Why care so much about Clinton?

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: 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.

Your confession that you're a nut case doesn't frighten me. That you're obviously whacked will guarantee your marginalized.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: 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.

Your confession that you're a nut case doesn't frighten me. That you're obviously whacked will guarantee your marginalized.

Or could it have been a parody, grasshopper?

 

[piasabird]

Obama or Clinton. Both are lawyers. Lawyer = Liar.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: 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 $$$$ than Obama and his fake $$$$.

I agree with you actually. I don't buy into the Obama hype and there is no way I'm voting for McCain.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: seemingly random
Experience has really helped our current situation, eh?

Remember that when you apply for your next job and they ask you what experience you have. You can tell them, hey, experience doesn't mean crap pal, just look at Bush, amirite or amirite?

Good luck with that.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: seemingly random
Experience has really helped our current situation, eh?

Remember that when you apply for your next job and they ask you what experience you have. You can tell them, hey, experience doesn't mean crap pal, just look at Bush, amirite or amirite?

Good luck with that.

I agree it wouldn't work in the real world. But this is politics. I can't tell you the number of times that supposedly intelligent people have used the phrase "well you think bush is bad, look what {insert appropriate democrat} did".

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: seemingly random
Experience has really helped our current situation, eh?

Remember that when you apply for your next job and they ask you what experience you have. You can tell them, hey, experience doesn't mean crap pal, just look at Bush, amirite or amirite?

Good luck with that.

I agree it wouldn't work in the real world. But this is politics.

utterly

 

[b0mbrman]

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.

Is there any precedence for the length and intensity of this presidential campaign? Both Obama and Clinton have been going at it full steam since last summer in Iowa and New Hampshire.

 

[Toasthead]

Political Parties are stupid. Let all three run...

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: 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.

And all that adds up to becoming the most powerful person in the world?????? :roll:

Let's look at recent Presidents and how much time they have spent in national elected office or as a governor :
Obama would have 4 years in office.
Bush had 6.
Clinton had 12, plus time as Attorney General of Arkansas.
Bush 41 had 12, plus time as Ambassador to the UN and Director of the CIA.
Reagan had 8.
Carter had 4!!!! (Explains a lot)
Ford had 25!
Nixon had 14.
Johnson had 26 <--the winner.
Kennedy had 13.

If elected Obama would be our least experienced President since Eisenhower.

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: 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.

i think Clinton's handling of the election campaign is important because if she is ineffective and makes mistakes running an election campaign, these can all roll over to her administration. From what I've seen and read about her campaign, she underestimated Obama significantly. Overconfidence led her to concentrate too much on winning Super Tuesday that after the results came in her campaign did not have a clear plan on what to do next. They hadn't planned on losing. They expected to win so much that they did not lay the groundwork for Texas until after Super Tuesday.

Plus like Bush, Clinton relies too much on trusted, loyal cronies rather than on effective leadership. Her campaign has looked confused and disoriented at times. She's kept ineffective subordinates far too long and that has hurt her campaign. All these things people should look at in how she can be an effective leader or president.

Exhibiting leadership in running an effective campaign and winning an election does not equate to a good president, but it certainly is a qualification for one and so far Clinton does not appear to have the qualifications.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: 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.

Your confession that you're a nut case doesn't frighten me. That you're obviously whacked will guarantee your marginalized.

Or could it have been a parody, grasshopper?

OK, I've called back the team with nets I sent out to search for you.

 

[m1ldslide1]

Originally posted by: 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.

That about sums it up for me.

 

[Starbuck1975]

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

And look how that turned out...economic prosperity and a strong economy built on smoke and mirrors...first the dot.com bubble and then the housing bubble.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Toasthead
Political Parties are stupid. Let all three run...

There's nothing stopping the loser of the Democratic primary from running as well

 

[Rio Rebel]

I'm still baffled - absolutely BAFFLED - at how the public accepts the idea that Hillary is experienced and Obama is not, because she was the first lady for 8 years.

My wife has been a pharmaceutical scientist all 13 years that we've been married. Does that make me an expert? Would you like to take medicinal advice from me?

It blows me away that the public is buying all this "ready on day one" crap. Okay, I admit it - Hillary knows the layout of the White House. She lived there. She doesn't need the personal tour that you get on day one.

On day two, after Obama gets the tour, they're pretty much starting from the same spot.

 

[nageov3t]

I think -- and I try not to, really -- that the assumption is that Hillary will just drop the old Clinton infrastructure right back into place after the inauguration ceremony.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
I'm still baffled - absolutely BAFFLED - at how the public accepts the idea that Hillary is experienced and Obama is not, because she was the first lady for 8 years.

My wife has been a pharmaceutical scientist all 13 years that we've been married. Does that make me an expert? Would you like to take medicinal advice from me?

It blows me away that the public is buying all this "ready on day one" crap. Okay, I admit it - Hillary knows the layout of the White House. She lived there. She doesn't need the personal tour that you get on day one.

On day two, after Obama gets the tour, they're pretty much starting from the same spot.

Kinda like bush getting elected not once but twice. I could forgive the first time, but the second time really baffles me.

I think it's not much different from some of the products out there that have projected the idea that they can be trusted - "the ___ you can trust". Pure marketing.

 

[nullzero]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: Toasthead
Political Parties are stupid. Let all three run...

There's nothing stopping the loser of the Democratic primary from running as well

Hillary can always go third party.... Clinton Bloomberg 08?

Funny thing is Clinton with Bloomberg might have an actual chance espically if Bloomberg decides to throw in some cash. In the end with a 3 way duke out Mc Cain would walk away the winner with +10% lead.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: nullzero

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: Toasthead
Political Parties are stupid. Let all three run...

There's nothing stopping the loser of the Democratic primary from running as well

Hillary can always go third party.... Clinton Bloomberg 08?

Funny thing is Clinton with Bloomberg might have an actual chance espically if Bloomberg decides to throw in some cash. In the end with a 3 way duke out Mc Cain would walk away the winner with +10% lead.

Clinton won't go third party.

when she loses the election, I think she'll set her sights on a nice chairmanship in the senate or a possible run for governor against Rudy if the current gov decides not to run.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: nullzero

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: Toasthead
Political Parties are stupid. Let all three run...

There's nothing stopping the loser of the Democratic primary from running as well

Hillary can always go third party.... Clinton Bloomberg 08?

Funny thing is Clinton with Bloomberg might have an actual chance espically if Bloomberg decides to throw in some cash. In the end with a 3 way duke out Mc Cain would walk away the winner with +10% lead.

Clinton won't go third party.

when she loses the election, I think she'll set her sights on a nice chairmanship in the senate or a possible run for governor against Rudy if the current gov decides not to run.

Ha, no one would vote for Rudy as governor of NY after all the crap he pulled while running NYC.

 

[kermalou]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

And all that adds up to becoming the most powerful person in the world?????? :roll:

Let's look at recent Presidents and how much time they have spent in national elected office or as a governor :
Obama would have 4 years in office.
Bush had 6.
Clinton had 12, plus time as Attorney General of Arkansas.
Bush 41 had 12, plus time as Ambassador to the UN and Director of the CIA.
Reagan had 8.
Carter had 4!!!! (Explains a lot)
Ford had 25!
Nixon had 14.
Johnson had 26 <--the winner.
Kennedy had 13.

If elected Obama would be our least experienced President since Eisenhower.

But I am all for change, change is good, change is needed.

NOT.

This isn't some rinky dink company to ask for change. This is the GOV'T. I dont think that the change that Obama can bring will be the change that we need. I am Iranian and the thought of even hinting of talking to the Iranians gets my skin crawling. Please, look at the top couple of posts in P&N. Him even suggesting that means a lot to me, a lot more reason to not vote for him.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: kermalou

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

And all that adds up to becoming the most powerful person in the world?????? :roll:

Let's look at recent Presidents and how much time they have spent in national elected office or as a governor :
Obama would have 4 years in office.
Bush had 6.
Clinton had 12, plus time as Attorney General of Arkansas.
Bush 41 had 12, plus time as Ambassador to the UN and Director of the CIA.
Reagan had 8.
Carter had 4!!!! (Explains a lot)
Ford had 25!
Nixon had 14.
Johnson had 26 <--the winner.
Kennedy had 13.

If elected Obama would be our least experienced President since Eisenhower.

But I am all for change, change is good, change is needed.

NOT.

This isn't some rinky dink company to ask for change. This is the GOV'T. I dont think that the change that Obama can bring will be the change that we need. I am Iranian and the thought of even hinting of talking to the Iranians gets my skin crawling. Please, look at the top couple of posts in P&N. Him even suggesting that means a lot to me, a lot more reason to not vote for him.

OMG. You're one of THEM

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
I'm still baffled - absolutely BAFFLED - at how the public accepts the idea that Hillary is experienced and Obama is not, because she was the first lady for 8 years.

My wife has been a pharmaceutical scientist all 13 years that we've been married. Does that make me an expert? Would you like to take medicinal advice from me?

It blows me away that the public is buying all this "ready on day one" crap. Okay, I admit it - Hillary knows the layout of the White House. She lived there. She doesn't need the personal tour that you get on day one.

On day two, after Obama gets the tour, they're pretty much starting from the same spot.

SHe's been next to Bill during a great many decisions, inevitably. This gives her a familiarity that Obama wouldn't have, it definitely does. It doesn't mean she's had 8 years as president, though. In this particular position, she does have more experience, but experience is not the most important thing. Bush has had 7 years of it and he sucks sh*t, so wisdom/intellect are more important in this case.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: 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.

And all that adds up to becoming the most powerful person in the world?????? :roll:

Let's look at recent Presidents and how much time they have spent in national elected office or as a governor :
Obama would have 4 years in office.
Bush had 6.
Clinton had 12, plus time as Attorney General of Arkansas.
Bush 41 had 12, plus time as Ambassador to the UN and Director of the CIA.
Reagan had 8.
Carter had 4!!!! (Explains a lot)
Ford had 25!
Nixon had 14.
Johnson had 26 <--the winner.
Kennedy had 13.

If elected Obama would be our least experienced President since Eisenhower.

Another way of saying "experienced" in this context is "political insider". In my mind, that's exactly what's wrong with Washington today, too many political insiders who've become entrenched in a system of influence peddling and professional partisanship. One of Obama's great strengths is that he's had less time to become tainted by such politics as usual.

I also think people are terribly confused about the role of a leader. A leader's job is not knowing, it's pulling together -- and listening to -- the best and brightest who do know. It's not doing, it's inspiring others to do. The two "most experienced" Presidents on the list, Johnson and Ford, were both mediocre Presidents at best. Bush 43 nominally had experience, but he surrounded himself with like-minded ideologues and rejected anything contradicting his beliefs. Carter was incredibly knowledgeable, but buried himself in detail instead of leading others to do so.

Obama doesn't need tremendous personal experience. He needs the leadership to attract and inspire those who are expert, the open-mindedness to listen to them, and the vision and good judgment to filter the information they provide and use it for the good of America.