NationStates Jolt Archive

one of the 2 of them will win because of the dismal failure of george bush.

They'll possibly lose votes for it. But that will be outweighed by the number of relgious right voters who will refuse to vote for McCain. So the Democrats will win, unless they REALLY screw it up.

which is always a possibility... a slim one mind you, but possible nonetheless.

Everytime they are mentioned it is either pointed out that Obama would be the first black president or Clinton would be the first woman president or both.



So could the democrats win just because people would vote so they could say they lived under/voted in America's first black/woman president?


I ask because people are always bashing America on its lack of deep thought...(to put it politely)

It is possible that Obama could become president. ***shudder*** Not because of his race, but he is a very dynamic person who is seen as another JFK.

I do not think Clinton has a chance of becoming President. Not because of her gender, but because there are to many people of both parties who loath Hillary Clinton. They see her as a self serving, cold hearted bitch who doesn't give a damn about them.

If Obama wins the Democratic nomination it could be a long hard fight for McCain. If Clinton wins the nomination I think McCain will win by a landslide.

if the Democrats nominate Obama, they'll win, but if the nominate Hillary, they'll loose, as Hillary is simply to polarizing and has too much political baggage to win. Just my 2c.

Everytime they are mentioned it is either pointed out that Obama would be the first black president or Clinton would be the first woman president or both.



So could the democrats win just because people would vote so they could say they lived under/voted in America's first black/woman president?


I ask because people are always bashing America on its lack of deep thought...(to put it politely)






Edit: Wow.....only one post (at the time of this edit) didn't have a time machine?

They'll possibly lose votes for it. But that will be outweighed by the number of relgious right voters who will refuse to vote for McCain. So the Democrats will win, unless they REALLY screw it up.

Can the democrats win with either clinton or obama?

No.

Can the democrats win with either clinton or obama?

No.

Not only they can, they MUST and they WILL. No more Republican stench pervading the White House!

Not only they can, they MUST and they WILL. No more Republican stench pervading the White House!Liberal, traitorous, smelly, uncouth, drug dealing, coke sniffing, pot headed, son of a whore.:p

Yet, really, stop with the political slander. Just vent your anger about Bush and do not insult an entire group of people, unless if you want insults to be aimed at you persoanlly.

If it was just about them being either 'black' or a 'woman' then they would have nominated Carol Moseley Braun, the black woman who ran in 2004. It would have been a twofer. However, that's not why they are front runners, nor is it mentioned 'every time.' However, it is historically significant, so it does get mentioned. To ignore it would be conspicuous. To say that they are being elected because of it is reductive and ignores far to many other factors.

If you don't vote for Obama, you'll be labeled a racist.

If you don't vote for Clinton, you'll be labeled a sexist.

If you don't vote for McCain, you'll be labled something else entirely, but that label will be written in Arabic, so it won't matter.

They'll possibly lose votes for it. But that will be outweighed by the number of relgious right voters who will refuse to vote for McCain. So the Democrats will win, unless they REALLY screw it up.

This is the Democratic Party, after all. Call it 50/50 at this point.

This is the Democratic Party, after all. Call it 50/50 at this point.

yeah, only the democratic party could possibly lose this election. but they did manage to do so last time. and the time before that as well. you know, they should really try to do something about that.

If you don't vote for Obama, you'll be labeled a racist.

If you don't vote for Clinton, you'll be labeled a sexist.

If you don't vote for McCain, you'll be labled something else entirely, but that label will be written in Arabic, so it won't matter.

So you're saying a vote not for McCain is a vote for terrorists?

Are you trying to equate Arabic to terrorism?

I think they have a chance with Obama, but with Hillary, no. If they nominate Hillary, then she will lose to Mc. Cain.

If Clinton wins the nomination I think McCain will win by a landslide.
Well considering alot of the neocon pundits are favoring Clinton over McCain, I wouldn't bet on it.

I'm of the opinion that their gender and/or skin colour is only noteworthy from a historical point of view and otherwise is entirely irrelevant. This is the freaking twenty-first century. We ought to know damned well by now that skin colour, ethnicity, gender, ect ect has no bearing on one's intelligence or ability to lead.

Well considering alot of the neocon pundits are favoring Clinton over McCain, I wouldn't bet on it.

If Mc. Cain picks Huckabee as VP then he could get the Fundie and Neo-Con vote.

If Mc. Cain picks Huckabee as VP then he could get the Fundie and Neo-Con vote.

Even with those at his command, the Democratic turn-out at the primaries gives a possible indication of a landslide victory for Obama anyway.

Youth vote FTW = President Obama

Obama can win, Clinton will face a hell of a fight. A lot of people like me hate her and would vote McCain.

Youth vote FTW = President Obama

Youth vote, black vote, elderly vote, union vote, ect ect...if it's a voting block, Obama can persuade them.

Obama can win, Clinton will face a hell of a fight. A lot of people like me hate her and would vote McCain.

That still makes no sense to me. McCain would be far worse than Clinton would be. Clinton would be worse than Obama on some issues, yes, but McCain would be even worse on those and far more besides. Stop letting your personal dislike of Clinton rule your thinking.

Obama can win, Clinton will face a hell of a fight. A lot of people like me hate her and would vote McCain.

AMEN:cool:

If it was just about them being either 'black' or a 'woman' then they would have nominated Carol Moseley Braun

she already had enough firsts. first black woman in the senate, first black democratic senator, first non-bow tie wearing senator i knew anything about, etc.

Of the Republicans remaining in the race, only one has even the remotest chance of winning, and that's McCain. And even then it's pretty remote.

Youth vote FTW = President Obama
Ralph Nader + Voting "irregularities" + legacy of Karl Rove + Electoral vote FTL = President McCain

yeah, only the democratic party could possibly lose this election. but they did manage to do so last time. and the time before that as well. you know, they should really try to do something about that.

Actually, just a minor point of clarification, the Democrats won the 2000 election. Gore won the popular vote, however, due to the Supreme Court ruling (packed with justices who were appointed by Reagan and Bush Sr.), the recount was halted (which was increasingly favoring Gore) and the old, inaccurate count was reinstated. Thus, Florida erroneously went to Bush, and Bush therefore won the election.

I think they have a chance with Obama, but with Hillary, no. If they nominate Hillary, then she will lose to Mc. Cain.

I don't know. Clinton and McCain are in a couple of ways, very similar.
They've both served their country with distinction.*
They both are exert an attractive force on mud that rivals electromagnetism in strength.
They are both, for reasons still unknown to me, despised by some members of their own parties.


So in the end, their faults may cancel each other out.

* "Distinction" here means, "serving in public office for more than four years without being caught accepting bribes."

Actually, just a minor point of clarification, the Democrats won the 2000 election.

precisely my point

If Mc. Cain picks Huckabee as VP then he could get the Fundie and Neo-Con vote.

I don't know if that actually works, picking a vice president to balance the ticket. I've never heard anyone say, "I was worried about voting for George Bush, but then I saw Dick Cheney was his running mate," or, "I'm not so sure I want Al Gore for president, but with Joe Lieberman I'll support him."

Obama can win, Clinton will face a hell of a fight. A lot of people like me hate her and would vote McCain.

I really don't understand where this supposed hatred of Senator Clinton is coming from. For over the past decade, the Clintons have been loved and admired by many for their unwavering commitment to the common people. Her belief in Civil Rights and Human Rights has been a constant theme in all her pursuits as First Lady and junior senator of New York. She's a champion of Justice and Equality in a society that is becoming far too discriminatory in its post 9/11 aftermath.

Clinton has always been there for the average American, she has always proved herself to be quite a capable leader and quite a caring individual. Her own record, one of which cannot be said of Obama, indicates that she indeeds cares for her constituents and is able to actually produce results, not just empty, however inspirational, rhetoric.

She was there for us always in the past, and she continues to be there for us, even now. She's not the "new" politician on the block that has only recently emerged in order to take advantage of an election cycle, but she has repeatedly been our trustworthy companion along America's geopolitical history, and continues to fight for the same basic rights for all American's today, as she has in the past.

I don't recall hearing you complain then. I don't recall hearing you spew venomous slanders and toxic profanities about madame Clinton then. I find it immensely conspicuous that you would choose only now to say such villifying and sensational falsitudes concerning a woman who has proved herself to be time and time again our faithful ally.

Enjoy your hate-mongering. I however shall remain true to the Democratic Spirit of our party, and not turn my back on those who have sacrificed so much for us in the past, only to turn on them for the convenient moment of here and now to win a primary.

Indeed, in the words of Senator Hillary Clinton, shame on you.

I really don't understand where this supposed hatred of Senator Clinton is coming from. For over the past decade, the Clintons have been loved and admired by many for their unwavering commitment to the common people. Her belief in Civil Rights and Human Rights has been a constant theme in all her pursuits as First Lady and junior senator of New York. She's a champion of Justice and Equality in a society that is becoming far too discriminatory in its post 9/11 aftermath.

Clinton has always been there for the average American, she has always proved herself to be quite a capable leader and quite a caring individual. Her own record, one of which cannot be said of Obama, indicates that she indeeds cares for her constituents and is able to actually produce results, not just empty, however inspirational, rhetoric.

She was there for us always in the past, and she continues to be there for us, even now. She's not the "new" politician on the block that has only recently emerged in order to take advantage of an election cycle, but she has repeatedly been our trustworthy companion along America's geopolitical history, and continues to fight for the same basic rights for all American's today, as she has in the past.

I don't recall hearing you complain then. I don't recall hearing you spew venomous slanders and toxic profanities about madame Clinton then. I find it immensely conspicuous that you would choose only now to say such villifying and sensational falsitudes concerning a woman who has proved herself to be time and time again our faithful ally.

Enjoy your hate-mongering. I however shall remain true to the Democratic Spirit of our party, and not turn my back on those who have sacrificed so much for us in the past, only to turn on them for the convenient moment of here and now to win a primary.

Indeed, in the words of Senator Hillary Clinton, shame on you.
Sarcasm?

Actually, just a minor point of clarification, the Democrats won the 2000 election.I don't think you can really call it "winning" if the other guy ends up being president.

Sarcasm?

How the hell could you even stretch that to try and gleam some form of sarcasm?

No, there is no sarcasm in my posting. I am an ardent supporter of Senator Hillary Clinton, and of her impeccable record as a political activist in our nation, and in our world.

I don't think you can really call it "winning" if the other guy ends up being president.

Mere semantics my friend. However you want to call it, Gore "won", or "garnered" or "earned" or "manifested" or whatever, the popular vote of the people of the United States of America.

I don't think you can really call it "winning" if the other guy ends up being president.

The Democrats had more popular votes for certain, and possibly had more electoral votes. Of course, the entire state of Florida was no match for the "re-count" of the Supreme Court justices.
You're right, though, the other guy became president legally, more or less.

I don't think you can really call it "winning" if the other guy ends up being president.

yeah, though really, only the democratic party could have grabbed defeat from the jaws of victory in that one.

If Mc. Cain picks Huckabee as VP then he could get the Fundie and Neo-Con vote.

Then he loses the independents and moderate Republicans (which he should lose anyway).

I've gone through page one and I can honestly say there is more stupidity here than in the entire general board. Now please, let's not consider this a flame because I'm not aiming this at anyone in particular. Anyone who thinks the election is just about being black or being a woman is just a myopic dolt. What the F is the McCain crap about? Seriously, there are numerous (too many) threads on this election that are actually filled with substantive posts. Here ends my rage fit over the stupidity of this thread. I'm the President of Liuzzo, and I approve this message but not this thread.

How the hell could you even stretch that to try and gleam some form of sarcasm?

No, there is no sarcasm in my posting. I am an ardent supporter of Senator Hillary Clinton, and of her impeccable record as a political activist in our nation, and in our world.
Haha awesome! I wasn't sure though because of sites like http://hillaryis44.com/

Actually, just a minor point of clarification, the Democrats won the 2000 election. Gore won the popular vote, however, due to the Supreme Court ruling (packed with justices who were appointed by Reagan and Bush Sr.), the recount was halted (which was increasingly favoring Gore) and the old, inaccurate count was reinstated. Thus, Florida erroneously went to Bush, and Bush therefore won the election.

The recount was halted because in some instances where there was 2 spots on the ballot that had been dimpled, the people doing the count decided that meant that it was a vote for Gore, not for Bush.
Also, whether Gore won the popular vote or not, that is not what counts in the U.S., it is the electoral college's vote that counts, thusly, regardless of whether you like it or not (I don't) George W. Bush did indeed win the election.

Her belief in Civil Rights and Human Rights has been a constant theme in all her pursuits as First Lady and junior senator of New York.

Huh??? Not quite. She's not all that much better than Bush in that regard.

http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?2006/02/22/4

"The executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda gay rights group has described Sen. Hillary Clinton as "a complete disappointment," raising the prospect that some in the LGBT community may stop supporting her political career due to her opposition to same-sex marriage."

I voted for her hubby in '92 because he said he'd push for full civil rights for gay Americans. But, surprise (or not), it was nothing but lip service to get our votes. He then stabbed us in the back by signing DOMA and instituting "don't ask, don't tell." I don't trust the Clintons. They'll do whatever they have to to win. Even if it means denying Americans their civil rights while they pretend to care.

Huh??? Not quite. She's not all that much better than Bush in that regard.

http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?2006/02/22/4

"The executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda gay rights group has described Sen. Hillary Clinton as "a complete disappointment," raising the prospect that some in the LGBT community may stop supporting her political career due to her opposition to same-sex marriage."

I voted for her hubby in '92 because he said he'd push for full civil rights for gay Americans. But, surprise (or not), it was nothing but lip service to get our votes. He then stabbed us in the back by signing DOMA and instituting "don't ask, don't tell." I don't trust the Clintons. They'll do whatever they have to to win. Even if it means denying Americans their civil rights while they pretend to care.



It never ceases to amaze me how willing you people are to marginalize Clinton's historical feats while President in order to, once again, take advantage of the convenient here and now.

Do you not remember the entire controversy surrounding don't ask don't tell? President Clinton DID rally to lift the ban of homosexuals in the military, but because of an unprecedented backlash from the American people who flooded the white house with petitions, and mounting congressional opposition (which was, ironically, spearheaded by a Democratic Senator) and complete opposition from all the joint chiefs, Clinton SKILLFULLY brought these people into a mode of compromise. Instead of backing off and saying, "well I tried," he did the best that he could with what he was given at the time. That is nothing to merely sneer at, for that kind of legislation to have been introduced into the Congress and passed in 1993.

You see, extremist lobbyists for special interest groups are always going to be "disappointed" if they don't get exactly what they want. As President, Bill Clinton understood that he wasn't just the President of Democrats, or of people who thought like him, he was the President of ALL Americans, and so he had to take ALL Americans into consideration when drafting and proposing and advocating legislation. He was a political mastermind on that front, and he continually showed his willingness to reach across party lines in order to negotiate and compromise and yield encouraging results for ALL Americans.

And as for the DOMA, you really need to do your research. Clinton, once again, demonstrated his diplomatic prowess.

You see, although the DOMA states that another state does not have to recognize the marriage license of another state (which, Consitutionally it does, pursuant to Article Four of the Constitution in which Full Faith and Credit is established among states. Clinton knew this, so he signed pretty much a worthless part of the bill, and he knew it). However, the DOMA also sets the precedent that states are allowed to decide their own laws concerning same sex marriage, whereas before, they would have to wait for a Federal law to allow them to enact such a thing. So really, Clinton knew exactly what he was doing, he knew that certain states, such as Texas, would never allow a Federal law to be enacted which would acknowledge same sex marriage, so he paved the way for individual states to do so. He also paved the way for other states to be forced to recognize the same sex marriages because he knew the clause in the bill that restricted such would be nullified as unconstitutional.

Bill Clinton is a political genious, and people like you honestly don't have enough common sense to see that.

And Hillary Clinton has also shown her own political ingenuity, which is, quite frankly, an incontrovertible fact that you cannot deny by any statement of facts, so you only resort to sensational "i hate hers" in hopes that people will forget to actually ask you "why?"


So, why don't you actually look at the big picture of issues, instead of taking them out of context or simply assuming as truth something that's been spoonfed to you by a particular certain person's campaign?

Thanks.

And Hillary Clinton has also shown her own political ingenuity...

Care to give us some examples?

Care to give us some examples?

I thought you'd never ask :)



Perhaps one of her greatest achievements came during her tenure as First Lady, in which she was the one who honestly brought the debate about universal healthcare out from the discussions in bars and waiting rooms all across America into a serious political initiative. Sure, there had been other movements in the past, but most of them fizzled after a while, originating with uncommitted sponsors who never really did much of anything to push the idea past conservative opposition. For decades, universal healthcare was considered a socialist, red commie agenda, and was villified in such a manner that few dared to touch it.

Until along came Hillary Clinton.

She actually spearheaded the Task Force on National Healthcare Reform, and gave desperately needed new life into the universal healthcare argument. She laid the necessary groundwork on the issue in such an unprecedented and powerful way that nearly ten years later, we're still talking about it. Sure, she wasn't able to get the initiative passed through congress, but after all, from day one she experienced a strongly united opposition from Republicans, and as the First Lady, she didn't exactly have much authority or political clout to surmount the rising Republicans.

All that has changed though. Now she is in a great position to continue the momentum from her past exploits, and push through what we once thought was unattainable. For over a decade, we thought that the issue of universal healthcare was as hopeless as the right for african americans to be viewed as equal under the law was pre1964.

But because of madame Hillary Clinton's selfless sacrifice, today, universal healthcare is no longer seen as a radical, socialist red commie agenda, but as a practical political issue.

I don't recall Obama being around for that.

And yes, her sacrifice was selfless. As First Lady, she didn't have any obligation to do any of that. Take the current First Lady into consideration. Hillary Clinton could have simply rode the wave of her husband's shadow, and she most likely would be viewed as more "favorable" to people today (especially in conservative circles). But because she actually decided to do what was not obligated of her, but on her own initiative tried to change the world we live in today for the betterment of all Americans, she was maliciously attacked by Republicans, and they still continue their campaign of character assassination against her, one that Obama supporters have now taken on.

And that's just in mention of her one of many momentous feats as a politician. That doesn't even come close to recognizing the indispensible support and activism that she's shown to the African-American community, and others that have been marginalized within our society, including her integral support of the State Children's Health Insurance Program which gave otherwise uncovered children healthcare.

I don't recall Obama being around for that.

Here's a condensed list of several other of her accomplishments:

She promoted nationwide immunization against childhood illnesses and encouraged older women to seek a mammogram to detect breast cancer, with coverage provided by Medicare.

I don't recall Obama being around for that.

She successfully sought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and childhood asthma at the National Institutes of Health.

I don't recall Obama being around for that.

The First Lady worked to investigate reports of an illness that affected veterans of the Gulf War, which became known as the Gulf War syndrome.

I don't recall Obama being around for that.

Together with Attorney General Janet Reno, Clinton helped create the Office on Violence Against Women at the Department of Justice.

I don't recall Obama being around for that.

In 1997, she initiated and shepherded the Adoption and Safe Families Act, which she regarded as her greatest accomplishment as First Lady.

I don't recall Obama being around for that.

As First Lady, Clinton hosted numerous White House Conferences, including ones on Child Care (1997), Early Childhood Development and Learning (1997), and Children and Adolescents (2000), and the first-ever White House Conferences on Teenagers (2000) and Philanthropy (1999).

I don't recall Obama being around for that.

Hillary Clinton traveled to 79 countries during this time, breaking the mark for most-travelled First Lady held by Pat Nixon.

I don't recall Obama being around for that.

In a September 1995 speech before the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, Clinton argued very forcefully against practices that abused women around the world and in China itself, declaring "that it is no longer acceptable to discuss women's rights as separate from human rights" and resisting Chinese pressure to soften her remarks.

I don't recall Obama being around for that.

She was one of the most prominent international figures at the time to speak out against the treatment of Afghan women by the Islamist fundamentalist Taliban that had seized control of Afghanistan. She helped create Vital Voices, an international initiative sponsored by the United States to promote the participation of women in the political processes of their countries.

I don't recall..........well, I think you get the point.



She's even shown that even though in the midst of a fierce campaign, she's willing to take time out of it to actually walk the talk, and take part in the State of the Black Union. Obama has proven that campaigning supercedes any actual convictions that he may have for those who support his campaign. Even though he's been touting for the past month that he is the clear frontrunner of the Democratic Party, he will not take the time out of his allegedly "nailed down" campaigning to actually SHOW his support of Democrats, whereas Hillary Clinton did.

You can call that simple politics if you want, but you cannot dismiss that she actually proved that she's willing to support her constituency regardless of the time in which it's asked of her. Campaign time or not, she's always been there for us, and she has always demonstrated that we the people take precedence over that the white house. She truly is the change in this country that we seek, and she truly is the only candidate that has the ability and the will to give it to us.

I don't recall Obama demonstrating that. All we've heard is rhetoric from him, but nothing to show for it except a few votes here and there in the Senate. What a reformer.

Personal opinion, for as it strands now, yes.

With Obama vs McCain, I don't see the wing nuts of the GOP coming out in numbers, they will be demoralized and unhappy. Without the base, I foresee McCain's lead with independents cut by Obama, and Obama walks away with the presidency.

Clinton vs McCain... Much harder to call, I see the GOP base coming out JUST to keep Clinton out of office, even if they don't like McCain, and enough Democrats being upset at Clinton enough to stay home. For the independents, that is where the race will be made and I think it will all depend upon how much Clinton can make the label of Bush: Term 3 stick to McCain as everyone except GOP wing nuts is just sick of him. If she can do that, I think she can win the race, if she can't, I think McCain will pull it off. Call it a repeat of 2004 in terms of closeness and coming down to the wire.

Pretty much I think the Democrats are fired up regardless and the GOP more or less demoralized, the only one who can overcome that would be Sen. Clinton.

So you're saying a vote not for McCain is a vote for terrorists?

I'm saying we should learn enough from history not to vote for Neville Chamberlain twice.

I'm saying we should learn enough from history not to vote for Neville Chamberlain twice.
Quite right. For one thing, he's been dead for nearly seventy years!

that will be outweighed by the number of religious right voters who will refuse to vote for McCain. So the Democrats will win, unless they REALLY screw it up.
Problem there is that those voters love to brag before the election that they'll "never ever vote for <insert name here>" and would "much rather vote for <unpleasant person from history> than <their party's nomination>"
But when push comes to shove, they invariably suck it all in and vote for their man, trotting the same tired, lame old excuse out of "a lesser evil" each time.
So don't count on the religious right helping the Dems any by their current bluster. They'll suck up to McCain when the time comes. They always do. Especially if McCain takes Huckabee on as VP (which is the only reason I can think of as to why Huckabee's still running - he wants that VP job). Religios love Huckabee; by adopting him into his cabinet, McCain's assured of several hundred thousand votes.
If this happens, I can see a distinct possibility of another four years of Bush-inspired clusterfucks.
sigh

I thought you'd never ask :)
snip.
excellent post.
Now if you had been Clinton's press sec over the past few months instead of the KarlRove-clone that is there, I'm sure that Clinton would be overwhelming favourite as both dem-nominee and next president.
Alas, instead of accenting her many strengths, she just went the KarlRove(TM) way of attacking and smearing her opponents and now she's left looking like an angry, bitter loser.

I don't know if that actually works, picking a vice president to balance the ticket. I've never heard anyone say, "I was worried about voting for George Bush, but then I saw Dick Cheney was his running mate," or, "I'm not so sure I want Al Gore for president, but with Joe Lieberman I'll support him."
true. However, in this case it might just work. McCain's got the back up of a lot of religios out there for some reason. They're openly stating they won't vote for him. By offering the VP to the guy this big voting block (for GOP at any rate) overwhelmingly want to see in the Whitehouse, it sends the message that McCain is willing to reach out and listen to them.

Nice post, OWA. Finally someone making a very positive post about Hillary Clinton. Though, you're wrong about Obama not being around. He was, just he was around IL, doing great things. That's why the prospects this election are very exciting.

Nice post, OWA. Finally someone making a very positive post about Hillary Clinton. Though, you're wrong about Obama not being around. He was, just he was around IL, doing great things. That's why the prospects this election are very exciting.

Oh I quite agree with you, and please don't get me wrong, Obama is a great man and I have nothing against him. I think the world of him, I really do, and I do firmly believe that he has done a lot of great things for his consituents, but my point is simply that Hillary Clinton has been able to do great things on a national scale, whereas Obama has been fairly sheltered by local politics.

He is young, and fairly new to our political world, and I believe that he would make an excellent president in about eight years, after Clinton has served her two terms in office. :)

After eight years of the worst president in US history, I don't see how the demopcrats could lose.

I have nothing against Hillary Clinton except for her relentless ambition to win, no matter how immoral her tactics are along the way, and her goal of doing whats best for her first, rather than whats best for the country.

Other than that, I love her.

Check that, other than that, I won't have to turn off the TV to get my blood pressure down whenever she starts to talk

After eight years of the worst president in US history, I don't see how the demopcrats could lose.

They don't have a mainstream voter candidate.

A black or woman doesn't have a chance with general public, especially with all the futile bickering between them.

I sure hope neither win.

They don't have a mainstream voter candidate.

A black or woman doesn't have a chance with general public, especially with all the futile bickering between them.
21st century calling G3N13, come in G3N13. The 1950's are over now. We'd like you to rejoin the rest of the US...

I sure hope neither win.

I'm still wondering how exactly John McCain furthers your utopian vision of mud huts, sharp sticks, and death from disease by 30. Or did you give that up?

I'm still wondering how exactly John McCain furthers your utopian vision of mud huts, sharp sticks, and death from disease by 30. Or did you give that up?

McCain is the least worst remaining candidate.

I thought you'd never ask :)
-snip-

See, why doesn't she just push this? Forget about the whole you're-an-untested-qauntity, the personal attacks and name calling. If she said this, put the focus back on herself, then paradoxically the public wouldn't be finding nearly so many faults with her.

Oh I quite agree with you, and please don't get me wrong, Obama is a great man and I have nothing against him. I think the world of him, I really do, and I do firmly believe that he has done a lot of great things for his consituents, but my point is simply that Hillary Clinton has been able to do great things on a national scale, whereas Obama has been fairly sheltered by local politics.

He is young, and fairly new to our political world, and I believe that he would make an excellent president in about eight years, after Clinton has served her two terms in office. :)

Oh, finally, a Clinton supporter who's being reasonable and charitable! I'm glad to see you, because I don't think I've ever seen you before. (That is, the type of Clinton supporter.)

Of course I disagree with you, but that's okay, because we can disagree in a friendly way. Too bad there are so few others...

Oh I quite agree with you, and please don't get me wrong, Obama is a great man and I have nothing against him. I think the world of him, I really do, and I do firmly believe that he has done a lot of great things for his consituents, but my point is simply that Hillary Clinton has been able to do great things on a national scale, whereas Obama has been fairly sheltered by local politics.

He is young, and fairly new to our political world, and I believe that he would make an excellent president in about eight years, after Clinton has served her two terms in office. :)

I appreciate your ability to debate on an intelligent level. I would like to add that I see what you call a weakness as a strength. It is my opinion that because of his lack of time in Washington he has not become as corrupted by the system as many others. He has a wealth of experience in the state legislature and has cosponsored many bills that have reached across party lines. We don't need a professional Washington insider at this time. What we need is someone who is intelligent, knows how to lead, and is willing to work with the "opposition." America can only become better by working together. It cannot be an us vs. them mentality anymore. Each party has the best interest of the country as their goal. They believe in different ways to achieve it and that's what makes democracy great.

My opinion (from the "Angry White Man!" thread):

Sadly enough, next year, our president will be white, male and republican. There are too many who will vote AGAINST Hillary/Obama due to gender, or race. The dems only hope is that anyone they put up will be perceived as better than Bush, But then again, anyone the Republicans put up will look better to. So, unless the dems find someone else (not happening) or the republicans put up someone really nuts, The republicans will win.

Personally I'm hoping for Obama.

With Obama? Yes they can.

With Clinton? Maybe not.

Go Obama.

If you don't vote for Obama, you'll be labeled a racist.

If you don't vote for Clinton, you'll be labeled a sexist.

If you don't vote for McCain, you'll be labled something else entirely, but that label will be written in Arabic, so it won't matter.
lolz!

I appreciate your ability to debate on an intelligent level. I would like to add that I see what you call a weakness as a strength. It is my opinion that because of his lack of time in Washington he has not become as corrupted by the system as many others. He has a wealth of experience in the state legislature and has cosponsored many bills that have reached across party lines. We don't need a professional Washington insider at this time. What we need is someone who is intelligent, knows how to lead, and is willing to work with the "opposition." America can only become better by working together. It cannot be an us vs. them mentality anymore. Each party has the best interest of the country as their goal. They believe in different ways to achieve it and that's what makes democracy great.

All but complete lack of unity?:confused:
I fail to see what's so great about that.:rolleyes:

They could probably win with either, if they run a semi-decent campaign.

Oh, finally, a Clinton supporter who's being reasonable and charitable! I'm glad to see you, because I don't think I've ever seen you before. (That is, the type of Clinton supporter.)

Of course I disagree with you, but that's okay, because we can disagree in a friendly way. Too bad there are so few others...

When it's all said and done, and the dust has settled, we are all Democrats. That's something a lot of people are forgetting. We can have a difference of opinions, and that's okay. We can be very entrenched in our opinions, and that's okay too. But I'll be damned if I start reverting to pointless name calling and other such detrimental tactics to prove my point of view. We are all Democrats, we are all brothers and sisters, and it's about time we started behaving as such.

if the Democrats nominate Obama, they'll win, but if the democratic nominate Hillary, McCain will win, even by a landslide. Obama needs to win.

I appreciate your ability to debate on an intelligent level. I would like to add that I see what you call a weakness as a strength. It is my opinion that because of his lack of time in Washington he has not become as corrupted by the system as many others. He has a wealth of experience in the state legislature and has cosponsored many bills that have reached across party lines. We don't need a professional Washington insider at this time. What we need is someone who is intelligent, knows how to lead, and is willing to work with the "opposition." America can only become better by working together. It cannot be an us vs. them mentality anymore. Each party has the best interest of the country as their goal. They believe in different ways to achieve it and that's what makes democracy great.

You make a very good point. However, due to Clinton's numerous accomplishments, she is anything but the "old guard of washington politics."

She's proved, not just by words but by actions and accomplishments that she's the reformer that we are so desparately looking for.

Also, if you are a fan of realpolitik, you would appreciate her experience with Washington politics. You see, in order for anything to currently be successfully passed in Washington these days, we need a politician who's savvy with the process. We need someone that knows how to work the system to her advantage, not someone who ultimately has no idea.

As Hillary said, the skies won't suddenly clear up, and celestial choir of angels won't abruptly interrupt our political machine that's been entrenched and inculcated in Washington. It's going to take someone familiar with the intricacies of such a system to break it up, to get the foot in the door and yank it out of the hands of the lobbyists and special interest groups that currently maintain a catatonic chockhold on our government. It's going to take someone like Hillary Clinton.

See, why doesn't she just push this? Forget about the whole you're-an-untested-qauntity, the personal attacks and name calling. If she said this, put the focus back on herself, then paradoxically the public wouldn't be finding nearly so many faults with her.

This is exactly what she did push, and is pushing.

However, if you recall, it's the Obama camp that began the "old guard of washington politics" jabs. He's the one who began to draw differences between himself and Clinton, not by promoting his own accomplishments, but by overshadowing his lack of experience by Clinton's alleged corruption within the system.

And people, or more specifically Obama supporters, have eaten that up. They've forgotten exactly what it is Clinton has done, and anytime she goes to defend herself, she's depicted as a selfish, power seeking bitch.

Whereas when Obama defends himself and makes jabs at Clinton, he's revered as a hero and a reformer.

I don't get that. How can there be so much of a double standard?

I've also noticed this in the media coverage of the two candidates, ESPECIALLY from cnn. The bias in the media is overwhelming, and quite frankly, should be considered sickening to everyone, regardless of your candidate affiliation. I don't want a media with an agenda, I want to know the facts, pure and simple. I'm afraid that's becoming far more rare these days as we approach the era of sensationalism and ratings. However, I digress, that's a complete other topic for another time.

I couldn't disagree more.


I have the suspicion that if Obama is selected, we'll all wake up and realize what a horrible mistake we just made. We'll be putting a candidate that only has a ONE YEAR EXPERIENCE in the Senate up against a Republican candidate who has over twenty years of experience under his belt, not to mention wartime service of the country. When it comes to fighting terrorists, and foreign policy, and even economic policy, McCain will win with every point, because he has experience and accomplishments backing him up.

No one is going to want to place the fate of the nation, especially our national security, in the hands of a "newbie". If Obama is selected, the Democrats will have no hope in November. Period.

Well, McCain is exactly perfect either, I hear he is "lazy" in passing bills.

Anyway, just wait and see, I rather have Obama running for president then Hilliary.

if the Democrats nominate Obama, they'll win, but if the democratic nominate Hillary, McCain will win, even by a landslide. Obama needs to win.

I couldn't disagree more.


I have the suspicion that if Obama is selected, we'll all wake up and realize what a horrible mistake we just made. We'll be putting a candidate that only has a ONE YEAR EXPERIENCE in the Senate up against a Republican candidate who has over twenty years of experience under his belt, not to mention wartime service of the country. When it comes to fighting terrorists, and foreign policy, and even economic policy, McCain will win with every point, because he has experience and accomplishments backing him up.

No one is going to want to place the fate of the nation, especially our national security, in the hands of a "newbie". If Obama is selected, the Democrats will have no hope in November. Period.

I couldn't disagree more.


I have the suspicion that if Obama is selected, we'll all wake up and realize what a horrible mistake we just made. We'll be putting a candidate that only has a ONE YEAR EXPERIENCE in the Senate up against a Republican candidate who has over twenty years of experience under his belt, not to mention wartime service of the country. When it comes to fighting terrorists, and foreign policy, and even economic policy, McCain will win with every point, because he has experience and accomplishments backing him up.

No one is going to want to place the fate of the nation, especially our national security, in the hands of a "newbie". If Obama is selected, the Democrats will have no hope in November. Period.

You work for Hillary.... right?

What you seem to be arguing is that Obama can beat out Hillary despite her constant harping on the issue of experience, but can't do the same to a guy who has all of the dynamic stage presence of Ozzie.

That he can out-campaign the Clinton machine, but not a Republican candidate who is having real issues with getting the most militant wings of his own party on board.

That Americans who so clearly want a change from GW's policies will somehow suddenly bang their heads, get amnesia, and not notice McCain's stated desire to continue along entirely the same path.

That a guy who can motivate the general population to raise more money than anyone else can't put together a better campaign organization than the guy who's campaign went completely broke last year.

And that the clear majority of independants who have fallen into the Obama camp will suddenly change their minds and go with McCain, when they already decided not to in many open primaries in the all-important swing states.

Just one year experience in the Senate? So what! Hell, just being a Senator has been a liability in most elections when running against Governers.

Maybe if Hillary had been ready to campaign from day one, she might be further ahead. But she clearly wasn't. You can take her word on it that she will be ready for the Oval Office on Day One if you like. To me, that line just comes across as the words of an arrogant know-it-all. Day one in the office is spent getting briefed on all the crap that never makes it outside the Oval office that you need to know to do your job. After that you can finish getting ready to make the right decisions.

But hey, that's only if you like to make INFORMED decisions.....which she has a rather spotty track record of taking the time to do.

You're just a little off

10 years of senate experience (8 in state senate 2 in federal) with much aisle crossing bi-partisan solutions. Opposed bills he believed were unconstitutional. Drafted many bills that became law, surpassing collegues. In the 2 years he was in majority in his state senate, he sponsored 780 bills, and 280 of those were signed into law.

100% approval rating from: The League of Conservation Voters , Planned Parenthood. The National Education Association gives him an "A" on their most recent scorecard.

Examples in state senate :

Kidcare (added health insurance for 20,000 Illinois children)

Welfare reform (a bipartisan bill passed in Republican controlled senate, generating major headlines)

Earned income tax credit (tax relief for working poor families)
Also voted to increase the minimum wage (from $5.15 to 6.50)

Death penalty reform. (He supports the death penalty in exceptional circumstances, but wanted all interrogations to be videotaped. Initially viewed as highly controversial, Senator Obama listened to all sides of the debate, incorporated ideas from many individuals, and the result was a bill that passed the Senate 58-0, and was signed into law by a governor who originally opposed Senator Obama's bill.)

The most ambitious campaign finance reform and ethics reform in nearly 25 years, according to good government groups.

He sponsored a bill to investigate racial profiling by police, essentially second guessing police officers. (By incorporating the best ideas from all sides on this and other bills, he even managed to win the endorsement of the state police officers union when he ran for U.S. Senate.)

Obama was opposed to the Iraq war publically, long before the invasion ever happened. Obama gave a 100% accurate assessment that the war would be of an unacceptable undetermined length, undetermined cost, and undetermined objective, and would result in civil war. This is consistant with the assessment that Bush senior and Dick Cheney both gave in the early 90's as to why they didn't invade back then. The country of iraq was only held together by having a ruthless dictator on top. Otherwise the country had zero unity.

Federal senate :

Obama worked with republican senator Lugar to author and implement a program to locate and dismantle stray Russian WMD's including shoulder fired missiles and antipersonnel mines that were left over from the cold war after the disbanding of the USSR. This was sensible, low cost, and actually resulted in an america safer from terrorism. Some terrorists or rogue nation could have gotten those weapons. So don't let anyone tell you Obama isn't effective in the war for security against terrorism.

Senator Democratic leader Harry Reid has designated Barack Obama as the Democrats' point man on ethics, citing three reasons for his selection: whenever Obama walks into a room, everyone stops talking and listens to what he has to say; Obama is known for having unquestionable ethics and integrity.

Perhaps his most impressive accomplishment in the U.S. Senate happened on January 18, 2007. That is when the Senate passed a major ethics/lobbying reform bill. (Senator Obama had voted against a prior ethics reform bill that he said wasn't tough enough.) Newspapers give Senators Obama and Russ Feingold significant credit for insisting that this latest ethics bill included tough measures. Obama risked some political capital to get this bill passed. The bill bans gifts/meals from lobbyists; puts an end to subsidized corporate jets; requires full disclosure of earmarks (who are the earmarks for, and for what purpose); places restrictions on retiring members of Congress going immediately into lobbying; requires lobbyists to disclose bundling of contributions to Congress, candidates or committees

While touring Kuwait, Jordan, Israel, Palestinian territories, he told Palestinian Authority President MahMoud Abbas that US would never recognize Hamas leaders until they renounced mission to eliminate Israel. In Africa, he publicly took an AIDS test to show people in Africa that it was ok and even socially responsible to have an AIDS test.

Senator Obama cosponsored the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act, S-2611, sponsored by John McCain. It passed the Senate on May 25, 2006, by a vote of 62-36. Under this bill, undocumented persons who have been in the country five or more years would only be allowed to stay and apply for citizenship, provided they pay back taxes, learn English and have no serious criminal records. 2 million undocumented persons who have been in the United States for less than two years would be ordered home.

He has also called for increased fuel efficiency standards (3 percent every year for 15 years). He's encouraged use of ethnanol as an alternative fuel.

In his first first year as U.S. Senator, Obama held 39 town hall meetings throughout Illinois, and in senate, sponsored 152 bills and resolutions, and cosponsored 427 more.

All this as a freshman senator.

Background :
Obama worked for $13,000 a year in inner city Chicago helping people. His program registered 150,000 people to vote. When he graduated as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review, he passed up over 600 high money offers at law firms and worked for a civil rights law firm at a fraction of the pay.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/electionproof

Oh yes, and it would be REALLY nice if Hillary would stop repeating her "gosh, you just know I'll be better and different simply because I have a uterus" mantra.

Based on that logic, Ann Coulter would be a terrific candidate.... *shudder*

ONE YEAR EXPERIENCEYes - he just sat on his ass for the other 45 years of his life.
Republican candidate who has over twenty years of experience under his belt, not to mention wartime service of the country. When it comes to fighting terrorists, and foreign policy, and even economic policy, McCain will win with every point, because he has experience and accomplishments backing him up.Fighting terrorism? More like fostering it. Economic policy? Driving the country into debt and a recession. Accomplishments = Iraq War, hundreds of thousands dead, selling out democracy to the Bush administration.

No one is going to want to place the fate of the nation, especially our national security, in the hands of a "newbie". If Obama is selected, the Democrats will have no hope in November. Period.The polls suggest otherwise.

one of the 2 of them will win because of the dismal failure of george bush.

High likelihood, although current polls only show the gap at near 4% for Obama against McCain and a smaller margin of non-victory for Clinton(Real Clear Politics Poll Average (http://www.realclearpolitics.com).) Considering as the effect you are describing (the reputation of George Bush) has already run full circle, this is not an invincible lead.

This said, if I were to bet money on this election, I would probably place it on the Democrat side, but predominantly because of the economic angst of the Midwest, a Republican bastion in 2000 and 2004, whose economic woes have not exactly placed it in a free-market mood for 2008. If the Republicans buckle on economic policy, then they worry about alienating their base, losing the Southwest, which is not in a pro-war mood, and possibly some of the more urban southern states (Florida and Georgia specifically) along with most of their ability to challenge democrat leads in some blue states such as California and Pennsylvania, which tend to be slightly more right-leaning on economic policy then in other areas. This said, there is the chance that they might be able to either mobilize their own base or steal some blue areas, which with these razor-thin leads in the opinion polls is a possibility not totally unreasonable.

I couldn't disagree more.


I have the suspicion that if Obama is selected, we'll all wake up and realize what a horrible mistake we just made. We'll be putting a candidate that only has a ONE YEAR EXPERIENCE in the Senate up against a Republican candidate who has over twenty years of experience under his belt, not to mention wartime service of the country. When it comes to fighting terrorists, and foreign policy, and even economic policy, McCain will win with every point, because he has experience and accomplishments backing him up.

No one is going to want to place the fate of the nation, especially our national security, in the hands of a "newbie". If Obama is selected, the Democrats will have no hope in November. Period.

I guess that is why Obama has an average lead over McCain of 3.2% as of right now?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

Not American, but I suspect like a lot of non-Americans, I really hope Obama wins. The US really needs someone like him to show that they are moving away from the Bush era.

Oh yes, and it would be REALLY nice if Hillary would stop repeating her "gosh, you just know I'll be better and different simply because I have a uterus" mantra.

Based on that logic, Ann Coulter would be a terrific candidate.... *shudder*

That would be assuming that Ann Coulter is a)Human, and b) female.

I couldn't disagree more.


I have the suspicion that if Obama is selected, we'll all wake up and realize what a horrible mistake we just made.
I love how you suggest that all Obama supporters are somehow delusional. That's a great argument, and I hope you push it more and more.