Why care so much about Clinton?

[kermalou]

I don't like anyone running for President at the moment. Out of the three, Clinton is my vote. Why?

McCain - Victim of being a Republican at the moment. Bush left a very bitter taste in my mouth. He is a true patriot, been there done that.

Obama - FIRST YEAR SENATOR, no experience (yet).

Clinton - Been there done that like that McCain character, but didn't get shot. Ex Husband was POTUS for 8 years, liked what he did.

Now, all this mudslinging hurts everybody. But, from what is imporatant to me, is way different than the rest of you. Politics is dirty, it all depends on who cleans off better and faster. Obama got screwed because of Rezco, Clinton the Chinese, and McCain for being a republican.

Out of all three people, Clinton to me is who I want to be president. Call me an elitist, but I would rather have her up there with her $$$$ than Obama and his fake $$$$.

 

[rchiu]

Heh who cares if Obama have experience or not. He can talk a good game and having a black person in the White house is gonna be the feel good story of the century.

 

[Brainonska511]

Obama is not a first year senator:

He was elected to the U.S. Senate in November 2004

link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama

And experience? That's just ridiculous. Just completely forget about all the things Obama did as a community organizer, law professor, Illinois State Senator, and the 3 years he's already spent in the U.S. Senate.

 

[kermalou]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511
]

And experience? That's just ridiculous. Just completely forget about all the things Obama did as a community organizer, law professor, Illinois State Senator, and the 3 years he's already spent in the U.S. Senate.

Look he hasn't been out there in the International spotlight. He knows the difference between the Muslims and some other stuff, unlike Bush, but he hasn't really been out there to me.

I would rather have Clinton, who already has lived in the White House and traveled and knows what is expected, than Obama, who barely has done anything like that. Bush messed us up, I know, but putting a black man in there doesn't make up for that. Neither should a woman either. Take race/age/sex out of the equation, Clinton can do it better than either of the other two, in my mind. Go ahead try to change it, please.

That is the beauty of this country to me. Nobody forcing one person to be there, we get an actual choice and can talk about it freely.

 

[seemingly random]

Experience has really helped our current situation, eh?

<-- no horse in this race, altlhough more anti-republican now than I ever believed was possible.

 

[nageov3t]

Obama is the only candidate offering real change.

the the smug storm of self-satisfaction that erupts after his election will wipe Washington, DC off the face of the earth, which is really the best place to start if we want to see any real change.

 

[sunzt]

Obama's biggest weakness isn't experience. Many see his lack of time in the Senate as a good thing.

Obama's biggest weakness is... weakness. He has a lot of trouble just handling all the relatively small problems he's been dealt with so far. I don't think he's prepared to handle all the extreme mudslinging during the general elections. I can't even imagine how he'd fare against any real crisis that a POTUS could face.

Hillary, however, has been thoroughly smeared and been through the political grinder for so long that there's not much worse we can find out about her. I would expect her to handle a real crisis with much more control than Obama.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: sunzt
Obama's biggest weakness isn't experience. Many see his lack of time in the Senate as a good thing.

Obama's biggest weakness is... weakness. He has a lot of trouble just handling all the relatively small problems he's been dealt with so far. I don't think he's prepared to handle all the extreme mudslinging during the general elections. I can't even imagine how he'd fare against any real crisis that a POTUS could face.

Hillary, however, has been thoroughly smeared and been through the political grinder for so long that there's not much worse we can find out about her. I would expect her to handle a real crisis with much more control than Obama.

Who has went from over 20 points down to be the solid frontrunner? I don't see what evidence supports your argument, Obama has weathered all of these gaffes and is still the favorite to win the nomination, if not the presidency.

 

[nageov3t]

Who has went from over 20 points down to be the solid frontrunner?

McCain?

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Who has went from over 20 points down to be the solid frontrunner?

McCain?

McCain's campaign was as bad as Clinton's, fortunately for him he hit rock bottom early and recovered. That is different than starting as a nobody and defeating the "inevitable" Democratic nominee.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: loki8481

Who has went from over 20 points down to be the solid frontrunner?

McCain?

McCain's campaign was as bad as Clinton's, fortunately for him he hit rock bottom early and recovered. That is different than starting as a nobody and defeating the "inevitable" Democratic nominee.

I agree that obama is the way, the truth, and the light, but he hardly started as "nobody."

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: kermalou
Bush left a very bitter taste in my mouth.

I'm sure Hillary voted in favor of a lot of things Bush did that ticked you off. Invasion of Iraq. Patriot Act. Sanctions on Iran. No Child Left Behind. Medicare prescription drug bill.

 

[sunzt]

Originally posted by: Farang
Who has went from over 20 points down to be the solid frontrunner? I don't see what evidence supports your argument, Obama has weathered all of these gaffes and is still the favorite to win the nomination, if not the presidency.

The polls of what other people think doesn't change my opinion about him. Winning the nomination won't change my opinion either.

You can tell the whole rev Wright thing had a huge emotional effect on him, and that is situation is cake compared to what Hillary had to go through as first lady. The fact that the whole "bitter" thing is still floating around shows that he is still vulnerable to weak attacks and he's ineffective at deflecting even the smallest attacks.

When i think of him sometimes, i just can't help but picture the image on board an airplane being tired, exhausted, and burnt out from the rev wright fiasco.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: loki8481

Who has went from over 20 points down to be the solid frontrunner?

McCain?

McCain's campaign was as bad as Clinton's, fortunately for him he hit rock bottom early and recovered. That is different than starting as a nobody and defeating the "inevitable" Democratic nominee.

I agree that obama is the way, the truth, and the light, but he hardly started as "nobody."

Of course he was a nobody. His 2004 convention speech, which is probably what you're referring to when you say he wasn't a nobody, was followed by much praise--but most of it limited to 'future star of the Democratic party' talk that saw any potential presidential aspirations being far into the future, and even then it was just vague speculation for the hell of it because pundits had nothing better to talk about and any 'future star' is inevitably potential presidential material. I think most people, myself included, saw his entry into this race as a means of getting his name solidly in the national spotlight so as not to be forgotten after 2004.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: sunzt

Originally posted by: Farang
Who has went from over 20 points down to be the solid frontrunner? I don't see what evidence supports your argument, Obama has weathered all of these gaffes and is still the favorite to win the nomination, if not the presidency.

The polls of what other people think doesn't change my opinion about him. Winning the nomination won't change my opinion either.

You can tell the whole rev Wright thing had a huge emotional effect on him, and that is situation is cake compared to what Hillary had to go through as first lady. The fact that the whole "bitter" thing is still floating around shows that he is still vulnerable to weak attacks and he's ineffective at deflecting even the smallest attacks.

When i think of him sometimes, i just can't help but picture the image on board an airplane being tired, exhausted, and burnt out from the rev wright fiasco.

You need to define "ineffective" because I see that as meaning he is politically vulnerable, which all evidence shows that he is not (especially in comparison to Clinton). You attempt to reject this argument based your own personal psychological evaluation of the man.

 

[WildHorse]

;;

 

[Moonbeam]

The dog may bark but Obama's caravan marches on. They yap and bark at a tidal wave. Hope please go away. The dead cry as the living march by. "Away your worthless parasites, my blood is my own." WOW

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: scott
I refer you to your local library where you can find some of the detailed explanations by many economic writers, such as Ravi Batra and lots of others.

What great timing - I'm going to my local library tomorrow.

 

[sunzt]

Originally posted by: Farang
You need to define "ineffective" because I see that as meaning he is politically vulnerable, which all evidence shows that he is not (especially in comparison to Clinton). You attempt to reject this argument based your own personal psychological evaluation of the man.

Ineffective meaning he has a harder time handling attacks and fighting back in order to win an election. My opinion is based on my research about him through reading various sources, his own speeches, and how he responds to matters.

I understand his arguments about hope, change, etc, and I really do wish that I could believe them. However, I just can't see him as anything but a glass vase.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: sunzt

Originally posted by: Farang
You need to define "ineffective" because I see that as meaning he is politically vulnerable, which all evidence shows that he is not (especially in comparison to Clinton). You attempt to reject this argument based your own personal psychological evaluation of the man.

Ineffective meaning he has a harder time handling attacks and fighting back in order to win an election. My opinion is based on my research about him through reading various sources, his own speeches, and how he responds to matters.

I understand his arguments about hope, change, etc, and I really do wish that I could believe them. However, I just can't see him as anything but a glass vase.

So your evidence is "various sources" you fail to mention and how he "responds to matters." Since the former is impossible for me to argue against, I will say again that you need to be more specific. Does he need to respond in a way that makes you believe he is psychologically capable of handling attacks, or in a way that means he is politically able to withstand attacks? If it is the latter then he has proved that many times over. He is obviously good at winning elections seeing as how he will soon be the first black man to win the Democratic primary.

 

[kermalou]

Originally posted by: scott

Ex Husband was POTUS for 8 years, liked what he did. -kermalou

People who express that often cite the economy as a slickWillie achievement.

It wasn't Clinton, it was Alan Greenspan.

NOT CLINTON. .

Well, then I give Clinton the credit for letting Greenspan do his job.

As for the Clinton voting on the issues, at least she voted.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: sunzt

Originally posted by: Farang
You need to define "ineffective" because I see that as meaning he is politically vulnerable, which all evidence shows that he is not (especially in comparison to Clinton). You attempt to reject this argument based your own personal psychological evaluation of the man.

Ineffective meaning he has a harder time handling attacks and fighting back in order to win an election. My opinion is based on my research about him through reading various sources, his own speeches, and how he responds to matters.

I understand his arguments about hope, change, etc, and I really do wish that I could believe them. However, I just can't see him as anything but a glass vase.

Probably you are a very insecure person who needs to be in the presence of some powerful authoritarian patriarchal figure to feel safe. Maybe you were raised by your Mother. At any rate, your opinions say much more about you than they say about Obama. Your fears strike me as bizarre and irrational and grounded in no reality I can see. Obama is the most powerful political force in the race and I think he's going to win.

And don't forget. Fear is irrational. Nothing in this world can make the really frightened feel safe.

 

[sunzt]

Originally posted by: Farang
So your evidence is "various sources" you fail to mention and how he "responds to matters." Since the former is impossible for me to argue against, I will say again that you need to be more specific. Does he need to respond in a way that makes you believe he is psychologically capable of handling attacks, or in a way that means he is politically able to withstand attacks? If it is the latter then he has proved that many times over. He is obviously good at winning elections seeing as how he will soon be the first black man to win the Democratic primary.

I wish i could cite various sources, but unfortunately I can't remember all the sources since they were in print, TV, and online, nor do I want to go spend the time finding them all again.

It's not that he hasn't moved on from attacks, it's the fact that many of the attacks were weak and they still lingered on a lot longer than they should have. Those weak attacks also impacted his campaign more than they should have. He could have done a lot better to promptly and effectively address those issues. He could have handled those situations much more effectively and get past them. I am interested to see how he handles the onslaught from the general elections.

I remember reading his campaign's space policy and Hillary's. Not only did Hillary clearly detail a vision, but also gave specific details and steps to achieve the vision. Obama's policy was just a vague vision with no real specifics and in my opinion not offering solutions or attacking the right problems (I am in the space industry and have drafted team proposals to offer a new vision for NASA). That was a few months ago though so things might have changed.

Let's not forgot that being able to win elections doesn't necessarily equate to a good president.

 

[kermalou]

The mudslinging hurts so much. I just read about Obama and laughed:

Barack Obama often boasts he is ?the only candidate who isn?t taking a dime from Washington lobbyists,? yet his fundraising team includes 38 members of law firms that were paid $138 million last year to lobby the federal government, records show.

Those lawyers, including 10 former federal lobbyists, have pledged to raise at least $3.5 million for the Illinois senator?s presidential race. Employees of their firms have given Obama?s campaign $2.26 million, a USA TODAY analysis of campaign-finance data shows.

Thirty-one of the 38 are law firm partners, who typically receive a share of their firms? lobbying fees. At least six of them have some managerial authority over lobbyists.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
And don't forget. Fear is irrational. Nothing in this world can make the really frightened feel safe.

Oh, I don't know. If we were to start bombing iran tomorrow I would feel much safer. We could bomb them on general principles and plus it's hard to pronounce that guy's name. And while we're at, it would be easy to head north to russia cuz you know we haven't heard the last from them and they've got lots of oil. And we have actual pictures of their wmds.