Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: FoBoT
she is evil, he is an "unknown" , i'll take my chances with him vs. the Bush-Clinton-Bush dynasty
over the top ftw. The US survived the ineptitude Bush for the last 8 years, we'll survive and even prosper under an intelligent capable leader, regardless of which one it is.
So you're thinking that an inept president with terrible policy would be worse than an intelligent president with terrible policy? Can't wait to see how that one shakes out.
Their policies are nearly identical, minus healthcare. They voted together 94% of the time in the Senate. If she's evil, so's Obama for agreeing with nearly all of her votes. Unless the difference between good and evil is 6%.
Originally posted by: Vic
If you can accomplish all the same policies, except for the healthcare mandate which has already failed in MA and CA, why pin your hopes on the unpopular candidate with a lower chance chance of even being elected, much less having the political clout and ability (if elected) to get things done?
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: Vic
If you can accomplish all the same policies, except for the healthcare mandate which has already failed in MA and CA, why pin your hopes on the unpopular candidate with a lower chance chance of even being elected, much less having the political clout and ability (if elected) to get things done?
Because I don't think you can accomplish all the same policies as president with the "pretty please" approach. I think sometimes you need to PUSH HARD. From another thread:
A clear eyed Hillary v Obama article (long):
http://nymag.com/news/features/43341/
I found the conclusion pretty accurate:
If you find yourself drawn to the Clinton candidacy, you likely believe that politics is politics, that partisanship isn?t transmutable, that Republicans are for the most part irredeemable. You suspect that talk of transcendence amounts to humming ?Kumbaya? past the graveyard. You believe that progress comes only with a fight, and that Clinton is better equipped than Obama (or maybe anyone) to succeed in the poisonous, fractious environment that Washington is now and ever shall be. You ponder the image of Bill as First Laddie and find yourself smiling, not sighing or shrieking.
If you find yourself swept up in Obamamania, on the other hand, you regard this assessment as sad, defeatist, as a kind of capitulation. You?re perfectly aware that politics is often a dirty business. But you believe it could be a bit cleaner, a bit nobler, a bit more sustaining. You think that paradigm shifts can happen, that the system can be rebooted. Most of all, an attraction to Obama indicates you are, on some level, a romantic. You never had your JFK, your MLK, and you desperately crave one: What you want is to fall in love.
A vote for Clinton, in other words, is a wager rooted in hard-eyed realism. Her upside may be limited, but so is her downside, because although the ceiling on her putative presidency might be low, the floor beneath it is fairly high. A vote for Obama, as the Big Dog said, is indeed a role of the dice. The risks of his hypothetical presidency are higher, but the potential payoff is greater: He could be the next Jack Kennedy?or the next Jimmy Carter. The gamble here entails both the thrill and the terror of letting yourself dream again.
**************
I don't buy the "agent of change", I've heard it before, like, every single election. "Washington's broken and I'm gonna fix it" is the rallying cry every 4 years, and nothing ever changes. I think it's more realistic to say "Washington's broken and I know how to navigate it's crooked corridors." Obama supporters find that sad and defeatist, I find their optimism naive. I respect their vote, for some reason they don't respect mine. I'll support Obama if he gets the nom, but I'm not under the illusion that he'll get some kind of warm reception in DC, or that the aisles will join hands to forward his agenda.
Originally posted by: Vic
If the Democrats make the mistake of nominating Clinton (and I am now certain that they won't), the words of Mel Brooks will echo in my head, "... that evil will always triumph, because good is dumb."
Originally posted by: Vic
Bullsh!t. The Clinton campaign is all about partisan revenge politics. Spin it all you want, the rest of America can see it clear as day. Even your own "PUSH HARD" comment is evidence of that. In the meantime, you're throwing away the opportunity for a sweeping Democratic win in Washington, and deluding yourself that your motive is "hard-eyed realism" and cynicism. That it utter nonsense.
If the Democrats make the mistake of nominating Clinton (and I am now certain that they won't), the words of Mel Brooks will echo in my head, "... that evil will always triumph, because good is dumb."
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: Vic
Bullsh!t. The Clinton campaign is all about partisan revenge politics. Spin it all you want, the rest of America can see it clear as day. Even your own "PUSH HARD" comment is evidence of that. In the meantime, you're throwing away the opportunity for a sweeping Democratic win in Washington, and deluding yourself that your motive is "hard-eyed realism" and cynicism. That it utter nonsense.
If the Democrats make the mistake of nominating Clinton (and I am now certain that they won't), the words of Mel Brooks will echo in my head, "... that evil will always triumph, because good is dumb."
By "rest of America" I assume you are not including the 40% of dems that vote for Hillary? I suppose they don't count as Americans. Obama pushes hope, change and unity as his slogans. Why is it unrealistic to believe that once he gets to DC nothing will change? I find the status quo more probable than some sort of sweeping renaissance of comraderie in Congress.
You state with certainty not only Obama's win over Hillary but a "sweeping win" in November. Now that's naive. I recognize it's gonna be a knock down drag out fight for the nomination first, and the general election will not be kind to whoever it is, nor will any victory be 'sweeping'. Obama is a liberal first in the eyes of 90% of republicans. Don't buy into your own hype like the RPbots, predicting victory at every turn.
Obama's numbers vs the eventual republican nominee have steadily risen along with his rise in popularity for the nom. Is that just a coincidence, or do you think maybe the people who are voting for him are also responding that he'd be the best chance in november?
Bullsh1t? "I'm going to move the country forward together, I'm going to end divisiveness, I'm going to get the Reps to sit at the table and work with us on my agenda..." I look at that and see bullsh!t. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Bush promised exactly the same thing and his supporters were sitting exactly where you are now. History indicates which of our positions smells funny.
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: Vic
If you can accomplish all the same policies, except for the healthcare mandate which has already failed in MA and CA, why pin your hopes on the unpopular candidate with a lower chance chance of even being elected, much less having the political clout and ability (if elected) to get things done?
Because I don't think you can accomplish all the same policies as president with the "pretty please" approach. I think sometimes you need to PUSH HARD. From another thread:
A clear eyed Hillary v Obama article (long):
http://nymag.com/news/features/43341/
I found the conclusion pretty accurate:
If you find yourself drawn to the Clinton candidacy, you likely believe that politics is politics, that partisanship isn?t transmutable, that Republicans are for the most part irredeemable. You suspect that talk of transcendence amounts to humming ?Kumbaya? past the graveyard. You believe that progress comes only with a fight, and that Clinton is better equipped than Obama (or maybe anyone) to succeed in the poisonous, fractious environment that Washington is now and ever shall be. You ponder the image of Bill as First Laddie and find yourself smiling, not sighing or shrieking.
If you find yourself swept up in Obamamania, on the other hand, you regard this assessment as sad, defeatist, as a kind of capitulation. You?re perfectly aware that politics is often a dirty business. But you believe it could be a bit cleaner, a bit nobler, a bit more sustaining. You think that paradigm shifts can happen, that the system can be rebooted. Most of all, an attraction to Obama indicates you are, on some level, a romantic. You never had your JFK, your MLK, and you desperately crave one: What you want is to fall in love.
A vote for Clinton, in other words, is a wager rooted in hard-eyed realism. Her upside may be limited, but so is her downside, because although the ceiling on her putative presidency might be low, the floor beneath it is fairly high. A vote for Obama, as the Big Dog said, is indeed a role of the dice. The risks of his hypothetical presidency are higher, but the potential payoff is greater: He could be the next Jack Kennedy?or the next Jimmy Carter. The gamble here entails both the thrill and the terror of letting yourself dream again.
**************
I don't buy the "agent of change", I've heard it before, like, every single election. "Washington's broken and I'm gonna fix it" is the rallying cry every 4 years, and nothing ever changes. I think it's more realistic to say "Washington's broken and I know how to navigate it's crooked corridors." Obama supporters find that sad and defeatist, I find their optimism naive. I respect their vote, for some reason they don't respect mine. I'll support Obama if he gets the nom, but I'm not under the illusion that he'll get some kind of warm reception in DC, or that the aisles will join hands to forward his agenda.
Originally posted by: Vic
I think your political perspective needs re-adjustment.
40% of the Dems is less than 20% of the population. And that 40% is going to vote Dem whether it's Obama or Clinton. Their votes are, in effect, already counted.
And no matter who the Dems nominate, they will be considered a liberal first in the eyes of 90% of the Republicans. So that's a non-issue. Their votes as well are already counted.
The issue here is who is going to appeal to the middle. The independents and the swing voters. That is where this election will be won. Hillary cannot and will not get those votes. Obama can. And yeah, he's going to do it with that "change" talk you don't like.
Because the agenda here, first and foremost, is to get a progressive Democrat in the White House.
I think the country has moved beyond that. Just look at Bobby Jindal winning in Louisiana, a state with a history of more racial divide than most others.Originally posted by: Robor
I asked him why he wasn't supporting Obama and his response was, as sad as it sounds, he doesn't believe Obama can win the presidency simply because he's not white. I sure hope this country can see beyond both gender and race in November.
speaking of living in a fantasy world....Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: Vic
If you can accomplish all the same policies, except for the healthcare mandate which has already failed in MA and CA, why pin your hopes on the unpopular candidate with a lower chance chance of even being elected, much less having the political clout and ability (if elected) to get things done?
Because I don't think you can accomplish all the same policies as president with the "pretty please" approach. I think sometimes you need to PUSH HARD. From another thread:
A clear eyed Hillary v Obama article (long):
http://nymag.com/news/features/43341/
I found the conclusion pretty accurate:
If you find yourself drawn to the Clinton candidacy, you likely believe that politics is politics, that partisanship isn?t transmutable, that Republicans are for the most part irredeemable. You suspect that talk of transcendence amounts to humming ?Kumbaya? past the graveyard. You believe that progress comes only with a fight, and that Clinton is better equipped than Obama (or maybe anyone) to succeed in the poisonous, fractious environment that Washington is now and ever shall be. You ponder the image of Bill as First Laddie and find yourself smiling, not sighing or shrieking.
If you find yourself swept up in Obamamania, on the other hand, you regard this assessment as sad, defeatist, as a kind of capitulation. You?re perfectly aware that politics is often a dirty business. But you believe it could be a bit cleaner, a bit nobler, a bit more sustaining. You think that paradigm shifts can happen, that the system can be rebooted. Most of all, an attraction to Obama indicates you are, on some level, a romantic. You never had your JFK, your MLK, and you desperately crave one: What you want is to fall in love.
A vote for Clinton, in other words, is a wager rooted in hard-eyed realism. Her upside may be limited, but so is her downside, because although the ceiling on her putative presidency might be low, the floor beneath it is fairly high. A vote for Obama, as the Big Dog said, is indeed a role of the dice. The risks of his hypothetical presidency are higher, but the potential payoff is greater: He could be the next Jack Kennedy?or the next Jimmy Carter. The gamble here entails both the thrill and the terror of letting yourself dream again.
**************
I don't buy the "agent of change", I've heard it before, like, every single election. "Washington's broken and I'm gonna fix it" is the rallying cry every 4 years, and nothing ever changes. I think it's more realistic to say "Washington's broken and I know how to navigate it's crooked corridors." Obama supporters find that sad and defeatist, I find their optimism naive. I respect their vote, for some reason they don't respect mine. I'll support Obama if he gets the nom, but I'm not under the illusion that he'll get some kind of warm reception in DC, or that the aisles will join hands to forward his agenda.
course this assumes the congress doesn't turn red. i don't see a red congress treating obama who is left of clinton with kid gloves. the pay off would probably be nill if the obama voter weren't so delusional and saw the reality of the situation... they seem to be voting in a fantasy where republicans and conservatives don't exist.
as for the poll, oh great, we are predicting nation wide results on 1000~ calls?
give me a break.
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: Vic
I think your political perspective needs re-adjustment.
40% of the Dems is less than 20% of the population. And that 40% is going to vote Dem whether it's Obama or Clinton. Their votes are, in effect, already counted.
And no matter who the Dems nominate, they will be considered a liberal first in the eyes of 90% of the Republicans. So that's a non-issue. Their votes as well are already counted.
The issue here is who is going to appeal to the middle. The independents and the swing voters. That is where this election will be won. Hillary cannot and will not get those votes. Obama can. And yeah, he's going to do it with that "change" talk you don't like.
Because the agenda here, first and foremost, is to get a progressive Democrat in the White House.
I had this talk with my father who is hoping the Dem nomination goes in favor of Clinton. I asked him why he wasn't supporting Obama and his response was, as sad as it sounds, he doesn't believe Obama can win the presidency simply because he's not white. I sure hope this country can see beyond both gender and race in November.
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: Vic
I think your political perspective needs re-adjustment.
40% of the Dems is less than 20% of the population. And that 40% is going to vote Dem whether it's Obama or Clinton. Their votes are, in effect, already counted.
And no matter who the Dems nominate, they will be considered a liberal first in the eyes of 90% of the Republicans. So that's a non-issue. Their votes as well are already counted.
The issue here is who is going to appeal to the middle. The independents and the swing voters. That is where this election will be won. Hillary cannot and will not get those votes. Obama can. And yeah, he's going to do it with that "change" talk you don't like.
Because the agenda here, first and foremost, is to get a progressive Democrat in the White House.
I had this talk with my father who is hoping the Dem nomination goes in favor of Clinton. I asked him why he wasn't supporting Obama and his response was, as sad as it sounds, he doesn't believe Obama can win the presidency simply because he's not white. I sure hope this country can see beyond both gender and race in November.
it goes beyond that. obama is further to the left and frankly thats a huge problem on his credibility on foreign policy issues and defence. he'll be seen as weak, and his position on a time table pull out is probably not going to help him. he doesn't speak to the middle, obama only really speaks to the die hard left.
Originally posted by: sirjonk
No, I'm not saying don't elect Obama, he's my 2nd choice.
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: Vic
I think your political perspective needs re-adjustment.
40% of the Dems is less than 20% of the population. And that 40% is going to vote Dem whether it's Obama or Clinton. Their votes are, in effect, already counted.
And no matter who the Dems nominate, they will be considered a liberal first in the eyes of 90% of the Republicans. So that's a non-issue. Their votes as well are already counted.
The issue here is who is going to appeal to the middle. The independents and the swing voters. That is where this election will be won. Hillary cannot and will not get those votes. Obama can. And yeah, he's going to do it with that "change" talk you don't like.
Because the agenda here, first and foremost, is to get a progressive Democrat in the White House.
I had this talk with my father who is hoping the Dem nomination goes in favor of Clinton. I asked him why he wasn't supporting Obama and his response was, as sad as it sounds, he doesn't believe Obama can win the presidency simply because he's not white. I sure hope this country can see beyond both gender and race in November.
it goes beyond that. obama is further to the left and frankly thats a huge problem on his credibility on foreign policy issues and defence. he'll be seen as weak, and his position on a time table pull out is probably not going to help him. he doesn't speak to the middle, obama only really speaks to the die hard left.
Why is being 'further to the left' automatically weak and a hit on his credibility on foreign policy and defense? I for one welcome a president who is willing to try to use diplomacy instead of war. This country needs to rebuild its image after 8 years of bully Bush and his brash (lack of) foreign policy.
Nope, most people want out NOW; they could give a f**k about Iraq's woes.Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
thats the head in the sand bit with obama supporters. we are in a war, you can't go back and pretend it didn't happen by engineering a pull out. it doesn't matter if it wasn't your fault in the first place, you own it now. trying to rebuild your image by leaving a mess like an irresponsible child is frankly just stupid.
You make no sense. If Obama speaks only to the far left, why are so many independents and Republicans behind him? They are sure not supporting Hillary. Obama speaks to a broad bipartisan mix of people. Hillary speaks only to die hard Democrats.Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
it goes beyond that. obama is further to the left and frankly thats a huge problem on his credibility on foreign policy issues and defence. he'll be seen as weak, and his position on a time table pull out is probably not going to help him. he doesn't speak to the middle, obama only really speaks to the die hard left.
Originally posted by: Ldir
You make no sense. If Obama speaks only to the far left, why are so many independents and Republicans behind him? They are sure not supporting Hillary. Obama speaks to a broad bipartisan mix of people. Hillary speaks only to die hard Democrats.Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
it goes beyond that. obama is further to the left and frankly thats a huge problem on his credibility on foreign policy issues and defence. he'll be seen as weak, and his position on a time table pull out is probably not going to help him. he doesn't speak to the middle, obama only really speaks to the die hard left.
Originally posted by: Ldir
You make no sense. If Obama speaks only to the far left, why are so many independents and Republicans behind him? They are sure not supporting Hillary. Obama speaks to a broad bipartisan mix of people. Hillary speaks only to die hard Democrats.Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
it goes beyond that. obama is further to the left and frankly thats a huge problem on his credibility on foreign policy issues and defence. he'll be seen as weak, and his position on a time table pull out is probably not going to help him. he doesn't speak to the middle, obama only really speaks to the die hard left.
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: Ldir
You make no sense. If Obama speaks only to the far left, why are so many independents and Republicans behind him? They are sure not supporting Hillary. Obama speaks to a broad bipartisan mix of people. Hillary speaks only to die hard Democrats.Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
it goes beyond that. obama is further to the left and frankly thats a huge problem on his credibility on foreign policy issues and defence. he'll be seen as weak, and his position on a time table pull out is probably not going to help him. he doesn't speak to the middle, obama only really speaks to the die hard left.
it's kind of like one of those random election mysteries.
like how Dean got painted as a radical liberal and no one believes John McCain is conservative.
looking purely at his voting record and history, Obama is extremely liberal, and I think there's an argument to be made for the fact that he might lose some centrists/conservative support to McCain if the media takes a hard look at his voting record in the general election.
Originally posted by: rchiu
Originally posted by: Ldir
You make no sense. If Obama speaks only to the far left, why are so many independents and Republicans behind him? They are sure not supporting Hillary. Obama speaks to a broad bipartisan mix of people. Hillary speaks only to die hard Democrats.Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
it goes beyond that. obama is further to the left and frankly thats a huge problem on his credibility on foreign policy issues and defence. he'll be seen as weak, and his position on a time table pull out is probably not going to help him. he doesn't speak to the middle, obama only really speaks to the die hard left.
Naa, obama never talk about his policy, all he does is talk about change and put up a cast full of celebrity like Opera and Steve Wonder. Of course that speaks to a broad mix of people. If he really talk issues and where he stands, he will never please everyone, that's the problem Hillary has.
Originally posted by: Vic
There's no mystery to it at all. In fact, it's obvious as hell. Even diehard conservatives aren't opposed to liberal policies so much as they are to "liberals" personally.