as a feminist, I find that way of thinking repugnant.

I don't think it's suggesting that she cannot or that any other woman cannot. More that Hillary in particular chooses not to.

I'm originally from a few blocks west of Chicago Heights (south suburbs). I now live in Bolingbrook.

Hey, I grew up like 20 minutes from Bolingbrook (Winfield). Interesting...

A woman can. However, Hillary choose to do so only when it benefits her.

Find me quotes. Like I said ... I am a Hillary supporter, but my Primary isn't until March 4th.

Show me this "Billary" phenom. Prove it. I don't want your words, I want hers. I am now, and will always be, an informed voter ... so .... show me, don't snow me. :)

I don't think it's suggesting that she cannot or that any other woman cannot. More that Hillary in particular chooses not to.

I am conceding your other points. Ok, so you may be an independent thinker who votes or caucuses in a particular Party's primary. So be it. Although I submit that voting/caucusing for a Party's candidate strips you of Independent status, what do I know? I'm only an officer of the Democratic Party.

After all, when you vote in the Democratic Primary in TX, you're signing an oath to the Democratic Candidate. It doesn't work that way in other States, but .... well ...

Now I'd like to focus on this "Billary" issue and see where she's invoked Bill to make her cause.

I am conceding your other points. Ok, so you may be an independent thinker who votes or caucuses in a particular Party's primary. So be it. Although I submit that voting/caucusing for a Party's candidate strips you of Independent status, what do I know? I'm only an officer of the Democratic Party.

In your state, that might be true. In my state, I don't have to register as a member of any party to participate in the primary. On top of that, even if I did have to register, I'd likely be switching my registry rather often, so membership really wouldn't mean much.

After all, when you vote in the Democratic Primary in TX, you're signing an oath to the Democratic Candidate. It doesn't work that way in other States, but .... well ...

Good to know that the party in Texas doesn't want voters to think for themselves.

Now I'd like to focus on this "Billary" issue and see where she's invoked Bill to make her cause.

Watch the debates, etc.

Like I said, she's not going to come right out and say it, but the sense is there throughout her campaign.

I'm willing to back down on this a bit, but, sorry, this is just not content of the game. You have to buy third-party products, jump through a series of hoops including modifying the base code, in order to get to this mini-game. To suggest that not broadcasting the existence of that content is deceitful is just ludicrous.

To pretend that doing so wasn't common place and they didn't know that to me is ludicrous. But it really is a subject for another thread at this point.

Find me quotes. Like I said ... I am a Hillary supporter, but my Primary isn't until March 4th.

Show me this "Billary" phenom. Prove it. I don't want your words, I want hers. I am now, and will always be, an informed voter ... so .... show me, don't snow me. :)

Ok, YouTube Link of Clinton saying "Torture bad, Bill wrong, I not Bill."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1c10kwZWL4&feature=related


Now...

When her husband was elected President in 1992, Hillary's work as a champion for women was recognized and admired around the world. She traveled the globe speaking out against the degradation and abuse of women and standing up for the powerful idea that women's rights are human rights.

In the White House, Hillary led efforts to make adoption easier, to expand early learning and child care, to increase funding for breast cancer research, and to help veterans suffering from Gulf War syndrome who had too often been ignored in the past. She helped launch a national campaign to prevent teen pregnancy and helped create the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, which moved children from foster care to adoption more quickly. Thanks in part to her efforts, the number of children who have moved out of foster care into adoption has increased dramatically.



See, this is what we mean and why we call her Billary. She will distance herself from Bill, and then use his experiance as president and her experiance as first lady as a talking point. She combines his presidency with her "experiance" one minute and then says shes her own woman the next.

I'm for Hillary? Really? Please, show me where I said I support Hillary. You're a card. Do you really want to champion your ignorance as an argument?

Well I apparently skimmed over the topic. I assumed you had a point in making the thread, apparently not.

Find me quotes. Like I said ... I am a Hillary supporter, but my Primary isn't until March 4th.

Show me this "Billary" phenom. Prove it. I don't want your words, I want hers. I am now, and will always be, an informed voter ... so .... show me, don't snow me. :)

Sure.

CUMMINGS: She asks to you: "Senator Clinton, that you have claimed that your presidency would bring change to America. I'm 38 years old and I have never had an opportunity to vote in a presidential election in which a Bush or a Clinton wasn't on the ticket.

"How can you be an agent of change when we have had the same two families in the White House for the last 30 years?"

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: Well, as I have often said, I regret deeply that there is a Bush in the White House at the time.

But I think that what's great about our political system is that we are all judged on our own merits. We come forward to the American public and it's the most grueling political process one can imagine.

We start from the same place. Nobody has an advantage no matter who you are or where you came from. You have to raise the money. You have to make the case for yourself.

And I want to be judged on my own merits. I don't want to be advantaged or disadvantaged.


Good so far, right? Now, of course one would expect that she's going to continue by advancing her platform here, right? Talk about her merits, no?

I'm very proud of my husband's administration. I think that there were a lot of good things that happened and those good things really changed people's lives.

The trajectory of change during those eight years went from deficits and debt to a balanced budget and a surplus, all those 22 million new jobs and the...

(APPLAUSE)

... and the hopefulness that people brought with them. And, you know, it did take a Clinton to clean after the first Bush and I think it might take another one to clean up after the second Bush.

That's the entirety of her answer. "I'm my own person and should be judged independently of my husband, but if you think the first Clinton corrected the first Bush, then you should let the second one clean up after the second one."

Can't imagine how anyone gets the impression she wants people to give her credit for her husband's victories.

EDIT: Forgot the link. Great debate. Read her response when they asked her about giving Bush war powers. She rambles all over the place and completely avoids the question until Wolf Blitzer nails her on it. Also, read the end. I love that stuff.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/31/dem.debate.transcript/

Like I said, she's not going to come right out and say it, but the sense is there throughout her campaign.

I can't go on "sense". Give me something concrete and direct.

Well I apparently skimmed over the topic. I assumed you had a point in making the thread, apparently not.

I did and I told you what it was. You really want to continue to argue that if you can't understand why people might want to discuss the good and bad points of a candidate for President then there must not be a point? You can if you want, but I'm not sure we want to limit topics on NSG to those things within your scope of "understanding the point".

So anything else you want to angrily bark at me because you admittedly don't get it, or are we done?

Sure.

CUMMINGS: She asks to you: "Senator Clinton, that you have claimed that your presidency would bring change to America. I'm 38 years old and I have never had an opportunity to vote in a presidential election in which a Bush or a Clinton wasn't on the ticket.

"How can you be an agent of change when we have had the same two families in the White House for the last 30 years?"

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: Well, as I have often said, I regret deeply that there is a Bush in the White House at the time.

But I think that what's great about our political system is that we are all judged on our own merits. We come forward to the American public and it's the most grueling political process one can imagine.

We start from the same place. Nobody has an advantage no matter who you are or where you came from. You have to raise the money. You have to make the case for yourself.

And I want to be judged on my own merits. I don't want to be advantaged or disadvantaged.


Good so far, right? Now, of course one would expect that she's going to continue by advancing her platform here, right? Talk about her merits, no?

I'm very proud of my husband's administration. I think that there were a lot of good things that happened and those good things really changed people's lives.

The trajectory of change during those eight years went from deficits and debt to a balanced budget and a surplus, all those 22 million new jobs and the...

(APPLAUSE)

... and the hopefulness that people brought with them. And, you know, it did take a Clinton to clean after the first Bush and I think it might take another one to clean up after the second Bush.

That's the entirety of her answer. "I'm my own person and should be judged independently of my husband, but if you think the first Clinton corrected the first Bush, then you should let the second one clean up after the second one."

Can't imagine how anyone gets the impression she wants people to give her credit for her husband's victories.

See, thats what I was looking for, but I couldnt find it. I swear Joc you have all these random factoid articles bookmarked...

She supports making flag burning illegal.


OK, I have not read the whole thread so this may be redundant and I am only dealing with this one point out of the many good points you raise.

Nonetheless, I've done some looking into this and this charge is a dubious one.

Senator Clinton opposed and has voted against attempts to amend the Constitution to ban flag burning (or any other flag "desecration.") link (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/27/flag.burning/index.html), link (http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=3&aid=55396)

What Senator Clinton supported was a very different law that would be similar to the law against burning crosses in someone's front yard. It does not explicitly outlaw all flag burnings — just those intended to “intimidate any person or group of persons.”:

It will not be an easy vote, as evidenced by the carefully worded statement issued by New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. "I support federal legislation that would outlaw flag desecration, much like laws that currently prohibit the burning of crosses, but I don't believe a constitutional amendment is the answer," she said, adopting a position similar to the one taken by her husband, former President Clinton, when he was in office.

Her aides said there is no contradiction in being against the flag-burning amendment and for a flag-burning law.

They say she believes a federal law would not trample First Amendment rights because, like laws against cross burnings, it would ban flag desecration that is deemed to pose a threat to others — and not acts of political expression that are protected by the First Amendment.


link (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-06-23-dems-flag_x.htm?csp=34)

One may argue that Senator Clinton was wrong and/or that her position was cynical triangulation (and I'd agree with you on both), but saying she would ban flag-burning is a bit deceptive.

OK, back to your regularly scheduled bickering. :D

EDIT: One other thing. You will note that John McCain was among those that voted YES on the flag-burning amendment. So to hold this issue against Senator Clinton, when Senator McCain's position is worse, is unsupportable. I'm still looking up what Obama's position was.

EDIT2: Obama voted FOR Clinton's proposal. link (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SP4543:); link (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00188)

Find me quotes. Like I said ... I am a Hillary supporter, but my Primary isn't until March 4th.

Show me this "Billary" phenom. Prove it. I don't want your words, I want hers. I am now, and will always be, an informed voter ... so .... show me, don't snow me. :)

I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president.


Not a quote, but a summation of her 'experience':
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/26/america/clinton.php

Hillary's 35 years of experience? (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18391632)

*snip*

Thanks, brother.

Ok good stuff .... very good stuff ... and I will "paw" (hehe) through it. :)

As I said, I can't accept anything as face value or I'd out of hand believe the people who say the moon landing was faked.

Thank you, to those of you, who have answered me and given me fodder to think. It's all I ask.

OK, back to your regularly scheduled bickering. :D

As always, I accept your input. Thank you, CT.

OK, I have not read the whole thread so this may be redundant and I am only dealing with this one point out of the many good points you raise.

Nonetheless, I've done some looking into this and this charge is a dubious one.

Senator Clinton opposed and has voted against attempts to amend the Constitution to ban flag burning (or any other flag "desecration.") link (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/27/flag.burning/index.html), link (http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=3&aid=55396)

What Senator Clinton supported was a very different law that would be similar to the law against burning crosses in someone's front yard. It does not explicitly outlaw all flag burnings — just those intended to “intimidate any person or group of persons.”:

It will not be an easy vote, as evidenced by the carefully worded statement issued by New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. "I support federal legislation that would outlaw flag desecration, much like laws that currently prohibit the burning of crosses, but I don't believe a constitutional amendment is the answer," she said, adopting a position similar to the one taken by her husband, former President Clinton, when he was in office.

Her aides said there is no contradiction in being against the flag-burning amendment and for a flag-burning law.

They say she believes a federal law would not trample First Amendment rights because, like laws against cross burnings, it would ban flag desecration that is deemed to pose a threat to others — and not acts of political expression that are protected by the First Amendment.


link (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-06-23-dems-flag_x.htm?csp=34)

One may argue that Senator Clinton was wrong and/or that her position was cynical triangulation (and I'd agree with you on both), but saying she would ban flag-burning is a bit deceptive.

OK, back to your regularly scheduled bickering. :D

EDIT: One other thing. You will note that John McCain was among those that voted YES on the flag-burning amendment. So to hold this issue against Senator Clinton, when Senator McCain's position is worse, is unsupportable. I'm still looking up what Obama's position was.
We should be paying you. And I agree about the cynical triangulation bit, too.

We should be paying you. And I agree about the cynical triangulation bit, too.

:D

I can TG you my billable time on this issue. It really wasn't that much. ;)

What a sad state of affairs. ^This passes for political debate in our country.

Debate? My dear it, I am terribly sorry if it appeared my intention was to debate. I am quite tired of political debate.

:D

I can TG you my billable time on this issue. It really wasn't that much. ;)

Well, you can, but I should warn you, with my finances and credit history, you might want to save time and skip straight to collections...;p

Debate? My dear it, I am terribly sorry if it appeared my intention was to debate. I am quite tired of political debate.

Well, thanks for being so positively enlightening. If you're tired of political debate, then you know what helps you avoid it. See, there's this button on your mouse that if you hover over a link and press it, you end up there. You're tired of political discourse obviously. But not tired of just making declarative statements with no backing and really no credibility. You're looking for a different thread.

Here's a short list of reasons I dislike Clinton:

Who she is:
She's married to a former president and that sets a bad precident for our democratic republic.
*snip*

Almost as bad a precedent as the Presidency of John Quincy Adams. :p:D

Foreign Policy:
She supports the war in Iraq.

No. She doesn't. Her position on the war is essentially indistinguishable from Obama's. It is McCain that supports the war.

She supports a war on Iran.

No, she doesn't. See above.

She's overly hawkish.

No, she isn't. See above.

She represents a continuation of the disasterous foreign policies that have made the name of my country mud abroad.

Meh. Your inability to distinguish between Hillary and Bill is exceeded only by your inability to distinguish Bill Clinton from the Bushes. Our foreign policy was radically different under Bill Clinton than it currently is.

Her desicions, as I see and measure them, show a lack of good judgement and understanding when it comes to foreign policy, the most important part of the job she seeks.

Based on the above, it seems your judgment and understanding is lacking.

Domestic Policy:
She's authoritarian.

What does this mean and what is it based on?

And how is John McCain better?

She supports censorship.

What does this mean and what is it based on?

And how is John McCain better?

She supports the Patriot act.

How is her position on the Patriot Act different from Obama's? He voted to re-authorize it.

Isn't McCain a strong supporter of the Patriot Act?

She supports making flag burning illegal.

Already dealt with.

EDIT: Both Clinton and Obama opposed a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning. Obama voted FOR the bill that Clinton co-sponsored that would have banned flag burning under certain circumstances such as when it is part of a threat of violence. link (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SP4543:); link (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00188)

She supported "No Child Left Behind".

So did many Democrats. She opposes it now.

McCain still supports it, right?

She opposes same-sex marriages.

Meh. Her position is not significantly different than Obama's. It is different than McCain's.

She wishes to censor video games.

Discussed. This is an overstatement of her attempt to enforce video game labels -- a not wholly unsupportable position.


Bill is neither awsome nor nice. He's the jackass who set up the current foreign policy mess we're in, while sexually harrassing and getting blowjobs from ugly women and perjuring himself about it.

First, what exactly about Bill Clinton's foreign policy are you objecting to? This "OMG it was the same as Bush" routine is untrue.

Second, Bill Clinton never sexually harassed anyone -- particularly not while he was President. And that he got a blowjob and lied about it are inconsequential.

EDIT: Don't get me wrong. I support Obama. But I find Clinton vastly superior to McCain and don't understand (1) why you need to distort Clinton's record and (2) how you can claim to support Obama but be willing to vote for McCain.

I like that she is losing terribly.

On a serious note. I like that she wants to give healthcare to all Americans. I also like that she is intelligent and seems to want to change much of what Bush has done. That about wraps up my "I love Hillary" show.

Well, thanks for being so positively enlightening.

I smell a modicum of sarcasm in that remark.

If you're tired of political debate, then you know what helps you avoid it. See, there's this button on your mouse that if you hover over a link and press it, you end up there. You're tired of political discourse obviously.

No, I am just apolitical.

But not tired of just making declarative statements with no backing and really no credibility.

What do you think political debate is on this forum?

You're looking for a different thread.

But I cannot find it. :(

Things I hate about Clinton:

1. She doesn't actually pursue policies that she believes in, just ones that are politically advantageous.

i.e. Voting for Iraq, oh, wait, turns out that was bad. Now I'm fully against it. Yeah, right.
Punishing Florida and Michigan. 'I fully support the DNC decision. Crap, now I'm behind. FLorida and Michigan deserve to be heard.' Not politically motivated what-so-ever. [/sacrasm]
Pro-environment: I guaruntee she is only for this because its now basically a Democratic law.

I mean, she was a conservative republican in college. What kind of person is conservative during college, and liberal after? Someone who is just choosing the politically advantageous path. Moving to New York? Only so she could get elected. (Sadly, I can't prove this, but I know its true)

2. Her relentless ambition, no matter how many souls she has to sell, or babies she has to kill, or outright lies she has to tell along the way (Note: Slightly exagerrated. Slightly)

I consult factcheck.com frequently for accurate portrayal of what is happening. Recently, Clinton used a snippet of an Obama interview to portray him as Pro-Reagan. She was called on it, being a complete distortion, and then CONTINUED to blatantly lie. I walked around that day in a constant state of anger.

3. Her divisiveness
Mostly, because I believe the most important thing for America to do for this next president is to gain back our respect internationally. Clinton cannot do that.

Things I like about Clinton:
Well, lets see... there's um... Hmm... Let me think a bit.

Ah ha! No, sorry, I just thought I'd have an idea by the time I finished writing this. Maybe... huh.

Okay, I thought I'd be able to come up with at least an empty thing. I'll have to get back to you on that.

I like that Hillary is a woman. I'm a big fan of women. She seems smart. She isn't a Republican. Universal health care is a nice idea. Green economy is awesome.

I think she would do a lot better if she was bigger on ethical reform in the govt and didn't attack/ridicule Obama as much. The more she does so, the less respect I have for her. Too much of it is dishonest, like when she says that Obama is all talk and no action. Obama has produced a lot of results in the short time he's been in politics. She should also say that she made a mistake in voting to give the Bush authority to fuck Iraq over.

I like that she says that we shouldn't end the war in Iraq next year, next month or next week but today.

Her stance on video games makes her a n00b and a lulzkiller and she must get totally fuckin pwned by 0b@m@ at map CS_texas



Oh my god....that was awesome.

Her stance on video games makes her a n00b and a lulzkiller and she must get totally fuckin pwned by 0b@m@ at map CS_texas

I smell a modicum of sarcasm in that remark.

Your nose works.

No, I am just apolitical.

Hmmm... you sure?

What do you think political debate is on this forum?

Depends on who you're talking about. Lots of people on this forum engage in meaningful debate. TCT voted for Obama and is defending Hillary.


But I cannot find it. :(

You get points for making me laugh. I'm not being sarcastic this time. I often like your sense of humor.

Positive:

1) She's proven more than any other candidate in the history of the United States that having a second X in your chromosome is not a credible barrier to the Presidency.

2) She's crystalized the tension between 2nd and 3rd wave feminism. This crystalization is healthy for continuing to develop what it means to be a feminist.

3) She's competent at the procedural aspects of government.

4) She's diligent.

5) She's very intelligent.

Negative:

1) Above all else, she's a member of the DLC, the wing of the party that has run the Democratic Party into the ground and sold the working-class down the river.

2) Deserved or not, she is perceived as embodying the smug sense of entitlement of the baby boom generation whose time has passed and needs to stand aside and let us clean up their mess.

3) Her votes on Iran, Iraq, and bankruptcy reform demonstrate that she has either persistently poor judgment on what will benefit the United States, or that she is perfectly willing to throw the poor or the military under a train to satisfy her political ambitions. Neither become a president.

4) Her willingness to alternately trot out her husband or say she's her own woman as the case warrants offends my feminist sensibilities as well as my desire to have a candidate respect my intelligence.

I like that Hillary is a woman. I'm a big fan of women. She seems smart. She isn't a Republican. Universal health care is a nice idea. Green economy is awesome.

I think she would do a lot better if she was bigger on ethical reform in the govt and didn't attack/ridicule Obama as much. The more she does so, the less respect I have for her. Too much of it is dishonest, like when she says that Obama is all talk and no action. Obama has produced a lot of results in the short time he's been in politics. She should also say that she made a mistake in voting to give the Bush authority to fuck Iraq over.

I like that she says that we shouldn't end the war in Iraq next year, next month or next week but today.

I agree with the bolded so much. I would say my biggest dislike about Hillary is that she genuinely seems to think that giving war powers to the President was a good idea. I actually thought a war in Iraq was inevitible and necessary (Yes, I was wrong), but I've always thought the war powers act was nonsense and a huge dodge of checks and balances.

Mostly I was hoping for focusing some discourse on Hillary's policy. There are numerous Hillary supporters on this board, but mostly I see them spending their time attacking Obama. There are several threads focused on Obama. I was hoping ONE could focus on Hillary, or at least Hillary in comparison to Obama. In that sense, this thread is right on point.
Actually it is not "on point". All this thread seems to amount to is an attack on Hillary and you kicked it off.

The appropriate name for the thread should have been:

What I dislike/like about Hillary.

Actually it is not "on point". All this thread seems to amount to is an attack on Hillary and you kicked it off.

The appropriate name for the thread should have been:

What I dislike/like about Hillary.



If you used that thing between your ears, youd see that many here are defending her and saying waht they like about her.


Apperantly we are not allowed to talk bad about our futurre savio though.

Actually it is not "on point". All this thread seems to amount to is an attack on Hillary and you kicked it off.

The appropriate name for the thread should have been:

What I dislike/like about Hillary.

And you still can't come up with anything that you like about Hillary.

I find Hillary to be unpleasant. To be honest, though, that is not an important voting criteria for me.

She's already been through the ringer. There's little new the Republicans can throw at her - rehashed old smears just don't have the same sting as fresh allegations.

I think she could be an effective leader. She is a political animal that has the experience, contacts and will to push through an agenda.

I like parts of her agenda, too.

On Healthcare she & Obama are so close that any real argument is over details - and it's not like the details are really that important now. Anything that get's accomplished will be completely reworked and compromised on it's torturous journey through congress.

On Iraq, she seems more practical than Obama. It seems too simplistic for Obama to put a time limit on withdrawal when there are so many factors in play. It seems to me like a false promise. Hillary's position seems more realistic. She seems committed to withdrawal, but not ready to make a promise she knows could well be impossible.

There. I've said some positive things about Hillary. But I'm still for Obama. Because he seems to have the best chance of beating McCain in the general.

Barringtonia, you want to talk about pathetic attacks? What about the plagerism charge? You know, when Obama used a line from his friend's speech (Gov of Mass) that his friend his he could use?



Well, not all of them are bad and I'm most like the one who did a lot of good for this country.

Just because it's her husband shouldn't deny her the right to make the point.

See, here we go again. Hillary gets to run on her husband's record, except when it doesnt benefit her.

In reply to Jocabia's earlier request for healthcare differences as well as to cover off the fact that Senator Obama uses misleading language in attacks on Senator Clinton:

Krugman makes a strong statement [about Clinton's healthcare plan being more effective] and it's based on two points: the first is that Clinton's plan provides universal coverage (through an individual mandate), and Obama's plan does not cover everyone and does not include an individual mandate (except he does have one for children, which suggests he understands its usefulness). On this the experts agree -- Obama's plan leaves 15 million people uninsured while Clinton's plan leaves no patients behind. According to the Wall Street Journal, "Outside experts agree that number is in the ballpark." Obama has acknowledged this fact, saying that "Fifteen million sounds like a lot ... I'll have 97 percent covered." The Washington Post notes that the "Obama plan could leave a third of those currently uninsured lacking coverage."

Krugman's second point is that Obama uses campaign rhetoric -- straight from the pages of the right-wing, anti-government playbook -- that demonizes mandates to the point where he would have a difficult time as president accepting a proposal that has one. The ideological intensity of Obama's critique is a serious problem because an individual mandate is an effective mechanism for covering everyone. It's far from the only way -- but it is one way and it has lots of political support. If you're trying to bring people together around a solution, ruling out something as big as this may well rule out your chance of success. In this way, says Krugman, "Mr. Obama's campaigning on the health care issue has sabotaged his own prospects" of winning reform as president.

The case in point is Obama's recent direct mail piece (PDF), which is misleading about Clinton's plan and his own. Ezra Klein of the American Prospect says that Obama is "fear-mongering" and "demagoguing universal health care." For example, Obama fails to mention that Clinton's plan guarantees coverage for all. And while he says that affordability is the key issue, he neglects to note that her affordability provisions are stronger and more specific than his. Obama also fails to note that his own plan has an individual mandate.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20080205/cm_huffpost/085144)

Look, politics is a dirty business, we all know that, what I object to is the constant demonising of Senator Clinton while asserting that Senator Obama can do no wrong.

In some senses, fair enough, it's a battle for the Democratic nomiination but the fact is that Senator Clinton has vastly more experience than Senator Obama on healthcare as well as having strong knowledge on foreign affairs.

A final note is the point in the debates about her 'standing on her own two feet'. I really fail to see what the issue is there, she said she wanted to stand on her merits, which is fair comment. She also has to, remembering that the question is pointed, say that it's not necessarily a bad comparison because when the question is:

Oh my god, you're just like the last 3 presidents

The answer can justifiably be:

Well, not all of them are bad and I'm most like the one who did a lot of good for this country.

Just because it's her husband shouldn't deny her the right to make the point.

Barringtonia, you want to talk about pathetic attacks? What about the plagiarisms charge? You know, when Obama used a line from his friend's speech (Gov of Mass) that his friend his he could use?

What do you want me to do here? All I'm saying is that both sides attack, in no way am I saying Senator Clinton doesn't attack falsely and I'm not blind to see that she's more at fault on this tactic.

See, here we go again. Hillary gets to run on her husband's record, except when it doesnt benefit her.

Look, this is why this thread is pointless, because any positive explanation is simply whined about and any negative comment on Senator Obama gets a 'but look at Hillary' comment. Well look at Senator Obama as well, objectively.

I've stated my support for Senator Obama, I've also stated that I'm just making the point that Senator Clinton has an intelligent platform, has areas where she's better informed that Senator Obama and I am aware that there's many areas where she's not.

Senator Clinton is very much attacked for who she is and, I don't know, it irks me.

In reply to Jocabia's earlier request for healthcare differences as well as to cover off the fact that Senator Obama uses misleading language in attacks on Senator Clinton:





Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20080205/cm_huffpost/085144)

Look, politics is a dirty business, we all know that, what I object to is the constant demonising of Senator Clinton while asserting that Senator Obama can do no wrong.

In some senses, fair enough, it's a battle for the Democratic nomiination but the fact is that Senator Clinton has vastly more experience than Senator Obama on healthcare as well as having strong knowledge on foreign affairs.



They're both hedging a bit (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/theyve_got_you_covered.html). I said earlier that I think that Clinton's is more robust, but neither would end up covering me.

Look, this is why this thread is pointless, because any positive explanation is simply whined about and any negative comment on Senator Obama gets a 'but look at Hillary' comment. Well look at Senator Obama as well, objectively.
Exactly.

Senator Clinton is very much attacked for who she is and, I don't know, it irks me.
Yup, me too!!

Exactly.


Yup, me too!!

And yet, also when you are asked what it is that you like about her, you cannot/will not say what it is.

And yet, also when you are asked what it is that you like about her, you cannot/will not say what it is.

I don't know if your comment was specific to CH or to those defending Senator Clinton in general but..

I have, I prefer her approach to Iraq and I've stated why I don't like Senator Obama's, I've also put across points on Healthcare.

Overall, I will have to concede something but this is also a point against those who lambast her.

I liked Bill Clinton, I thought he was a great president brought down by petty sniping. People say that his administration was at fault for the current foreign affairs issues but, first, terrorism has been with us since the early 80's - people forget Lockerbie and more. Second, people forget Ireland coming to peace, where he was a great help and, third, he did look to put Osama bin Laden away - the public chastised him over rocketing a vehicle in, I think, Syria at the the time and now they're complaining that this is in some way his fault!

However, because I liked Bill Clinton, I have great sympathy for Hillary Clinton and, in many way, I wish she'd been President first because I think she's smart, intelligent and strong on the issues.

I find that many people here who dislike her both criticise her for drawing on the legacy of her husband as well as write 'Billary' et al, as a denigration to that legacy - they're having it both ways.

Alongside that, I really dislike the 'bitch', 'cold-hearted' and other statements, which highlight the personal nature of dislike, especially to the point, as The Cat Tribes has pointed out, that people would support Senator McCain over Senator Clinton if it came to it.

The main point is that I don't dislike her, and that's the real difference.

I don't know if your comment was specific to CH

Specific to CH, I have yet to see him post anything about why he likes Hillary. I've seen him attack the other candidates (mainly Obama) a lot (and with bs claims usually), but nothing indicating what is about Hillary that makes him believe that she is the best candidate.

I don't know if your comment was specific to CH or to those defending Senator Clinton in general but..


CH specifically (not to speak for Dyakovo), CH has been slagging Obama from thread to thread and only really touting Clinton's electability. Jocabia started this thread largely to give him a format to campaign for his candidate instead of against one.

Specific to CH, I have yet to see him post anything about why he likes Hillary. I've seen him attack the other candidates (mainly Obama) a lot (and with bs claims usually), but nothing indicating what is about Hillary that makes him believe that she is the best candidate.

CH specifically (not to speak for Dyakovo), CH has been slagging Obama from thread to thread and only really touting Clinton's electability. Jocabia started this thread largely to give him a format to campaign for his candidate instead of against one.

Ah well, I've vaguely been skimming those topics since they jump across threads so much so I can't really comment - the electability issue, well I'd like to think both can beat McCain so it's a moot point for me.

No, Jocabia started this thread to slag Hillary and it appears to have worked. The thread title is misleading and the first post is intellectually dishonest. :)

So, turn it around. Tell us what you like about Clinton.

CH specifically (not to speak for Dyakovo), CH has been slagging Obama from thread to thread and only really touting Clinton's electability. Jocabia started this thread largely to give him a format to campaign for his candidate instead of against one.
No, Jocabia started this thread to slag Hillary and it appears to have worked. The thread title is misleading and the first post is intellectually dishonest. :)

No, Jocabia started this thread to slag Hillary and it appears to have worked. The thread title is misleading and the first post is intellectually dishonest. :)

Dude, you come up with more excuses not to answer things than I've ever seen, and I've been on NS since 2003. Seriously, it's like an art form with you.

Dude, you come up with more excuses not to answer things than I've ever seen, and I've been on NS since 2003. Seriously, it's like an art form with you.
You people with the Obama coloured glasses bring out the worst in me. :D

No, Jocabia started this thread to slag Hillary and it appears to have worked. The thread title is misleading and the first post is intellectually dishonest. :)

Who do you think you're fooling? I seriously started this thread in hope that it would it would be about the platform of Hillary Clinton. So far, I've seen two supporters of HRC in this thread. One say any positive support for HRC would expose her to criticism, which frankly is pretty damn sad. The other is the most laughable political poster in any of these threads. Guess which you are.

Prove me wrong. Attempt to actually support your candidate instead of attacking Obama. So far, you've not for a second attempted to support your candidate. Republican.

You people with the Obama coloured glasses bring out the worst in me. :D

Let's pretend like that like your best would be any better. I realize to you the only candidates are Obama and not-Obama, but this thread is about HRC. If you don't know anything about her, feel free to move on. Or you can talk about her platforms. So far, every supporter of her has plainly stated that they are afraid of discussing her policies. I was hoping this thread would have a point, but none of you truly believe she has any policies worth discussing. How sad.

There's a slight difference between futilely putting up policies in front of an audience hungry for attack regardless and pointing to key differences and supporting them.

I want to come back to the 16 months withdrawal because I believe, and fair enough it's my belief and I can never substantiate this, that if the candidate positions were reversed, you would have great fun attacking her on this point, enormous fun. And if she had the temerity to change her position in light of new information she would be accused of changing her position in a grab for Emperor-like ultimate power. It's the nature of these debates, the focus is on defending your candidate rather than assessing policies objectively.

Politics is an endless series of bargains, in terms of healthcare, I'd rather put forward universal mandatory cover and bargain down from there than have escape clauses - to me it shows a smarter political brain.

Ultimately, the debate is entrenched in terms of the faults of Senator Clinton because any fault ascribed to Senator Obama is brushed off with hypotheticals over what he might have done, will do or claims of 'look at Hillary', or worse, 'look at Bill', while denying her the right to even mention his legacy.

Worth noting that the strongest defense of Clinton has come from someone who voted Obama.

If you're talking of me, oddly enough I'm British and have no vote whatsoever :) could just be my ego wanting to believe you think I've been putting up the strongest defense, on reflection, it's probably The Cat Tribes.

I am very interested in American politics though.

There's a slight difference between futilely putting up policies in front of an audience hungry for attack regardless and pointing to key differences and supporting them.

I want to come back to the 16 months withdrawal because I believe, and fair enough it's my belief and I can never substantiate this, that if the candidate positions were reversed, you would have great fun attacking her on this point, enormous fun. And if she had the temerity to change her position in light of new information she would be accused of changing her position in a grab for Emperor-like ultimate power. It's the nature of these debates, the focus is on defending your candidate rather than assessing policies objectively.

Politics is an endless series of bargains, in terms of healthcare, I'd rather put forward universal mandatory cover and bargain down from there than have escape clauses - to me it shows a smarter political brain.

Ultimately, the debate is entrenched in terms of the faults of Senator Clinton because any fault ascribed to Senator Obama is brushed off with hypotheticals over what he might have done, will do or claims of 'look at Hillary', or worse, 'look at Bill', while denying her the right to even mention his legacy.

Oh, dear God. I'm quoting this because this is what passes for reason.. "I'm not gonna offer an evidence or reason because you'll just make me look silly." How sad.

Oh, dear God. I'm quoting this because this is what passes for reason.. "I'm not gonna offer an evidence or reason because you'll just make me look silly." How sad.

Then you've misunderstood my point, which is you've a mindset that will not, under any circumstances, accept her policies as any better than Senator Obama's, as your original list of positives about Senator Clinton shows. They're a weak set up.

Let's pretend like that like the best would be any better. I realize to you the only candidate is Obama and not-Obama, but this thread is about HRC. If you don't know anything about her, feel free to move on. Or you can talk about her platforms. So far, every supporter of her has plainly stated that they are afraid of discussing her policies. I was hoping this thread would have a point, but none of you truly believe she has any policies worth discussing. How sad.
Worth noting that the strongest defense of Clinton has come from someone who voted Obama.

Worth noting that the strongest defense of Clinton has come from someone who voted Obama.

For the record, I haven't yet voted Obama for President. I was away during the primaries, and didn't know you could absentee vote in primaries. I would have.

Meanwhile, I notice that he can't provide a link to that post where he supposed replied to all those posts. So much for that bullshit about how he is just waiting for some substance. I sincerely hate people whose arguments are just praying on the ignorance of others. Maybe, just maybe, he's not, but I can't think of a better reason why he would avoid like the plague every post with actual evidence.

Let's look at these again...

I can say some things I like about Hillary regardless of who she's running against:
I think she has strong convictions.
She believes in universal health care
She cares about the environment
She's intelligent
She's a hard worker
She's a strong leader

Not a single policy point, no sentence with more than 6 words.

Things I dislike:
She says that she believes it's right to give war powers to the President if it's the right President (in other words, it's okay to centralize power in the President as Bush has done... if it's her)
Her stance on video games
She is unwilling to say voting to give war powers to Bush was a mistake (I know that's the same as one, sort of, but I really feel like we need to start admitting mistakes)
She has said that certain states and certain voters don't matter, that she more concerned with becoming the candidate
She supported the removal of Michigan and FL delegates until she realized she needed them and then did a 180.


Again no policy point, for someone who says they want to discuss policies, but they are specific points of contention, they're specific reasons why you don't like her - hardly fair overall.

On this final one:

She supported the removal of Michigan and FL delegates until she realized she needed them and then did a 180.

Had nothing to say on Super Delegates until he thought they might make a difference and then said they should follow the popular vote, when they're specifically set up so that the popular vote can be affected by the heads of the DNC where they think it best.

I mean, it just points again to the ability to attack Senator Clinton for areas where Senator Obama is as culpable.

He can also attack Bill Clinton's legacy as he likes but, for supporters, she can't draw on his at all?

There's a difference between saying she wants to stand on her own merits and relying on his legacy, especially when she was an intrinsic part of that legacy.

It's a no-win situation for debate.

Look, Joccy's whole reason for starting the thread was to start a discussion about HRC. He brought out what he thought was positive about her and what he thought she was lacking of. That's what an OP is supposed to be. He's not supposed to argue the whole goddamn point of the discussion in his FIRST post.

If some of us actually remembered this, instead of picking flaws in OPs or silly things like the definition of this or that word, maybe NS wouldn't be so fucking boring.

As for me, I don't believe in Hillary because she seems to be relying on Bill for press, instead of actually pushing her policies. Sure, her policies may seem okay - getting out of Iraq, universal health care - but she doesn't go and push the policies and back them with reason. She doesn't give us a reason to believe her policies are better than Obama's. She says "I'll get out of Iraq so-and-so days after I'm in office," but she doesn't offer reasons why. She wants the listener to react emotionally and be drawn to her by Bill's popularity, but that doesn't win her any points with the people who think her points through. Her policies, to wrap this up a bit neater, seem to be more hot air than ideas.

...

I was talking about The Cat Tribes...jeez you guys, I bet you think this song is about you, don't you?

Aww, to be fair The Cat Tribes hasn't, or has he, made a strong defense in this thread - mine's not overly strong either, which led me to suspect something was amiss :)

For Jocabia, I think he's just making a parallel point rather than assuming its himself, he's probably saying - "for the record, I haven't voted for Obama yet due to..."

...but yeah, for me, my ego is thhhhiiiisssss big

If you're talking of me, oddly enough I'm British and have no vote whatsoever :) could just be my ego wanting to believe you think I've been putting up the strongest defense, on reflection, it's probably The Cat Tribes.

I am very interested in American politics though.

For the record, I haven't yet voted Obama for President. I was away during the primaries, and didn't know you could absentee vote in primaries. I would have.

Meanwhile, I notice that he can't provide a link to that post where he supposed replied to all those posts. So much for that bullshit about how he is just waiting for some substance. I sincerely hate people whose arguments are just praying on the ignorance of others. Maybe, just maybe, he's not, but I can't think of a better reason why he would avoid like the plague every post with actual evidence.
...

I was talking about The Cat Tribes...jeez you guys, I bet you think this song is about you, don't you?

Let's look at these again...



Not a single policy point, no sentence with more than 6 words.


Yes, and given that was my OP, I explained why I was being vague. Did you miss it. I wanted to leave the more substantive points to supports. Complicated, no?


Again no policy point, for someone who says they want to discuss policies, but they are specific points of contention, they're specific reasons why you don't like her - hardly fair overall.

On this final one:



Had nothing to say on Super Delegates until he thought they might make a difference and then said they should follow the popular vote, when they're specifically set up so that the popular vote can be affected by the heads of the DNC where they think it best.

I mean, it just points again to the ability to attack Senator Clinton for areas where Senator Obama is as culpable.

He can also attack Bill Clinton's legacy as he likes but, for supporters, she can't draw on his at all?

There's a difference between saying she wants to stand on her own merits and relying on his legacy, especially when she was an intrinsic part of that legacy.

It's a no-win situation for debate.

I left the postive points to her supporters. So far, all supporters have balked at the idea of supporting her. I accept your claim. She's impossible to present positive claims about. You win.

I'll tell you what, start an Obama thread the same way, like several others have before. Watch me support the candidate I believe in. What's that say about your candidate that even her supporters don't beleive that her posisitons will stand up to debate? I know what it says. So do the voters.

Look here, the media are picking up on my point that Senator Obama gets it a little easy - I do wish they'd stop calling for my opinion - it also speaks to the danger of building a campaign on hope and change and other promises - in a sense, I do blame the media both as a refutation to Christmahanukwanzikah's point as well as focusing on Senator Obama as the great hope of America:

Media Start Falling Out of Love With Obama: Margaret Carlson

Commentary by Margaret Carlson


Feb. 21 (Bloomberg) -- There's nothing easier than falling out of love. On this, as opposed to credit default swaps, I am an expert.

The wakeup moment usually follows the realization that one's dearly beloved reads the newspaper out loud and won't share the remote. He talks a good game about picking up his socks and making partner at the firm, but his argyles never quite make it into the hamper and he rarely burns the midnight oil except to watch ESPN. Friends say he's not good enough for you. You finally get it.

So it should be easy for Senator Hillary Clinton to get the country to dump Senator Barack Obama. She gave it a huge effort in Wisconsin, harping as much on what a sweet-talking, all-hat, no-cattle kind of man he is as she did on the deficiencies in his health-care plan. Wake up, Badgers, and smell the cheese.

``Words are cheap. Speeches don't get your mortgage paid. Speeches don't put food on the table,'' Clinton said once, if not 100 times.

Thank you, Senator Clinton. The candidate of reality comes to us pre-shrunk with a Surgeon General's Warning that hoping can be dangerous to your health. With Clinton, there's no dream to wake up from, no false hopes to dash. Being president means never thinking about tomorrow or believing you can completely reverse how business gets done in Washington. It's about grueling, daily, hand-to-hand combat, chipping away at problems against people who hate you.

Still the Loser

But as much as voters might have needed a dose of reality, it didn't work. After a solid week of advice that there will be no happily ever after with Prince Charming, Clinton lost Wisconsin by 17 points.

The tack may yet take hold. Clinton's attacks are working with the media, which are reacting to charges that they have gone easy on Obama. Besides, it's time for a change in the story line that Obama is the new, new thing, a gifted speaker who gains votes the more people see him.

And since it's the nature of the press to have severe morning-after regret for having gotten a lump in the throat over a candidate, you have a definite backlash that may help Clinton win the next big races: Ohio and Texas.

On primary day, David Brooks of the New York Times, a conservative columnist who doesn't hate liberals, diagnosed Obama Comedown Syndrome, which manifests itself with unexplained pangs of sympathy for Clinton as ``another fading First Wife thrown away for the first available Trophy Messiah.''

`Cult of Personality'

Paul Krugman, also of the Times, fearing he'd been too subtle in his criticism of Obama, went ballistic over the Illinois senator's rhetoric. ``I won't try for fake evenhandedness here,'' he wrote. The Obama campaign is ``dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality.''

Chris Matthews, the host of MSNBC TV's ``Hardball'' who felt a ``thrill going up his leg'' during an Obama victory speech on Feb. 12, snapped out of it this week. When Texas State Senator Kirk Watson, an Obama supporter, looked as if he might describe his own thrill over the candidate, Matthews cut him off.

``Name some of his legislative accomplishments,'' he demanded of a shell-shocked Watson, who was making his national TV debut. ``Name any. What has he done, sir?''

Poor Watson. It's fair to ask that question, but of him? Let's hope his family wasn't watching as he had the bad luck to be on the hot seat as the pendulum swung back, when hope and dreams dare not speak their names. It's brass tacks, or the hook.

`Obamania'

Over at ABC, ``Nightline'' anchor Terry Moran picked up the mantle with a piece called ``Obamania,'' a phenomenon as ``baffling'' to adults as ``Beatlemania,'' he said. He described ``impassioned fans'' screaming and tearing their clothes.

``Is this a political movement or a personality cult?'' he said. He asked if ``there's going to be some kind of reckoning or hangover.''

The answer is a qualified ``yes'' if the media stick with the developing theme that Obama is akin to Jim Jones serving Kool-Aid to gullible followers in Jonestown.

The Clinton folks are crying all-talk-no-action and plagiarism after an alert staffer found that a line in Obama's speech rebutting Clinton's charge he was just too much poetry mirrored one given by Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, another black-American success story and an Obama friend.

Patrick told Obama to try out his defense. Obama did, and got negative headlines on network news and in major newspapers in the 24 hours before the Wisconsin vote.

Incompetent Charlatan

It wasn't enough to stop Wisconsin from drinking the Kool- Aid. But this line of attack is Clinton's best chance to turn things around. She has to reduce Obama to an incompetent charlatan whispering sweet nothings in the country's ear.

She also has a chance to make Michelle Obama fodder for the campaign after her ill-considered remark about feeling ``proud'' of her country for the first time in her adult life. Clinton may feel some hesitation after the beatings she took for blurting out things she didn't mean, like insulting Tammy Wynette for standing by her man, then proceeding to do just that.

There aren't many choices for Clinton. She has to make her campaign run at least as smoothly as Obama's, keep up the drumbeat that he can't be trusted, force a huge error at one of the debates, and be ready to hijack Michigan's and Florida's delegates.

If Obama were in her place, his obituary would have been written today. But no one gets rich betting against the Clintons.

(Margaret Carlson, author of ``Anyone Can Grow Up: How George Bush and I Made It to the White House'' and former White House correspondent for Time magazine, is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are her own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Margaret Carlson in Washington at mcarlson3@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: February 21, 2008 00:16 EST

I've placed the article unabridged but...link (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_carlson&sid=a58EAq_aGD.Q)

Aww, to be fair The Cat Tribes hasn't, or has he, made a strong defense in this thread - mine's not overly strong either, which led me to suspect something was amiss :)

For Jocabia, I think he's just making a parallel point rather than assuming its himself, he's probably saying - "for the record, I haven't voted for Obama yet due to..."

...but yeah, for me, my ego is thhhhiiiisssss big

Actually, I realized what CTOAN meant after I presented the post. He's right. No actual supporter of hers is willing to defend her policies. One wonders why it's so scary to make positive claims about her. Sad, really.

Aww, to be fair The Cat Tribes hasn't, or has he, made a strong defense in this thread - mine's not overly strong either, which led me to suspect something was amiss :)

For Jocabia, I think he's just making a parallel point rather than assuming its himself, he's probably saying - "for the record, I haven't voted for Obama yet due to..."

...but yeah, for me, my ego is thhhhiiiisssss big

Actually, I realized what CTOAN meant after I presented the post. He's right. No actual supporter of hers is willing to defend her policies. One wonders why it's so scary to make positive claims about her. Sad, really.

"I'm not going to do something as silly as show my support for my candidate. That's debate suicide. Who could possibly defend her?" I really thought I'd see some reasonable points, albeit not from CH. Clearly I was wrong. One wonders why anyone supports a candidate that they are afraid will not stand up to criticism.

Yes, and given that was my OP, I explained why I was being vague. Did you miss it. I wanted to leave the more substantive points to supports. Complicated, no?

I have more both positive and negative, but I figured I'd let others chime in first.

Nothing about substantive or why you're being vague as such, just that you have more points

I left the postive points to her supporters. So far, all supporters have balked at the idea of supporting her. I accept your claim. She's impossible to present positive claims about. You win.

Thanks - what is the sarcasm smiley by the way?

I'll tell you what, start an Obama thread the same way, like several others have before. Watch me support the candidate I believe in. What's that say about your candidate that even her supporters don't believe that her positions will stand up to debate? I know what it says. So do the voters.

...will stand up in debate to you, in the same way that evolution won't stand up in debate with Pat Robertson in the middle of the Big Church of Pat Robertson and his enormous congregation - it's not a debate.

Barringtonia, I never said that I even liked Obama. I don't. He's a novice. I think the worst thing about him is that he said that he was against the war from the start - when he never even was in Congress to vote on the war when it began nor look at the evidence presented to Congress.

In honesty, I dislike them both. Hillary seems content to not provide any content about her plans, and neither does Obama. And yet (even on Fox News), the battle betwixt the two is headline news.

Neither really debates the other's policy - they just say their policy is better than the other's and leave it to the people to decide. This makes it so that whoever is the master of the soundbyte wins, and Obama is such that he can say whatever he wants because there's no real evidence to his contrary - simply because he is new to Congress and hasn't faced any real controversy or controversial legislation yet.

Nothing about substantive or why you're being vague as such, just that you have more points

I don't support Hillary. It's not suprising I can't establish why people should support her. Interestingly, neither can you.


Thanks.

...will stand up in debate to yo in the same way that evolution won't stand up in debate with Pat Robertson in the middle of the Big Church of Pat Robertson and his enormous congregation - it's not a debate.

This is what you call reason? Now defense of Obama is like denying evolutiion? Hmmm... let's see, in thread after thread, people defend and attack Obama on the issues. I start ONE thread on discussing the issues for Hillary and you can't defend her at all. Uh-huh, yeah, it's clearly the only side of the argument willing to present points and defend them that is "anti-evolution".

Hehe. You think presenting a fallacy will help you. If I use fallacies to address your claims, feel free to point them out. So far, you've got no claims other than "I won't even try to support Hillary because it won't stand up to reasonable discourse". Unless your claiming reasonable discourse is impossible, in which case I challenge to demonstrate why.

Right now, all I'm seeing is the saddest admission of the "electiabilty" of Hillary Clinton. That on a forum that is at least half liberal and covers a pretty broad spectrum of view points, people are so biased towards Obama that even attempting to defend her futile.

Pick any subject. Any one. No matter how many people oppsoe me, I'm happy to address it, because I know what reason is. Did you happen to seem address the issues with the general position on pedophilia? People, a lot of people, suggested I should be banned. Yet, like anyone who is confident reason is on their side, I continued on. You, in your concession, admit that reason is not, in fact, on your side.

Nothing about substantive or why you're being vague as such, just that you have more points

Thanks - what is the sarcasm smiley by the way?

...will stand up in debate to you, in the same way that evolution won't stand up in debate with Pat Robertson in the middle of the Big Church of Pat Robertson and his enormous congregation - it's not a debate.

I've been here since the relative beginning of this argument, and you still haven't given me a good policy reason for supporting Hillary.

Give me a reason. A good policy reason. Some kind of affirmation of your belief. Some kind of Hillary policy that you like.

Joccy started the thread - it's up to you to start the debate. So, give me something to debate.

Barringtonia, I never said that I even liked Obama. I don't. He's a novice. I think the worst thing about him is that he said that he was against the war from the start - when he never even was in Congress to vote on the war when it began nor look at the evidence presented to Congress.

In honesty, I dislike them both. Hillary seems content to not provide any content about her plans, and neither does Obama. And yet (even on Fox News), the battle betwixt the two is headline news.

Neither really debates the other's policy - they just say their policy is better than the other's and leave it to the people to decide. This makes it so that whoever is the master of the soundbyte wins, and Obama is such that he can say whatever he wants because there's no real evidence to his contrary - simply because he is new to Congress and hasn't faced any real controversy or controversial legislation yet.

Christma, you're missing the point. See, it's impossible to support Hillary, which is why you've not seen anyone do so. It's impossible because all reasonable people already support Hillary. Duh. If you don't know this, you're clearly not reasonable. That's why in a thread about Hillary, you're not seeing any positive points. That's because everyone "pro-Hillary" who shows up cries about how they don't want to have to actually post quotes from debates (like several others already have) or show specific policiy differences (again like several others already have) because to do so is a waste of time.

Why is it a waste of time, you ask? Well, because anyone who disagrees with them has already proven to be completely unreasonable. Duh.

I challenge them to prove me wrong. Provide some substance. Specifically show why you support Hillary. You'll notice NO ONE has risen to that challenge yet. And people wonder why she's losing.

snip article
I've been kind of addicted to Realclearpolitics (because their polls are easily laid out.) and there is always a clutch of 'honeymoon is over' articles about Obama and an almost equal number 'he's the real deal' type articles. It's getting to be kind of like 'rock is dead' articles...there were ones like that before Wisconsin and then he won by 17%.

If Clinton continues her agressive campaigning AND Obama still wins by double digits in the 'firewall' states, he might actually be tephlon. The true test of that will be the general election, but it might be that he's actually a candidate you can't go negative against. I'll say I doubt it, but that would be something.

I've been kind of addicted to Realclearpolitics (because their polls are easily laid out.) and there is always a clutch of 'honeymoon is over' articles about Obama and an almost equal number 'he's the real deal' type articles. It's getting to be kind of like 'rock is dead' articles...there were ones like that before Wisconsin and then he won by 17%.

If Clinton continues her agressive campaigning AND Obama still wins by double digits in the 'firewall' states, he might actually be tephlon. The true test of that will be the general election, but it might be that he's actually a candidate you can't go negative against. I'll say I doubt it, but that would be something.

CTOAN, I was sincerely asking for people who support Hillary to discuss her. Reasonably and openly discuss her, like we've done for Obama. I do honestly like Hillary. I seem to have no trouble discussing her with my friends, some of which are older and dead set on voting for her. Some of which have pretty good reasons for voting for her. But on here, it really seems like the discussion must be Obama and not-Obama. Any positive discussion of Hillary seems to be completely devoid of anyone willing to make the first positive claim about her.

God, American politics suck.

Barringtonia, I never said that I even liked Obama. I don't. He's a novice. I think the worst thing about him is that he said that he was against the war from the start - when he never even was in Congress to vote on the war when it began nor look at the evidence presented to Congress.

In honesty, I dislike them both. Hillary seems content to not provide any content about her plans, and neither does Obama. And yet (even on Fox News), the battle betwixt the two is headline news.

Neither really debates the other's policy - they just say their policy is better than the other's and leave it to the people to decide. This makes it so that whoever is the master of the soundbyte wins, and Obama is such that he can say whatever he wants because there's no real evidence to his contrary - simply because he is new to Congress and hasn't faced any real controversy or controversial legislation yet.

If you've seen her talks at University and clubs and even in the debates, she really does talk about the issues and it's fairly recognised that she has a very good grasp of them. My point was that the media concentrates on the headlines - I wasn't really disagreeing with you, in part it was agreement but it was a refutation of the idea that she just says banner headlines statements with no substance behind them.

I don't support Hillary. It's not suprising I can't establish why people should support her. Interestingly, neither can you.

I've give points of policy on healthcare, admittedly c+p but I don't mind standing on the shoulders of those who write better than me. I've explained my views on Iraq, I could say specifically what I like about hers but the issue between them is more about the problems with his.

I've made the point of Senator Obama supporters using double standards, pointing at her while shielding him from the same - you've done nothing to answer these, from Bill's Clinton's legacy, which you raised first to the Super Delegates, where you raised Michigan and Florida first.

Pick any subject. Any one. No matter how many people oppsoe me, I'm happy to address it, because I know what reason is. Did you happen to seem address the issues with the general position on pedophilia? People, a lot of people, suggested I should be banned. Yet, like anyone who is confident reason is on their side, I continued on. You, in your concession, admit that reason is not, in fact, on your side.

I like you and I respect your ability to debate, honestly, and I didn't used to - but here I'm making the claim of double standards making this debate unreasonable and I have made policy points but they haven't been addressed - I've said why mandatory cover is a better policy, I'm not going to be swayed from my point though.

I've been here since the relative beginning of this argument, and you still haven't given me a good policy reason for supporting Hillary.

Give me a reason. A good policy reason. Some kind of affirmation of your belief. Some kind of Hillary policy that you like.

Joccy started the thread - it's up to you to start the debate. So, give me something to debate.

I have, the trouble is that their positions are so damn similar that there's little to choose - I've pointed to Iraq and healthcare but beyond that, and I don't agree with her management style, there's not much. Hence, all these other issues come to the fore.

I've been kind of addicted to Realclearpolitics (because their polls are easily laid out.) and there is always a clutch of 'honeymoon is over' articles about Obama and an almost equal number 'he's the real deal' type articles. It's getting to be kind of like 'rock is dead' articles...there were ones like that before Wisconsin and then he won by 17%.

If Clinton continues her agressive campaigning AND Obama still wins by double digits in the 'firewall' states, he might actually be tephlon. The true test of that will be the general election, but it might be that he's actually a candidate you can't go negative against. I'll say I doubt it, but that would be something.

Yes, I feel he can ride it and I think he's just damn smart - that's simply it, Senator Clinton is as well but given equality between the two...

...look, the reason I like Senator Obama is because I prefer his management style and I think that, if there's a small chance, he can act as a fresh hope in terms of the world view as well as America's view of politics itself - I hope.

Yet I don't think he's necessarily better on policy over Senator Clinton.

Yadda yadda yadda.

CTOAN, I was sincerely asking for people who support Hillary to discuss her. Reasonably and openly discuss her, like we've done for Obama. I do honestly like Hillary. I seem to have no trouble discussing her with my friends, some of which are older and dead set on voting for her. Some of which have pretty good reasons for voting for her. But on here, it really seems like the discussion must be Obama and not-Obama. Any positive discussion of Hillary seems to be completely devoid of anyone willing to make the first positive claim about her.

God, American politics suck.
I know man, I was rooting for ya (how weird is that?) because frankly I need the dialog-I'd be willing to vote for her, but I've said a few times, I'm not going to vote against someone. I refuse to give into that.

But I figured that ship sailed so I commented on something I noticed at RCP. I didn't intend to derail your thing.

I've give points of policy on healthcare, admittedly c+p but I don't mind standing on the shoulders of those who write better than me. I've explained my views on Iraq, I could say specifically what I like about hers but the issue between them is more about the problems with his.

I've made the point of Senator Obama supporters using double standards, pointing at her while shielding him from the same - you've done nothing to answer these, from Bill's Clinton's legacy, which you raised first to the Super Delegates, where you raised Michigan and Florida first.


Um, what the hell are you talking about? Please where did I raise anything to the super delegates?

What double standard did I use in pointing at her while shielding him from the same?

I pointed at MI and FL because according to party rules they should not be counted and ONLY she is trying to count them. That's not a double standard unless you can actually point to a state whose delegates were granted against the rules and Obama is trying to count.

But, once again, your entire argument is "Obama supporters won't let me do X but they do it." Seriously, when did positive politics become IMPOSSIBLE. Regardless of who supports what and who is arguing against whom, you should have some things you support in Hillary's polices and you should be able to post them. If not, please, don't vote because frankly, fear politics caused the last two terms.



I like you and I respect your ability to debate, honestly, and I didn't used to - but here I'm making the claim of double standards making this debate unreasonable and I have made policy points but they haven't been addressed - I've said why mandatory cover is a better policy, I'm not going to be swayed from my point though.


They haven't been addresed? You sure? So I haven't pointed out that I don't agree with mandatory policies? Now you're welcome to agree with them. That's a disagreement on substance. A good one. It's an opinion and after we show are supports, there's no where to go with that. But that's not an electable point. Seriously, is that all you've got? Hillary's policy is mandatory and Barak isn't willing to force people into insurance? You don't have, you know, anything about the plethora of other positions she holds.

Even if Barak and she agrees, shouldn't we want to see what her positions are.

And if you truly do respect me, look again. I swear to you that my request for someone to support her is genuine. I'm tired of Republican politics. Last election, I would have just called it politices, but it truly seems that Dems are trying to rise above. I've never voted for a Rep or Dem president, but if McCain had run in 2000 I would have voted for him. Finally, though, I truly believe that I have a candidate I can support who is the best candidate, rather than just not that bad. I'm excited. However, that's a better reason for positive politics. I'm absolutely hopeful that the reasonable people in the US can actually rise to the challenge of championing a cause rather than fearmongering. Someone, anyone, prove me right on this point. Champion Hillary who truly is an excellent candidate. Please.


I have, the trouble is that their positions are so damn similar that there's little to choose - I've pointed to Iraq and healthcare but beyond that, and I don't agree with her management style, there's not much. Hence, all these other issues come to the fore.


Excellent point. There are things I don't like about Obama. That's okay. When you post both positives and negatives, it just makes you look reasonable. And huzzah for reasonable. I would like it if you address certain obvious points like why she claims that giving war powers to the President, as long as it's her, is a good thing. Or how she credits herself with her husband's work, unless someone is mad at her husband for something.



Yes, I feel he can ride it and I think he's just damn smart - that's simply it, Senator Clinton is as well but given equality between the two...

...look, the reason I like Senator Obama is because I prefer his management style and I think that, if there's a small chance, he can act as a fresh hope in terms of the world view as well as America's view of politics itself - I hope.

Yet I don't think he's necessarily better on policy over Senator Clinton.

Yadda yadda yadda.

Wait. Am I misunderstanding? Another one of the only people to make any positive argument for Hillary believes Obama is the better candidate overall?

More or less. I want a diplomat in office. I was leaning towards Richardson early on because of his diplomatic background, but he was out of the race before I ever looked at him seriously, so I don't know how he would have measured up.

Things like transparency resonate with me a lot since that's been something that bothered me about the current administration. Policy wise I think they're very close, and some of her plans are more robust. She'll still be a senator when/if he's president and I hope they can work together to make it work. I see that working better in that direction than the other way around. We'll see.

For the record, I thought Edwards was a strong candidate in 2004 and I think he would have beaten Bush easily. I think he would be McCain this year as well. I'm not ONLY pro-Obama.

Yes, I feel he can ride it and I think he's just damn smart - that's simply it, Senator Clinton is as well but given equality between the two...

...look, the reason I like Senator Obama is because I prefer his management style and I think that, if there's a small chance, he can act as a fresh hope in terms of the world view as well as America's view of politics itself - I hope.

Yet I don't think he's necessarily better on policy over Senator Clinton.

Yadda yadda yadda.
More or less. I want a diplomat in office. I was leaning towards Richardson early on because of his diplomatic background, but he was out of the race before I ever looked at him seriously, so I don't know how he would have measured up.

Things like transparency resonate with me a lot since that's been something that bothered me about the current administration. Policy wise I think they're very close, and some of her plans are more robust. She'll still be a senator when/if he's president and I hope they can work together to make it work. I see that working better in that direction than the other way around. We'll see.

Um, what the hell are you talking about? Please where did I raise anything to the super delegates?

What double standard did I use in pointing at her while shielding him from the same?

I pointed at MI and FL because according to party rules they should not be counted and ONLY she is trying to count them. That's not a double standard unless you can actually point to a state whose delegates were granted against the rules and Obama is trying to count.

But, once again, your entire argument is "Obama supporters won't let me do X but they do it." Seriously, when did positive politics become IMPOSSIBLE. Regardless of who supports what and who is arguing against whom, you should have some things you support in Hillary's polices and you should be able to post them. If not, please, don't vote because frankly, fear politics caused the last two terms.

Your point was that she was fine with one rule until it affected her - I made the point that so was he, you raised Michigan and Florida, I countered with Super Delegates.

Sure, not positive but central to my claim that the debate is a set up when Senator Obama gets a pass on these things.

They haven't been addresed? You sure? So I haven't pointed out that I don't agree with mandatory policies? Now you're welcome to agree with them. That's a disagreement on substance. A good one. It's an opinion and after we show are supports, there's no where to go with that. But that's not an electable point. Seriously, is that all you've got? Hillary's policy is mandatory and Barak isn't willing to force people into insurance? You don't have, you know, anything about the plethora of other positions she holds.

Even if Barak and she agrees, shouldn't we want to see what her positions are.

And if you truly do respect me, look again. I swear to you that my request for someone to support her is genuine. I'm tired of Republican politics. Last election, I would have just called it politices, but it truly seems that Dems are trying to rise above. I've never voted for a Rep or Dem president, but if McCain had run in 2000 I would have voted for him. Finally, though, I truly believe that I have a candidate I can support who is the best candidate, rather than just not that bad. I'm excited. However, that's a better reason for positive politics. I'm absolutely hopeful that the reasonable people in the US can actually rise to the challenge of championing a cause rather than fearmongering. Someone, anyone, prove me right on this point. Champion Hillary who truly is an excellent candidate. Please.

I've championed her stance on mandatory healthcare with the point that, in politics, you're dealing with bargaining chips and it's best to start with the highest hand - un-addressed.

Excellent point. There are things I don't like about Obama. That's okay. When you post both positives and negatives, it just makes you look reasonable. And huzzah for reasonable. I would like it if you address certain obvious points like why she claims that giving war powers to the President, as long as it's her, is a good thing. Or how she credits herself with her husband's work, unless someone is mad at her husband for something.

I've addressed her use of Bill Clinton's legacy, something else that hasn't been replied to.

Wait. Am I misunderstanding? Another one of the only people to make any positive argument for Hillary believes Obama is the better candidate overall?

Ha ha, yes, but I've been clear on that from the start, this was about policy issues and I've pointed to two where I think she leads although, to my chagrin, on re-checking her site, she's got the same damn withdrawal plan for Iraq as Senator Obama now :(

My main issue, and as a nod to the evolution point, is that the argument is conducted in an atmosphere where decision have been made already.

Boy, howdy.

The chimes certainly tolled.

What I like about Hillary is at least she won't be the end of the world. She may not be honest, and she may be too influenced by lobbyists/etc, but unlike Bush, she's very intelligent, and incapable of making the kind of blatant utterly horrid decisions he did. Secondly, I think that if Hillary did want to take the nation in the wrong direction, the nation would be far less tolerant than it was of GW, since the Democrat base doesn't have the same blind adherents of the Republican base, and the Republicans are far less easy to push over as an opposition party than the Democrats. I think with a Hillary presidency, you'll see a combination of Bill Clinton-style bargaining, but with a more populist-liberal emphasis, which could do some good for the country even if it leaves a bad taste in everybody's mouth.

With an Obama presidency, I think there are two possibilities.
1) He Jimmy Carters out after 4 years, which wouldn't be that bad. Jimmy Carter wasn't a bad president.
2) He establishes a kind of noble pragmatic-progressive legacy that is invoked by members of all parties for decades to come.

For the record, I thought Edwards was a strong candidate in 2004 and I think he would have beaten Bush easily. I think he would be McCain this year as well. I'm not ONLY pro-Obama.

Maybe we'll get to argue over who should get the VP nod. I say should, cause I doubt I'd get my wish.

What I like about Hillary is at least she won't be the end of the world. She may not be honest, and she may be too influenced by lobbyists/etc, but unlike Bush, she's very intelligent, and incapable of making the kind of blatant utterly horrid decisions he did.

Meaning, of course, that Hillary is incapable of making a mistake. Honestly, this is dumb. If, and I say if, Iraq had turned out totally differently, things would be different. If the Soviets had decided to attack the U.S. blockade around Cuba, people would look at JFK differently. If. Hillary is quite capable of making mistakes that others would look at as unsound reasoning. So is Barack, and so is every other reasonable person.

Secondly, I think that if Hillary did want to take the nation in the wrong direction, the nation would be far less tolerant than it was of GW, since the Democrat base doesn't have the same blind adherents of the Republican base, and the Republicans are far less easy to push over as an opposition party than the Democrats.

Because, of course, Democrats aren't blind adherents to the Democratic party - they'll just vote their party lines, just like every other normal person. This is also to say that Republicans are quite incapable of being reasonable - I'm a functioning rebuttal to the contrapositive of your statement.

Meaning, of course, that Hillary is incapable of making a mistake. Honestly, this is dumb. If, and I say if, Iraq had turned out totally differently, things would be different. If the Soviets had decided to attack the U.S. blockade around Cuba, people would look at JFK differently. If. Hillary is quite capable of making mistakes that others would look at as unsound reasoning. So is Barack, and so is every other reasonable person.Of course Hillary can, has, and will make mistakes, and bad ones too. But the travesty of the Bush presidency is that it is essentially one big mistake, a hijacking of the nation by destructive corporate interests through the executive administration. Every presidential action became an irrational contradiction, and that was only possible because Bush was both incredibly stupid and incredibly self-assured. Hillary may be the latter, but certainly isn't the former.

Because, of course, Democrats aren't blind adherents to the Democratic party - they'll just vote their party lines, just like every other normal person. This is also to say that Republicans are quite incapable of being reasonable - I'm a functioning rebuttal to the contrapositive of your statement.If I may clarify my sentiments, I think that at this point in time, Republican politicians and the Republican base in general are more loyal to the party leadership and stick together for political survival, while Democrat politicians and the Democrat base in general are more loyal to their own interpretations of the ideological platform and make compromises according to their personal prioritization of their principles in order to survive politically. My hope is that Obama will change that up a little bit.

I really want to see a "dream team" of Hilary as president and Obama as vice.

*is a liberal that refuses to acknowlege the possibility of a Republican win*

*is wearing tie-dye*

Your point was that she was fine with one rule until it affected her - I made the point that so was he, you raised Michigan and Florida, I countered with Super Delegates.

Everyone in the country would hate to see Super Delegates override the popular vote. He hasn't asked them to ignore a rule or change them. He's asked the individual superdelegates to elect the same person as the populace. The difference is obvious. One supports the populace AND follows the rules, the other ignores the populace and the rules.


Sure, not positive but central to my claim that the debate is a set up when Senator Obama gets a pass on these things.

A pass on wanting the person who gets more votes to win? Isn't that the same thing the entire democratic party has been bitching about since 2000. Seems entirely consistent. However, if you can show me ANY time when he suggested he'd be cool with the delegates overriding the popular vote, I'll concede the point. I can certainly show that Hillary specifically said she supported the decision to reprimand FL and MI. No pass for either of them. Show your evidence.



I've championed her stance on mandatory healthcare with the point that, in politics, you're dealing with bargaining chips and it's best to start with the highest hand - un-addressed.

Heh. Un-addressed? It's an opinion. I have a different opinion. What do you want me to say? That you opinion is stupid? It is. I assume you're trying to say that it leaves room for compromise, but if that's the case why don't they all just argue for no government, and perhaps we can meet somewhere in the middle with just as much government as we need. You'd vote for someone unrealistic and ridiculous enough to suggest we don't need a government, no?

Seriously, the idea is stupid. I want them to make a REASONABLE plan that respects EVERYONE. Mandatory healthcare doesn't.



I've addressed her use of Bill Clinton's legacy, something else that hasn't been replied to.

You have? Link?


Ha ha, yes, but I've been clear on that from the start, this was about policy issues and I've pointed to two where I think she leads although, to my chagrin, on re-checking her site, she's got the same damn withdrawal plan for Iraq as Senator Obama now :(

My main issue, and as a nod to the evolution point, is that the argument is conducted in an atmosphere where decision have been made already.

I think to you unaddressed means "I don't like your answer". Because so far you've not shown any substantive ways that these things are better or worse. You've only shown your opinion. This nonsense about how Hillary is okay because Obama gets a pass is dumbed down kindergarten politics. "Timmy gets to do it." Not only is that argument false, but it's embarrassing.

Everyone in the country would hate to see Super Delegates override the popular vote. He hasn't asked them to ignore a rule or change them. He's asked the individual superdelegates to elect the same person as the populace. The difference is obvious. One supports the populace AND follows the rules, the other ignores the populace and the rules.

A pass on wanting the person who gets more votes to win? Isn't that the same thing the entire democratic party has been bitching about since 2000. Seems entirely consistent. However, if you can show me ANY time when he suggested he'd be cool with the delegates overriding the popular vote, I'll concede the point. I can certainly show that Hillary specifically said she supported the decision to reprimand FL and MI. No pass for either of them.

Come on, the superdelegates are there for a reason, to have the chance of going against public opinion when senior members of the Democratic Party feel that it's the best course of action - the entire point is to have a check against public opinion - he never said that was a bad system and to say that they should follow it now as a matter of course is also trying to influence the results - I'm not saying he's wrong to ask, he wants to win but so does Senator Clinton.

Show your evidence.

Don't just make up the parameters of this debate and then demand evidence for your own criteria.

Heh. Un-addressed? It's an opinion. I have a different opinion. What do you want me to say? That you opinion is stupid? It is. I assume you're trying to say that it leaves room for compromise, but if that's the case why don't they all just argue for no government, and perhaps we can meet somewhere in the middle with just as much government as we need. You'd vote for someone unrealistic and ridiculous enough to suggest we don't need a government, no?

Do I have to say your point is stupid, Between the two policies, where one says mandatory for all and the other says mandatory only for children, OF COURSE it's opinion and it's ridiculous to suggest otherwise. What objective evidence do you have for either position when neither has been implemented. Are you trying to be obtuse?

Seriously, the idea is stupid. I want them to make a REASONABLE plan that respects EVERYONE. Mandatory healthcare doesn't.

Bingo, your opinion.

You have? Link?

I'll link to the posts. EDIT: Here's (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13469374&postcount=139) the first of repeated points on this.

I think to you unaddressed means "I don't like your answer". Because so far you've not shown any substantive ways that these things are better or worse. You've only shown your opinion. This nonsense about how Hillary is okay because Obama gets a pass is dumbed down kindergarten politics. "Timmy gets to do it." Not only is that argument false, but it's embarrassing.

It's not saying she's ok per se, it's saying that reasonable debate on the subject is unfair when their positions are so very similar that it comes down to such differences between the two - that entails pointing out the problems of Senator Obama as a comparison. Putting an automatic pass on Senator Obama makes that very difficult indeed.

Come on, the superdelegates are there for a reason, to have the chance of going against public opinion when senior members of the Democratic Party feel that it's the best course of action - the entire point is to have a check against public opinion - he never said that was a bad system and to say that they should follow it now as a matter of course is also trying to influence the results - I'm not saying he's wrong to ask, he wants to win but so does Senator Clinton.

Yes, in extreme cases, the same reason we have an electoral college, but generally, people don't expect them to override the popular vote. He's asking them to follow the people. He's asking them to do so completely within the rules. It's not a change of rules. He's not asking their vote be taken away or that it wouldn't count. You can't understand the difference between attempting to sway them with the populace argument and asking for a rules change? If he's also asking for the rules to be changed, which is what Clinton is asking for, please, quote him saying so. Trying to sway the SD's with argument is what he's supposed to do and what you're saying he's doing. And, yes, when one candidate operates entirely within the rules, and the other candidate asks that we ignore the rules, the first "gets a pass" and the other doesn't.

Seriously, you do see the difference, no? If you're truly suggesting there is no difference, then ask where Obama said the SD's votes should be removed for THIS election?



Don't just make up the parameters of this debate and then demand evidence for your own criteria.

Huh? You can't be serious? I asked you to provide evidence for you claim. That's not my criteria. That's just debate. I only provided the OP.


Do I have to say your point is stupid, Between the two policies, where one says mandatory for all and the other says mandatory only for children, OF COURSE it's opinion and it's ridiculous to suggest otherwise. What subjective evidence do you have for either position when neither has been implemented. Are you trying to be obtuse?

I didn't claim you refused to address my points. You claimed I refused to address yours. Who's being obtuse?


Bingo, your opinion.

Yes, I've said that repeatedly. I asked for opinions and I gave mine, as did you. I asked that we discuss Hillary. You claimed I never responded.

I'll link to the posts. EDIT: Here's (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13469374&postcount=139) the first of repeated points on this.

Oh, good post. I honestly missed it. I guess there truly was a part I didn't respond to then. I imbibed a bit of fire water last night so I might have skipped over it. It looks like it's gonna take a bit of slogging through so I'll jump on that later today, ok? And, thanks, I'm glad someone is actually willing to put up some points for and against Hillary. I was really Canuck would since in the other threads when people ask him to actually give some reason to support Hillary other than "Obama is just as bad and can't win the swing states", he says that's not the point of the thread. He truly supports her and absolutely refuses to say anything actually positive about her policies.


It's not saying she's ok per se, it's saying that reasonable debate on the subject is unfair when their positions are so very similar that it comes down to the differences between the two - that entails pointing out the problems as a comparison. Putting a pass on Senator Obama makes that very difficult indeed.

You keep saying that and it's ridiculous. Obama doesn't get a pass. There are three threads about him, first of all. Second of all, I directly said that if it's a necessary comparison, then go for it. I'll show you the difference between necessary and unnecessary.

Necessary: Hillary energizes the base. (see you can't make that claim without comparing them and I have no issue with that)

Unnecessary: Hillary's health care is one I truly think is workable and good for us. (Notice my reply isn't "but Obama is better". My reply was that I don't like that it's mandatory for everyone.)

See, how that works. I don't want this to be about dragging Obama down. I want this to be about discussing Hillary's policies. For God's sake, someone should be. I'm tired of the extent of discussion about her being about her looks or that she's married to Bill. As such, it doesn't matter if she's the same as Obama. It truly doesn't. If she and Obama are the same on, say, the death penalty, that doesn't change whether you agree with her or not, does it?

Pretend we're talking about whether or not Hillary should run for President and we don't have any idea who else is going to run. Are you saying that in that situation, there'd be no way to argue that she should run? Obama gets no pass, he just isn't the point of the thread for once.

I could be wrong but I get the feeling sometimes that you respond as you read each point rather than read the whole post and then respond, hence you claim you address my points and then see you missed a very relevant post.

It's neither here nor there but merely a comment.

Anyway, take your time - I can save you some time and state the Krug is not the be all and end all of opinion :)

Yet that's what much of this is, opinion.

I will come to one conclusion: it's lovely to think that politicians can't play the game of bargaining for policy, yet they expect to have to battle and therefore up their stakes to gain a compromise that's closer in position to their ideal.

Senator Clinton shows she understands this, she's been through the grinder.

Dear God, I wish, like you, that politicians could say what they mean and mean what they say but it doesn't work, it places them at a disadvantage at the bargaining table.

That's the difference that Senator Clinton is claiming - now it's opinion as to whether she's right or not, as I've said, I think Senator Obama is damn smart - hence, given equal consideration, I support him.

Anyway, read away - it's interesting on both their sites to read the 'Factcheck' sections - politics ain't pretty.

Come on, the superdelegates are there for a reason, to have the chance of going against public opinion when senior members of the Democratic Party feel that it's the best course of action - the entire point is to have a check against public opinion - he never said that was a bad system and to say that they should follow it now as a matter of course is also trying to influence the results - I'm not saying he's wrong to ask, he wants to win but so does Senator Clinton.


And he's arguing that he is not that fringe candidate so there is no reason for them to override the popular vote. It's not an argument that they should change anything, but rather that the power to override isn't necessary here. There's nothing untoward here. It's the argument you'd expect him to make-"You're here to keep the party from being hi-jacked, well I'm not that cat so please go with the popular vote." Reasonable and within the rules. Because they can override the popular vote in a close contest doesn't mean they are compelled to.

Your nose works.

*violin music plays* *Jack Benny sniff* "Well!..."

Hmmm... you sure?

I have political tendencies (I believe the debt should fixed), but they are not very strong. At least not anymore. For instance, I feel the Libertarians would do a good job of running the country, but deep down I think they would not be better than any other group. I drift upon the the ocean of political opinion, but I do not have the inclination to sail or row. I have sunk so far into the view that good and bad are but perspectives (or that everything is simply bad), that I do not have the impetus to bite to into a debate concerning such.

Depends on who you're talking about. Lots of people on this forum engage in meaningful debate. TCT voted for Obama and is defending Hillary.


TCT is one of the few good debaters out there. I will openly admit that I lost an argument against him. Yet, I am happy I did, as I learned something. Nonetheless there is a flaw in TCT's reasoning: he is too optimistic.

You get points for making me laugh. I'm not being sarcastic this time. I often like your sense of humor.

Indeed? I always felt that my sense of humor was for a select crowd. Still, I was not aware that that crowd extended beyond myself....

And he's arguing that he is not that fringe candidate so there is no reason for them to override the popular vote. It's not an argument that they should change anything, but rather that the power to override isn't necessary here. There's nothing untoward here. It's the argument you'd expect him to make-"You're here to keep the party from being hi-jacked, well I'm not that cat so please go with the popular vote." Reasonable and within the rules. Because they can override the popular vote in a close contest doesn't mean they are compelled to.

At the time where he started asking, votes seemed fairly equally split so it was still for the super delegates to decide who's best fit to run the country - to say they should simply go according to the popular vote is asking to take that consideration away.

They're there to decide what's best against the popular vote.

It's all rather moot - killing this word today - as I think voting statistics show he's highly electable against McCain, and more so than Senator Clinton as well as the fact that he's organised a very good campaign - if the primaries and elections are, to some extent, about coordinating a large-scale, voter-sensitive project, well he's clearly done it best of all candidates, Democratic or Republican.

At the time where he started asking, votes seemed fairly equally split so it was still for the super delegates to decide who's best fit to run the country - to say they should simply go according to the popular vote is asking to take that consideration away.

They're there to decide what's best against the popular vote.

It's all rather moot - killing this word today - as I think voting statistics show he's highly electable against McCain, and more so than Senator Clinton as well as the fact that he's organised a very good campaign - if the primaries and elections are, to some extent, about coordinating a large-scale, voter-sensitive project, well he's clearly done it best of all candidates, Democratic or Republican.

That'd be true if he expected them to call the primary on the spot, but he didn't. He of course expected to continue to win th popular vote, but even now if he wins the popular vote he won't reach threshold. The only reason for them to override the popular vote is if he was the kind of candidate the SDs are there to prevent. To argue that he isn't really isn't anything but what is expected. What is he supposed to argue?

I could be wrong but I get the feeling sometimes that you respond as you read each point rather than read the whole post and then respond, hence you claim you address my points and then see you missed a very relevant post.

I do exactly that. I actually went back up and changed some stuff, because as I got to the bottom I realized I'd actually missed something important. I know it's a strange way of doing things, but it saves me from having to make notes, and, frankly, I put to much work into replies as it is, methinks.


It's neither here nor there but merely a comment.

And true, to boot.


Anyway, take your time - I can save you some time and state the Krug is not the be all and end all of opinion :)

Yet that's what much of this is, opinion.

I will come to one conclusion: it's lovely to think that politicians can't play the game of bargaining for policy, yet they expect to have to battle and therefore up their stakes to gain a compromise that's closer in position to their ideal.

Senator Clinton shows she understands this, she's been through the grinder.

Dear God, I wish, like you, that politicians could say what they mean and mean what they say but it doesn't work, it places them at a disadvantage at the bargaining table.

That's the difference that Senator Clinton is claiming - now it's opinion as to whether she's right or not, as I've said, I think Senator Obama is damn smart - hence, given equal consideration, I support him.

Anyway, read away - it's interesting on both their sites to read the 'Factcheck' sections - politics ain't pretty.

I don't agree. I LOVED living in MN. It gave me back my optimism. Jesse Ventura has his faults, but he truly refused to play politics in that way. And they said, but Jesse, we're willing to compromise. His response: You built nonsense into your proposals just so you have things you don't care about to compromise with. My proposal is EXACTLY what is needed and what will work. I didn't put a bunch of fluff in so I could appear to be compromising.

And, then you go and look at his proposal and theirs and they look like a bunch of jackasses. Given how out of control spending and taxation was in that state, he was EXACTLY what they needed. I may be too optomistic as a result, but I've seen saying what you mean and meaning what you say work. The bullshitting stops the moment we refuse to tolerate it anymore.

By the way, check out his appearance on the tonight show right after he won if you want to see what politicians should be. Basically, he said Jay would have to bear with him, because after winning a victory that most people thought would be impossible he went out and celebrated with his wife, like anyone would, and he was recuperating. Hehe.

And he's arguing that he is not that fringe candidate so there is no reason for them to override the popular vote. It's not an argument that they should change anything, but rather that the power to override isn't necessary here. There's nothing untoward here. It's the argument you'd expect him to make-"You're here to keep the party from being hi-jacked, well I'm not that cat so please go with the popular vote." Reasonable and within the rules. Because they can override the popular vote in a close contest doesn't mean they are compelled to.

^This. It's not comparable to asking that they change the rules midstream and count delegates that were not fairly acquired. In fact, it's practically the polar opposite.

Neither really debates the other's policy - they just say their policy is better than the other's and leave it to the people to decide. This makes it so that whoever is the master of the soundbyte wins, and Obama is such that he can say whatever he wants because there's no real evidence to his contrary - simply because he is new to Congress and hasn't faced any real controversy or controversial legislation yet.

Because controversy and controversial legislation only occur in the US Congress? There's no possible way that he could have faced those things in the state legislature, right?


Your point was that she was fine with one rule until it affected her - I made the point that so was he, you raised Michigan and Florida, I countered with Super Delegates.

Obama has not claimed that the rules should be changed for superdelegates. He has stated his opinion that superdelegates should not ignore the will of the people. Personally, I agree no matter who is in the lead.

The difference here is that Obama is not trying to require superdelegates to vote with the will of the people. He's not trying to change the rules. He's just stating an opinion on how they should vote.

I've championed her stance on mandatory healthcare with the point that, in politics, you're dealing with bargaining chips and it's best to start with the highest hand - un-addressed.

So, if we want everyone to have equal access to marriage, we should start with the policy that marriage is mandatory, and then go from there?

Why don't we just champion all government aid being mandatory? Unemployed? You have to accept unemployment benefits, even if you don't want them. Retired? Apply for your social security check or else!

*violin music plays* *Jack Benny sniff* "Well!..."



I have political tendencies (I believe the debt should fixed), but they are not very strong. At least not anymore. For instance, I feel the Libertarians would do a good job of running the country, but deep down I think they would not be better than any other group. I drift upon the the ocean of political opinion, but I do not have the inclination to sail or row. I have sunk so far into the view that good and bad are but perspectives (or that everything is simply bad), that I do not have the impetus to bite to into a debate concerning such.



TCT is one of the few good debaters out there. I will openly admit that I lost an argument against him. Yet, I am happy I did, as I learned something. Nonetheless there is a flaw in TCT's reasoning: he is too optimistic.

Everyone has at times I think. TCT very much shaped my understanding of affirmative action. For that, I'm very grateful.

I don't think he's the exception you paint him as. Some of the people I've found most exhausting have truly helped me form my opinions. Some of those same people need to be shot for slowly but surely helping me to become a bit of a prick, something I'm not proud of. It's mostly Bottle's fault.

I respond to reason and I've found much of the "liberal" argument compelling. I, of course, take issues on their merits and not by whether they're liberal or conservative, but I must say I definitely leaned much more conservative when I first arrived here. How did we bork the world so badly that people get more liberal as they age these days?

The greatest result of NSG for me is that I'm vastly more politically educated. Many of the arguments people have used against Obama would have worked on me back in the day. "Hillary's got 35 years of experience" I'd be saying. I can almost hear myself saying it.

Indeed? I always felt that my sense of humor was for a select crowd. Still, I was not aware that that crowd extended beyond myself....

Everyone has at times I think. TCT very much shaped my understanding of affirmative action. For that, I'm very grateful.

I don't think he's the exception you paint him as. Some of the people I've found most exhausting have truly helped me form my opinions. Some of those same people need to be shot for slowly but surely helping me to become a bit of a prick, something I'm not proud of. It's mostly Bottle's fault.

I respond to reason and I've found much of the "liberal" argument compelling. I, of course, take issues on their merits and not by whether they're liberal or conservative, but I must say I definitely leaned much more conservative when I first arrived here. How did we bork the world so badly that people get more liberal as they age these days?

I could not answer that. I must say I have experienced the same thing, though. The discovery that I am not always right was an epiphany of the highest order. I grew less certain and more cynical as a result. There may be other reasonable NS'ers out there, but I doubt many of them can do that to me.

The greatest result of NSG for me is that I'm vastly more politically educated. Many of the arguments people have used against Obama would have worked on me back in the day. "Hillary's got 35 years of experience" I'd be saying. I can almost hear myself saying it.

Just so. I, myself was a great fan of Hillary, until I joined NS.

How did we bork the world so badly that people get more liberal as they age these days?

I've been pushed more liberal in politics as well - partially due to the forum.

I don't think it represents a borked world though. The types of things I've become more liberal on (and I think this happens to many people) are the types of things that are hard to understand if you haven't been there. The older you get, the more you interact with people who have had different experiences. I think it would be rather difficult for someone who can empathize with others to resist reexamining the positions they formed outside of those experiences. And reexamining them often makes us less adamant about our own views, which in turn makes us more willing to concede that our views shouldn't be imposed upon others.

I could not answer that. I must say I have experienced the same thing, though. The discovery that I am not always right was an epiphany of the highest order. I grew less certain and more cynical as a result. There may be other reasonable NS'ers out there, but I doubt many of them can do that to me.

I've become even less cynical, actually. It disappoints I ever allowed myself to become cynical. The world is a wonderful place and a shithole. Sometimes both at exactly the same time. At some of the worst times in my life I was laughing and thinking about how exactly I was going to tell the story when I got through it. I don't let that bad things happen color the fact that I'm 100% positive that we have each have the power to make things better for some people and that power will always overshadow that of the Bushes and the like. There just bugs. They live, they die and they fertilize the earth. But somewhere right now, right now, there is someone playing with their toddler, hugging them, teaching them, and that toddler will change the world.

Cynical? It's just not in me anymore.

I've become even less cynical, actually. It disappoints I ever allowed myself to become cynical.

CYNIC, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision.

-The Devil's Dicitonary.

The world is a wonderful place and a shithole.

It is wonderful if you can laugh at the fact that it is a shithole. Humor is the only redeeming quality the world has, in my opinion.

Sometimes both at exactly the same time. At some of the worst times in my life I was laughing and thinking about how exactly I was going to tell the story when I got through it. I don't let that bad things happen color the fact that I'm 100% positive that we have each have the power to make things better for some people and that power will always overshadow that of the Bushes and the like. There just bugs. They live, they die and they fertilize the earth.

The results of their actions do not.

But somewhere right now, right now, there is someone playing with their toddler, hugging them, teaching them, and that toddler will change the world.

Toddlers are nice. Bush was a toddler once....

Cynical? It's just not in me anymore.

Delusional is? :p

I am, personally, indifferent to who gets the nomination.

I would like to see Hillary win, but in the end I will vote for the Democrat.

It will be a cold day in hell before I will ever vote Republican. McCain may have appeal to some centrist Dems, but in the end: He's a Republican. That means he believes all Americans must pray to Jesus in order to be citizens and that the idea of socializing medicine the same way we've socialized our police force is repugnant. (Don't take my word for it, read the Republican Party Platform)

So ... no .... I will never, ever, ever, ever, ever vote Republican. No matter what.

You have to be Very careful with that logic, just because they are democrats doesn't mean that they don't believe that very same thing (after Lieberman, not even Independent is sacred...) And some republicans actually know there stuff. You just have to keep in mind that today's idea of a "conservative" is not at all what it actually is. A conservative would no more invade Iraq and waste tons of money on it than chew his own foot off. A conservative wouldn't spend godawful sums of money on anything, that's what makes him a conservative. This is obviously not the case anymore, but in theory...

As for Hilary, I like that she's a woman, and it would be cool if we could catch up with the rest of the world on that score. Let's see, I like... um... I like that she supports a woman's right to choose. I like that she is Bill's wife and if that says anything about her economic knowhow, then that should at least start to bring us out of this bottomless pit. Um... Yeah, I got nothing...

http://www.geekarmy.com/political/Hillary-Clinton-Expose.html

I really want to see a "dream team" of Hilary as president and Obama as vice.

*is a liberal that refuses to acknowlege the possibility of a Republican win*

*is wearing tie-dye*


Sweat heart, if your dream team involves Hillary as pres, I wouldnt call it a dream. Itd be a...whats the word for unpleasent dream?;)

Itd be a...whats the word for unpleasent dream?;)

Bush?

http://www.geekarmy.com/political/Hillary-Clinton-Expose.html

Meh. Color me unimpressed.

So, turn it around. Tell us what you like about Clinton.

Quoted just so CH can read it again and maybe defend is Godhead.

http://www.geekarmy.com/political/Hillary-Clinton-Expose.html

What a waste of ten minutes.

Bush?

Exactly.

Let's make same-sex marriage mandatory! Brad Pitt is going to have to leave whatsername, he's all mine!

The name you're looking for is Angelina Jolie

So, if we want everyone to have equal access to marriage, we should start with the policy that marriage is mandatory, and then go from there?
Let's make same-sex marriage mandatory! Brad Pitt is going to have to leave whatsername, he's all mine!

Nope. Neither John McCain nor Obama are boomers.
You are right about McCain, but wrong about Obama.

Obama was born in 1961.

Baby boomers = 1946 to 1964.

You are right about McCain, but wrong about Obama.

Obama was born in 1961.

Baby boomers = 1946 to 1964.
Already discussed (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13467613&postcount=22).
Text-
Oops, forgot about McCain. Obama though...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-World_War_II_baby_boom



*shrug*
The term was first used in popular culture in the late 1970s by UK punk rock band Generation X led by Billy Idol. It was later expanded on by Canadian novelist Douglas Coupland in Generation X: Tales for an Accelerated Culture (1991), which describes the angst of those born between roughly 1960 and 1965, who felt no connection to the cultural icons of the baby boom generation. Coupland himself was born in 1961.
...
In the 1991 book Generations, William Strauss and Neil Howe called this generation the "13th Generation" because it's the 13th to know the flag of the United States (counting back to the peers of Benjamin Franklin). Strauss and Howe defined the birth years of the 13th Generation as 1961 to 1981 based on examining peaks and troughs in cultural trends rather than simply looking at birth rates.
Generation X (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_X)

Taking in elements of his upbringing and attitude, Obama is clearly the nations first Gen X candidate.

We're (http://tumeke.blogspot.com/2007/02/barack-obama-and-rise-of-generation-x.html) not (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/20/opinion/main3528584.shtml) only (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gr8QOkeOqnjJVRbdrHRV1NXv9JFw) ones (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071203/chaudhry) to notice (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/brainiac/2007/12/obama_boomer_or.html). The last one actually is the discussion of whether or not he is.

...and now, a musical interlude

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDI2YjZ7Ntk

Problem for Senator Clinton is that no one's going to really go deeply into policy debate, as I've demonstrated here myself, and then it comes down to headline news, in which case she loses, likeability.

It show's the barb behind Senator Obama's 'You're likeable enough'.

The name you're looking for is Angelina Jolie
I wasn't "looking for", but rather trying to forget, her name!

^This. It's not comparable to asking that they change the rules midstream and count delegates that were not fairly acquired. In fact, it's practically the polar opposite.

Oddly enough, I saw this exact point of debate being made on CNN last night and it followed the exact same lines

Because controversy and controversial legislation only occur in the US Congress? There's no possible way that he could have faced those things in the state legislature, right?

Yeah, I was a fantastic rugby player at school but it doesn't mean I can play for England and it sure doesn't make me captain.

Obama has not claimed that the rules should be changed for superdelegates. He has stated his opinion that superdelegates should not ignore the will of the people. Personally, I agree no matter who is in the lead.

Sure you do, I personally believe that if the position was the other way around you'd be making the opposite argument - we say what we like.

The difference here is that Obama is not trying to require superdelegates to vote with the will of the people. He's not trying to change the rules. He's just stating an opinion on how they should vote.

So, if we want everyone to have equal access to marriage, we should start with the policy that marriage is mandatory, and then go from there?

Why don't we just champion all government aid being mandatory? Unemployed? You have to accept unemployment benefits, even if you don't want them. Retired? Apply for your social security check or else!

The only difference between the two policies is mandatory for children over mandatory for all, so by your argument, we shouldn't make it mandatory for children either, which is Senator Obama's position.

I may be biased on this since, being from Britain, we have the NHS and I am very strongly for free [essentially no different from mandatory insurance in that I part of my paycheck goes to the NHS*] healthcare for all - I almost cannot imagine an argument against it - unfortunately, in America, that equates to communism and so, despite my feeling that Senator Clinton and Senator Obama would both welcome it, they can't propose it, they can't bargain that far.

*living in HK, none of my paycheck goes to the NHS actually - in the interests of open information :)

What I like about Hillary Clinton:

She's not 100% Dick Cheney.

What I don't like:

She's Cheney's negative, when we need a complete opposite (the negative reciprocal that is Obama).

Let's make same-sex marriage mandatory! Brad Pitt is going to have to leave whatsername, he's all mine!

An interesting comparison because the debate here is between equal marriage rights and just having a civil union - if the pro-equality camp had just pushed for civil union, they would have had a harder fight because the middle ground is shifted lower.

To be honest, as an aside, it's why I don't mind extremist positions, without extreme civil rights, nothing would have happened, without extreme feminism, nothing would have happened. It takes an extreme view to shift the debate so the middle ground is more equal because, believe you me there are people very, very much against any form of union, legal or sexual, between the same sexes and the edge of the debate is, essentially, equal marriage right - mostly, the compromise is at civil union for now - give it 20 years and our children will laugh.

But somewhere right now, right now, there is someone playing with their toddler, hugging them, teaching them, and that toddler will change the world.

...and somewhere there's someone telling their toddler that gays are an abomination in the sight of the Lord.

Love the sentiment though and I agree that a positive outlook is best really, a smile goes a long way.

On that note...

:)

An interesting comparison because the debate here is between equal marriage rights and just having a civil union - if the pro-equality camp had just pushed for civil union, they would have had a harder fight because the middle ground is shifted lower.

Good point.

But to be honest, I hate this marriage debate. I'm a firm believer in the First Amendment, and that means I oppose an intermingling of Church and State. This includes marriage, which I define as a common sacrament/religious rite in many, many religions. It's true. Many, many religions have marriage as a specific practice that confers some for of sanctity upon the happy couple. Thus, the concept of 'civil marriage' is an oxymoron, and inherently paradoxical.

What then are we to do from the legal standing? Simple. Call them civil unions, for all types of marriage, and make it a state of monogamous contract between two mentally capable adults. Want to get married? Easy. Go see a priest, minister, rabbi, imam, or parson. Do it in a religion that allows your type of marriage.

This is somewhat similar to the dual method in Argentina, but in this instance, we'll call the state contract the civil union, no matter how straight you are!!!

I like that she's getting hammered in the debate tonight. WOW! Oh, and on matters of substance might I add. There are statistical dead heats in Texas and Ohio at the current time. It's time for Barack to pull away. I believe he did it tonight. Hillary Clinton did not do enough to win this debate or put herself ahead in the election. Even her answer to the last question doesn't make the difference. "I think everybody knows I've been challenged..." Having your husband impeached because he's a womanizer is not a challenge. A challenge would have been for you to leave and try to make it on your own without him. Take note, I do not think the Lewinsky affair affected Bill's ability to govern. I do not think he should have been found guilty on the impeachment, as he wasn't. I just don't think that is a keynote of her ability to rise up to a challenge. Most people will see that as a weakness rather than a strength. Her last statement was very well put, but it won't be enough to push her over the edge. Unless Hillary Clinton blows Obama out in these three upcoming contests she is done. Good riddance!

Good point.

But to be honest, I hate this marriage debate. I'm a firm believer in the First Amendment, and that means I oppose an intermingling of Church and State. This includes marriage, which I define as a common sacrament/religious rite in many, many religions. It's true. Many, many religions have marriage as a specific practice that confers some for of sanctity upon the happy couple. Thus, the concept of 'civil marriage' is an oxymoron, and inherently paradoxical.

What then are we to do from the legal standing? Simple. Call them civil unions, for all types of marriage, and make it a state of monogamous contract between two mentally capable adults. Want to get married? Easy. Go see a priest, minister, rabbi, imam, or parson. Do it in a religion that allows your type of marriage.

This is somewhat similar to the dual method in Argentina, but in this instance, we'll call the state contract the civil union, no matter how straight you are!!!

You and I agree 100% on this account. You're so smart! :)

*snip*

Is this your thread? No, it isn't - you have your own thread so get thee hence!

I couldn't watch the debate tonight, it does irk me but from what I can read it wasn't a substantial debate anyway.

Oddly enough, I saw this exact point of debate being made on CNN last night and it followed the exact same lines

And? Seriously, if you don't recognize the difference between making an argument the the delegates follow the rules while also following the will of the people and changing the rules, then I don't know if there's any point in further discussion. The difference is a chasm.

Yeah, I was a fantastic rugby player at school but it doesn't mean I can play for England and it sure doesn't make me captain.

Bill Clinton. GWB. Ronald Reagan. What was their national experience? Oh, right.



Sure you do, I personally believe that if the position was the other way around you'd be making the opposite argument - we say what we like.

I love this ridiculous argument. You're straight out calling her a liar with absolutely no evidence. The DEMOCRATIC party spent a lot of time bitching about the will of the people being defeated by the electoral college in 2000. It would be the height of hypocrisy to override the will of the people. And I do mean the will of the people, not the delegates. She still could win on popular vote and lose on delegate count and I would totally support the super delegates following the will of the people. That would be consistant.

This nonsense argument that in some hypothetical world people would be arguing against fairness is bullshit and you know it.


The only difference between the two policies is mandatory for children over mandatory for all, so by your argument, we shouldn't make it mandatory for children either, which is Senator Obama's position.

Yeah, cuz that's the same. We also shouldn't make school mandatory for children because I oppose making school mandatory for adults, right? Some other things I support being mandatory only for children. Seatbelts. Motorcycle helmets. Vaccinations. Proper supervision.

Yeah, it's always gotta be all or nothing. Protecting children who cannot protect themselves is EXACTLY the same as protecting adults who can protect themselves. Yup. I don't know why everyone doesn't think like you. There is clearly no difference between children and adults.


I may be biased on this since, being from Britain, we have the NHS and I am very strongly for free [essentially no different from mandatory insurance in that I part of my paycheck goes to the NHS*] healthcare for all - I almost cannot imagine an argument against it - unfortunately, in America, that equates to communism and so, despite my feeling that Senator Clinton and Senator Obama would both welcome it, they can't propose it, they can't bargain that far.

*living in HK, none of my paycheck goes to the NHS actually - in the interests of open information :)

The problem isn't communism. The problem is it subjugates my rights. I don't need the nanny state.

An interesting comparison because the debate here is between equal marriage rights and just having a civil union - if the pro-equality camp had just pushed for civil union, they would have had a harder fight because the middle ground is shifted lower.

To be honest, as an aside, it's why I don't mind extremist positions, without extreme civil rights, nothing would have happened, without extreme feminism, nothing would have happened. It takes an extreme view to shift the debate so the middle ground is more equal because, believe you me there are people very, very much against any form of union, legal or sexual, between the same sexes and the edge of the debate is, essentially, equal marriage right - mostly, the compromise is at civil union for now - give it 20 years and our children will laugh.

Ridiculous. Civil unions isn't the middle ground. It's seperate but equal, it's prejudice and I'd be frigging pissed at any candidate who proposed it. Just like that nonsensical don't ask, don't tell policy. It's codified prejudice.

And? Seriously, if you don't recognize the difference between making an argument the the delegates follow the rules while also following the will of the people and changing the rules, then I don't know if there's any point in further discussion. The difference is a chasm.

It was merely a comment on the coincidence.

Rules - the rules are that they can vote as they think best, that's the rules - to say they should follow the will of the people goes directly against the intent of those rules.

The primaries are not a democratic constitutional right per se, they're set up by each party to determine who will be the best candidate for the party. For the DNC, it's been decided that it's 80% popular will with 20% set aside to ignore that popular will if necessary.

To be honest, there is a difference and he's not demanding the superdelegates vote that way but neither is Senator Clinton demanding Fl and Mi be counted - they both want what suits them however.

Bill Clinton. GWB. Ronald Reagan. What was their national experience? Oh, right.

All at least governors, running a state as opposed to state legislators and 2 years in Senate. Look, I'm not necessarily buying into this line of argument, I'm pointing out there's a difference between state legislature and national legislature in response to Dempublicants - the battles are of far greater importance, influence and intensity so her point was not a refutation of mine. Nor is yours.

I love this ridiculous argument. You're straight out calling her a liar with absolutely no evidence. The DEMOCRATIC party spent a lot of time bitching about the will of the people being defeated by the electoral college in 2000. It would be the height of hypocrisy to override the will of the people. And I do mean the will of the people, not the delegates. She still could win on popular vote and lose on delegate count and I would totally support the super delegates following the will of the people. That would be consistent.

Hyperbole much?

As I've said, the primaries are not some constitutionally protected election process, they're the constructs of the DNC to decide who's the best candidate for them. They've given the people a choice in the matter but to say that they should be followed goes against what the superdelegates are there for.

In Britain, we have absolutely no say in who is the party leader, it's all done by the party - it's a system.

This nonsense argument that in some hypothetical world people would be arguing against fairness is bullshit and you know it.

My point is that it's all hypothetical - in as much as Dempublicants can say it wouldn't matter either way, I can say it would - it's pointing to the hypothetical nature of that statement as opposed to calling her a liar - see the difference here?

Again, the system is as it is - it's not a question of having to follow the will of the people as opposed to determining who's the best candidate.

Yeah, cuz that's the same. We also shouldn't make school mandatory for children because I oppose making school mandatory for adults, right? Some other things I support being mandatory only for children. Seatbelts. Motorcycle helmets. Vaccinations. Proper supervision.

Yeah, it's always gotta be all or nothing. Protecting children who cannot protect themselves is EXACTLY the same as protecting adults who can protect themselves. Yup. I don't know why everyone doesn't think like you. There is clearly no difference between children and adults.

Really - you don't think adults should wear helmets?

This is inconsequential to the argument I suppose but we're coming to a difference in opinion over the role of the state, I've stated why I believe mandatory health care, for me, is essentially the same as the NHS, universal health care as close as they can get it without being accused of 'welfare state' commies.

The problem isn't communism. The problem is it subjugates my rights. I don't need the nanny state.

Right, well you see, here I'm stating openly why I believe mandatory healthcare is a better policy - which is getting to the point of your original OP - it does come off beliefs I have about health care.

I think every citizen has a right to receive health care even if they have no money at the time. I also believe that when they can contribute, they should. hence I'm happy for $5 or so to be taken of my pay to go towards the NHS.

Most happy.

Ridiculous. Civil unions isn't the middle ground....

...for you.

Some people would quite happily see all same sex partners exterminated.

I love how she will say stuff like "change you can Xerox."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080222/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_debate

that was a stupid move and there grows my annoyance

It was merely a comment on the coincidence.

Rules - the rules are that they can vote as they think best, that's the rules - to say they should follow the will of the people goes directly against the intent of those rules.

The primaries are not a democratic constitutional right per se, they're set up by each party to determine who will be the best candidate for the party. For the DNC, it's been decided that it's 80% popular will with 20% set aside to ignore that popular will if necessary.

To be honest, there is a difference and he's not demanding the superdelegates vote that way but neither is Senator Clinton demanding Fl and Mi be counted - they both want what suits them however.

Oh come on, thats such a stretch I can't even give it an Armstrong. That logic would be true if the rules were that they had to go against the popular vote, but they aren't. They can, and he as the candidate can compel them not to in the same way that he compels the Democratic constiouancy to vote for him. They're in place to prevent a party hijack, he's arguing that neither candidate is because of a party hi-jack and therefore should vote for the popular candidate. He's not asking that they be forced to, he's compelling them to use the popular vote in their decision. That's making a perfectly legit argument within the confines of the system.

Clinton is calling for the changing of rules she agreed to as early as September of last year and as late as January. To say that the two are in any way similar is a remarkable stretch.

It was merely a comment on the coincidence.

Rules - the rules are that they can vote as they think best, that's the rules - to say they should follow the will of the people goes directly against the intent of those rules.

Pardon? The intent of those rules is for the candidates to sway those SuperDelegates. He's doing so. You don't stop that stretching you're gonna pull a muscle. He's acting ENTIRELY within the rules. If you can show me ANYWHERE in ANY rule that is says the candidate cannot give the delegates reasons for voting a certain way. Go ahead. Quote the rules he suggesting they change or break. I can quote you which rules Hillary wants them to change or break. We all know which rules actually.



The primaries are not a democratic constitutional right per se, they're set up by each party to determine who will be the best candidate for the party. For the DNC, it's been decided that it's 80% popular will with 20% set aside to ignore that popular will if necessary.

There you go. You said it perfectly. "If necessary." Obama is saying it's not. He's right.


To be honest, there is a difference and he's not demanding the superdelegates vote that way but neither is Senator Clinton demanding Fl and Mi be counted - they both want what suits them however.

Yes, she's claiming they are being cheated. She's asking that they ignore the rules or change them and seat the delegates anyway. An caucus at the proper time was offered and she did not support it. She didn't want them to count fairly. She wants them to count them even though the contests were unfair and the rules say they don't count. The difference here is that Hillary is like a coach asking the refs to ignore certain rules so she wins. "Clippint is a stupid rule. Can you withdraw that penalty from earlier in the game and award me with a touchdown instead?" Obama is asking the refs to follow the rules but just follow them in a way that suits him. Again, the difference is not at all subtle.


All at least governors, running a state as opposed to state legislators and 2 years in Senate. Look, I'm not necessarily buying into this line of argument, I'm pointing out there's a difference between state legislature and national legislature in response to Dempublicants - the battles are of far greater importance, influence and intensity so her point was not a refutation of mine. Nor is yours.

Come on. This is rhetoric. The state legistlature fights every bit as hard as the governor in many states. Many, many Presidents don't have the experience you're describing. According to your argument, Obama is better prepared for the Presidency than Bill Clinton was.




Hyperbole much?

As I've said, the primaries are not some constitutionally protected election process, they're the constructs of the DNC to decide who's the best candidate for them. They've given the people a choice in the matter but to say that they should be followed goes against what the superdelegates are there for.

What, in order for anyone to care about the will of the people, they have to have a constitutional reason to do so? You're just adding in fluff now.

No, it doesn't. They are there for the EXACT same reason as the electoral college. The exact same reason. And people would and did absolutely object to the electoral college causing the less popular candidate to win. He's simply suggesting that the follow the will of the people. It's a reasonable argument. You keep acting like it's against the rules. Show me which rule they're actually breaking. Which rule?


In Britain, we have absolutely no say in who is the party leader, it's all done by the party - it's a system.



My point is that it's all hypothetical - in as much as Dempublicants can say it wouldn't matter either way, I can say it would - it's pointing to the hypothetical nature of that statement as opposed to calling her a liar - see the difference here?

Except she knows what she thinks. It's not hypothetical for me to understand my reasoning or for her to understand hers. She told you what her reasoning is and you said it's not actually her reasoning and that she's just supporting her candidate. That's calling it a lie.


Again, the system is as it is - it's not a question of having to follow the will of the people as opposed to determining who's the best candidate.

Given the candidate must be elected by those same people, generally the most popular candidate is the best candidate, which is the argument Obama is making in this case.

No one is saying they have to follow the will of the people. Obama is saying it's in the interest of the party to not override the will of the people. It's a reasoned argument to get the votes of the Super Delegates. Please show me what rule that violates.

Really - you don't think adults should wear helmets?

I think they shouldn't be mandatory. I also think adults should have health insurance but it shouldn't be mandatory. See how that works?


This is inconsequential to the argument I suppose but we're coming to a difference in opinion over the role of the state, I've stated why I believe mandatory health care, for me, is essentially the same as the NHS, universal health care as close as they can get it without being accused of 'welfare state' commies.



Right, well you see, here I'm stating openly why I believe mandatory healthcare is a better policy - which is getting to the point of your original OP - it does come off beliefs I have about health care.

I think every citizen has a right to receive health care even if they have no money at the time. I also believe that when they can contribute, they should. hence I'm happy for $5 or so to be taken of my pay to go towards the NHS.

Most happy.

An NHS is actually a bit better in my opinion, since it means that we use it in much the same way we use and fund the police. However, the idea of having to use insurance and having it be mandatory for completely competent adults is nanny state and I don't buy into it.

...for you.

Some people would quite happily see all same sex partners exterminated.

I'm very glad that neither of these candidates are supporting more codified prejudice.

By that argument, if only my argument is extreme enough, I can get the middle ground to be anywhere.

Your position: You want me to be nicer.
My position: I want you be brutally murdered and burn in hell for all eternity.
Middle ground: You are murdered but in a relatively humane way.

You're cool with that middle ground, right? (Incidentally, in case anything ever happens to you, I certainly don't hope you die in any fashion, and I hope you enjoy eternity in paradise as I do for every human being. See, I have to point out when I'm just making a point, or CanuckHeaven will take my quote out of context and make it seem like I'm abusing you.)

I love how she will say stuff like "change you can Xerox."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080222/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_debate

that was a stupid move and there grows my annoyance

Jesus. I was really, really hoping she wasn't going to go all or nothing. I really was hoping that. If she handles herself well right now, she's got a great chance and being a powerhouse for a long time to come. I was just talking to a friend about this tonight. I'd love to see her be in Obama's cabinet. Or continue to work in Congress. She's a good candidate. Truly. She's just losing. Going this route is just sad.

Oh come on, thats such a stretch I can't even give it an Armstrong. That logic would be true if the rules were that they had to go against the popular vote, but they aren't. They can, and he as the candidate can compel them not to in the same way that he compels the Democratic constiouancy to vote for him. They're in place to prevent a party hijack, he's arguing that neither candidate is because of a party hi-jack and therefore should vote for the popular candidate. He's not asking that they be forced to, he's compelling them to use the popular vote in their decision. That's making a perfectly legit argument within the confines of the system.

Clinton is calling for the changing of rules she agreed to as early as September of last year and as late as January. To say that the two are in any way similar is a remarkable stretch.

She's voicing her opinion - would Senator Obama have any truck with the superdelegates voting for him given a reasonable equality of popular will that edges in Senator Clinton's favour? What if she somehow manages to get more regular delegates but they decide in favour of him. Do you think he would turn down the nomination on principal?

I doubt it.

I'm very glad that neither of these candidates are supporting more codified prejudice.

By that argument, if only my argument is extreme enough, I can get the middle ground to be anywhere.

Your position: You want me to be nicer.
My position: I want you be brutally murdered and burn in hell for all eternity.
Middle ground: You are murdered but in a relatively humane way.

You're cool with that middle ground, right? (Incidentally, in case anything ever happens to you, I certainly don't hope you die in any fashion, and I hope you enjoy eternity in paradise as I do for every human being. See, I have to point out when I'm just making a point, or CanuckHeaven will take my quote out of context and make it seem like I'm abusing you.)

No, my position is equality but I am not representative of everyone - nor are you - my point is that there are many people at the opposite end of the extreme and, given a democracy, these positions have to be fought over.

To think that we can suddenly have some happy-hands Senate where everyone sits down and happily concede issues is naive. You have to fight for your beliefs against opposing beliefs and to give leeway, to ask for happy consensus is simply unrealistic. I would love for that not to be the case but, frankly, we all know too well that it is. We have the Senator Santorum's in town who don't hold your, eminently reasonable to me, position on these things.

I love how she will say stuff like "change you can Xerox."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080222/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_debate

that was a stupid move and there grows my annoyance

Totally, I just read an article that whoever came up with that line is now being driven out to the deserts of Texas to be shot. I'll try find it.

Here it is (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/richard_adams/2008/02/death_by_xerox.html) - fairly funny

She's voicing her opinion - would Senator Obama have any truck with the superdelegates voting for him given a reasonable equality of popular will that edges in Senator Clinton's favour? What if she somehow manages to get more regular delegates but they decide in favour of him. Do you think he would turn down the nomination on principal?

I doubt it.

You can't argue what you think someone might do in a given situation as a justification. And as you keep pointing out, if they give it to Obama even if he is edged out in the popular vote, that's within the rules. He's not asking for any change in an agreed upon set of rules, he's making his case for actions within the rules. It is in no way similar to Clinton asking for a change in rules that she agreed to after the fact.

You can't argue what you think someone might do in a given situation as a justification. And as you keep pointing out, if they give it to Obama even if he is edged out in the popular vote, that's within the rules. He's not asking for any change in an agreed upon set of rules, he's making his case for actions within the rules. It is in no way similar to Clinton asking for a change in rules that she agreed to after the fact.

I utterly understand and accept this - my point is that he doesn't want to lose because of that set up and he's asking for the popular will to be obeyed over personal decisions.

By the way, I used 'when necessary' earlier in error because it's not just 'when necessary'. It's when they feel like it. If they feel that Senator Obama is the Britney Spears of politics, wildly popular but heading for a crash over Senator Clinton's Eagles, oldies, unfashionable but able to sell over time - and believe me, I'm hating myself for this analogy, really need to go wash my hands after this - then that's a decision they can, and should, make - that's why it's set up that way.

I can switch from this and show you the utter pettiness of Senator Obama's response to the original plagiarism claim, where his response pointed to lines in her speeches such as....dammit, her factcheck page is down.

EDIT: Back up again:

Sen. Obama's examples include:

1. Hillary saying she wanted to "bring the country together."

2. Hillary saying she wanted to "turn the page" on George Bush and Dick Cheney.

3. Hillary's deliberate rejoinder to Obama's riff on "yes we can." (A phrase that was coined by the United Farm Workers, who have endorsed Hillary.)

My original point has been that he's been placed on a pedestal of protection whereas I've seen the very nastiest and hypocritical comments about her (note: not from you guys, but a quick scan of the boards can bring up a multitude of statements).

We've seen that a lot of their respective policies, and certainly their voting records are 95%+ the exact same - any dispute over where she stands out is a matter of opinion and, frankly, the tide of opinion, certainly on these boards where voting has rarely given Senator Clinton more than 10, where people would rather vote for Governor Huckabee than Senator Clinton, is overwhelmingly in favour of Senator Obama.

It makes positively talking about Senator Clinton a waste of time - again, I've put up points, which I've had to link to a second time on request, which have been un-addressed.

We quibble on healthcare - it's opinion. Even economists dispute who saves the average American more money, who covers what amount - I'm quite sure we won't agree on the matter, the weight of numbers is against anyone who looks to support Senator Clinton.

We quibble on healthcare - it's opinion. Even economists dispute who saves the average American more money, who covers what amount - I'm quite sure we won't agree on the matter, the weight of numbers is against anyone who looks to support Senator Clinton.

Actually, I've said about three times in this thread that her health care plan is probably more robust with the caveat that neither of their plans would cover me.

Actually, I've said about three times in this thread that her health care plan is probably more robust with the caveat that neither of their plans would cover me.

I've noted it and your certificate of praise is in the post.

I've noted it and your certificate of praise is in the post.
Mis-read it. My mistake. My conviction about her plan is less than stellar so I won't debate it, especially since neither do the job in the end for me at least. Ultimately it's not a tipping point for either of them for me.

What I like about Hillary, NOTHING END OF STORY!:upyours:

What I like about Hillary, NOTHING END OF STORY!:upyours:

Hmm...not n00bish enough. Needs more gun and grenade smilies.

I wasn't "looking for", but rather trying to forget, her name!

I figured you actually knew who it was, I just figured I'd be annoying and point out her name, and had been going to include her picture too, but decided against it. :p

Yeah, I was a fantastic rugby player at school but it doesn't mean I can play for England and it sure doesn't make me captain.

You weren't a very fantastic rugby player if the skills wouldn't allow you to play the same game at higher level.

Sure you do, I personally believe that if the position was the other way around you'd be making the opposite argument - we say what we like.

Ah yes, presume that you know me better than I do.

The only difference between the two policies is mandatory for children over mandatory for all, so by your argument, we shouldn't make it mandatory for children either, which is Senator Obama's position.

Wrong. Children are a different story altogether. We can make all sorts of things mandatory for children because children are not in a position to make the decision for themselves and thus require protection.

As an adult, on the other hand, I can choose whether or not to protect myself.

School is mandatory for children, but an adult cannot be forced to seek an education.

An adult is required to feed his children, but can choose not to eat if he wants to.

And so on....

Mandatory for children and mandatory for adults are not the same thing - not by a long shot.

Rules - the rules are that they can vote as they think best, that's the rules - to say they should follow the will of the people goes directly against the intent of those rules.

No, it doesn't. It provides a suggestion for how they should decide what is best.

All at least governors, running a state as opposed to state legislators and 2 years in Senate. Look, I'm not necessarily buying into this line of argument, I'm pointing out there's a difference between state legislature and national legislature in response to Dempublicants - the battles are of far greater importance, influence and intensity so her point was not a refutation of mine. Nor is yours.

...except you're wrong. The battles in state legislatures are not of lesser importance or intensity. And they are of lesser influence only in that they affect less people. If we measure influence by how much effect they have on the daily lives of the people, they are actually more influential.

My point is that it's all hypothetical - in as much as Dempublicants can say it wouldn't matter either way, I can say it would - it's pointing to the hypothetical nature of that statement as opposed to calling her a liar - see the difference here?

You have absolutely no standing to say what I would do or say in a different situation. You are not me.

This is inconsequential to the argument I suppose but we're coming to a difference in opinion over the role of the state, I've stated why I believe mandatory health care, for me, is essentially the same as the NHS, universal health care as close as they can get it without being accused of 'welfare state' commies.

...except it isn't the same. You are not required to buy into the NHS. You are not required to use it. It is there for all to use if they choose to do so.

Obama's plan is actually much closer to the NHS on this count, as it is open to all citizens, but no citizen is required to utilize it.

I think every citizen has a right to receive health care even if they have no money at the time. I also believe that when they can contribute, they should. hence I'm happy for $5 or so to be taken of my pay to go towards the NHS.

This doesn't explain being in favor of mandatory health care. Under Obama's plan, everyone would have a right to affordable health care and government subsidies if they could not afford it. The question is whether they should be forced to exercise that right or have the choice not to.

I have the right to free speech. However, if I wish to stay silent, I can do that.

I have the right to freedom of religion. However, if I do not wish to worship, I do not have to.

I have the right to freely assemble, but I can stay home if I want to.

In that same vein, we can protect the right to health care without forcing people into it.

Hmm...not n00bish enough. Needs more gun and grenade smilies.

http://im1.shutterfly.com/procserv/47b8dc03b3127cceb50980be55cc00000026100IYsmrNo2csf

I like both Obama and Clinton a lot. I, however, am supporting Obama. Why?

~He has shown better judgement than Senator Clinton in the past

~He will not spark an enourmous amount of conserrvative to come to the polls for an anti-Clinton vote

~He will attract the independants and corssovers that would otherwise allow McCain to win

~He does not have years of political favors to pay back when he enters the White House

~Living in Massachusetts, I know that setting a mandate without reducing costs for health care does not work. Obama's plan will be better for the country.

~He is more likely to be able to get a bill passed through a sharply divided or even a Republican controlled Congress

I also am slightly disgusted with Sen. Clinton's position on the Michagin and Florida delegates. First, she agrees not to campaign there and supports them getting stripped to get more votes in Iowa/New Hampshire. Then, she loses ten or eleven primaries in a row and suddenly "we must let the voices of Michagin/Florida count."

However, if Senator Clinton does become the democratic nominee, I will be happy to support her and campaign on her behalf. After George Bush, we cannot allow the war in Iraq to last another 100 years.

Hey, Barr, what did you think of the debates?

Something i like about Hillary? How the hell is this thread 17 pages long? My answer: At least she doesnt have a hairy back?

Something i like about Hillary? How the hell is this thread 17 pages long? My answer: At least she doesnt have a hairy back?

You've checked?

Hey, Barr, what did you think of the debates?

This article encapsulates my thoughts on it in a far better way than I could write, I think it's a great summary of her position right now:

Somewhere in the dark wilderness of Texas, a car door is being opened and the lifeless body of whoever wrote Hillary Clinton's attack lines is being dumped in a ditch. OK, that might be a little extreme, and even the Clinton campaign isn't that tough. But metaphorically at least I wouldn't be surprised, because in her self-described "must win" state of Texas, she murdered her lines while attempting to go after Barack Obama in last night's debate.

For those who came in late, this was about Obama borrowing a phrase from an ally, and not attributing it. It should have been a simple one-day sly dig, of the sort that campaigns toss around on an hourly basis. Last night Obama rightly dismissed it as silly. But the Clinton campaign wanted to make a meal of it - and in the middle of last night's debate, when the subject came up, Hillary pulled the trigger, saying: "Lifting whole passages from someone else's speeches is not change you can believe in, it's change you can Xerox."

At which point the crowd booed her - the only such display of the night. But instead of cutting her losses and leaving it, she ploughed on, and even told Obama to "look at the YouTube of these videos". Xerox? The YouTube of these videos? Anyone under the age of, oh, 30 would have found all of that amusing, reminiscent of Ted Stevens' "series of tubes". It smacked of both confection and confusion, a desperate hunt for a "Where's the beef?" moment.

It was reported yesterday that the Clinton campaign spent $1,300 on donuts last month. Maybe the speechwriters were hyperglycemic when they came up with that one.

Up until that point Clinton had been performing well, as she usually does in these debates. Obama began this election cycle as a weak debater. But either through practice - this was the 19th debate between the Democratic candidates - or instruction, Obama has improved substantially, and last night was his most assured performance. He was focused and detailed, inserting the anecdotes and illustrations to compliment his policy proposals - and there was plenty of detail, especially on healthcare. He looked and sounded - sorry, but there is no other word for it - presidential.

Obama responded to Clinton's accusations that he's "just talk" with dexterity, asking if all the people supporting him had somehow been delusional and duped. That got a laugh and a cheer - another sign the audience was behind him. Obama's smartest move in this debate may have been his careful emphasis on issues appealing to Latinos, especially in backing citizenship for the children of immigrants, a huge issue in Texas.

But this debate was an illustration in miniature of the arc of the Democratic primary campaign. A polished performance by Clinton was marred by an over-rehearsed and inept delivery when it counted. And she wouldn't change tack, even when the crowd was booing. Instead there was more talk of her experience, an argument that appears to have long since lost its lustre. Yet - as she has several times - Clinton showed hints of what could have been a different approach. But it came too late, at the end of this debate, when she gave an inspiring peroration and sparked a standing ovation:

"No matter what happens in this contest - and I am honoured, I am honoured to be here with Barack Obama. I am absolutely honoured. Whatever happens, we're going to be fine. You know, we have strong support from our families and our friends. I just hope that we'll be able to say the same thing about the American people, and that's what this election should be about."

Normally, an ovation would be a good sign for the candidate who had just spoken. But read Clinton's words - they carry the scent of a valedictory address. Time is running out. Perhaps the audience in Texas got to its feet not in acclaim but in farewell.