|
|
Post by Atrahasis on Feb 24, 2008 5:23:29 GMT -5
Hillary, hillary, hillary...why can't she do better?
Truth to tell, I rather like Obama, but I don't let that obscure my reasoning that I think Hillary already has more of a presidential learning curve under her belt and would get shit done faster. What the world doesn't need is someone who wastes time learning how to get stuff done when the situation is pretty dire after 8 years of do-nothing under Bush. When it comes down to a choice between two senators and neither of them has actual executive experience, I'll take the conservative approach and pick the one who has something that's close enough.
Hillary's problem is that she's boring and makes uninspired speeches. Obama is just the opposite, but whether he knows how to fix anything is another story entirely. "Words do matter" as they debated last time around, but what I'm not interested in is someone who's made president by a frenzied crowd of young people who usually are willing to eschew experience and knowledge...because they have little of it themselves. Maybe I thought differently when I was younger, but as I've lived life, I've discovered that gambling is for the insane, and the best bet is the one you're more sure you can bank on. If you live by that you will have steady increase in your life and assets, but if you gamble and are dazzled by the razzle, then you will stand to lose.
Pick boring. Pick Hillary! She's not much to look at but she'll get shit done. And she knows her shit. That's all I want in a US president, and that would make me happy.
|
|
|
|
Post by CaptainPierce on Feb 24, 2008 21:17:15 GMT -5
OK, I know anybody who doesn't like Hillary runs the risk of being branded a "Hillary-hater" and their opinions thus discarded--and, sadly, Obama's fans are capable of much the same thing--but, well, let's be honest: I don't like Hillary. At all. Hillary's problems run far beyond being boring and making uninspiring speeches. She accomplished nothing of note as First Lady (not that she should be expected to, until she starts putting that on her resume as job experience. Living in the White House does not make you automatically qualified to be President), and not a hell of a lot as the carpetbagging junior Senator from New York. And at least some of what she has accomplished as Senator is directly against the few things she did as First Lady that I agreed with (specifically, she complained as First Lady that the credit card companies were taking advantage of people, but--as soon as a lot of those New York-based companies had contributed to her campaign--she couldn't wait to vote for their bill making it tougher to declare bankruptcy). Plus, let's not forget that she has never exactly been cleared of suspicion in that whole Whitewater thing, and nobody has ever quite figured out why Vince Foster killed himself... Now, I don't have any particular attachment to Senator Obama, either; but it's worth pointing out that he's got about as much experience as Bill Clinton did back in '92.  (More so on the national scene, quite frankly, since Bill had only been a state governor.) And, honestly, after 8 years of Bush, I could give two shits about "experience." Look at how many people in the Bush Administration had decades of Washington experience, and then look at how far down the toilet the country is now. I could probably vote for Obama, but no way in hell am I pulling that lever for Hillary. And, sadly, Senator McCain has pretty much ruined himself for me, as well. So it may be time to "throw my vote away." Is Lyndon LaRouche still running?  |
|
|
|
Post by Atrahasis on Feb 25, 2008 3:04:40 GMT -5
I agree that anyone is better than Bush except for maybe McCain who wants to continue the war. As for executive experience, true that Bush was a governor, but that doesn't mean that the right person with executive experience won't be able to do the job. I for one believe that running a state before the presidency does in fact help, but it depends on how you ran it; was it a hands-on governorship or one that was surrounded by cronies and vacation time?
Hillary's past doesn't bother me as much as the fact that she initially supported the war and that Obama didn't, so a part of me thinks that Obama could in fact end up pulling off a good presidency should he get elected.
But Obama for me is a gamble. What can I say, better to go with the devil you know?
|
|
|
|
Post by CaptainPierce on Feb 25, 2008 18:26:09 GMT -5
For me personally, I know that devil a little too well. I don't have this memory of 1992 - 2000 as some sort of Clintonian paradise that a lot of people do, and I was never a big fan of either of the Clintons back then. That said, we can all thank God now that Ralph Nader has entered the race. NOT.  |
|
|
|
Post by Atrahasis on Feb 26, 2008 6:31:53 GMT -5
It's too bad for Hillary because whenever she criticizes or lashes out at Obama she can't help but look like a nasty b-. Not that she's not entitled to do it, but it's just her entire presentation goes in such a way that it somehow turns people off. Obama on the other hand seems to be able to get away with attacks against Clinton.
|
|
vipre
Lieutenant
Posts: 40
|
Post by vipre on Feb 26, 2008 10:22:57 GMT -5
Hillary has blown it with me, my reason may be petty it may not. The breaker for me is her two-faced attitude toward Obama. It's not the fact she is two-faced it's that she's blatantly so. She goes on these debates talking about what an honor it is to be sitting next to Obama and how she respects him and yada yada then the moment she's back stumping for votes out comes face two and she starts in with the cheap shots.
Having a leader with multiple faces is a good thing when dealing with foreign nations but she'll never be able to pull it off, people will see that walking mound of fake coming a mile away.
|
|
|
|
Post by Atrahasis on Feb 27, 2008 1:20:43 GMT -5
You've hit the nail on the head...that's what was bothering me about her but I couldn't express it. Two-faced! You don't want that in a mate, certainly not in a president.
|
|
|
|
Post by redsharif on Feb 29, 2008 18:17:09 GMT -5
I really feel sorry for the Democrats this year. Their choices are: A two-faced power-monger, and an untried speech-maker. Of course, our choice (Republican) is pretty meager, as well. McCain's only upside is that he has seen the light on the immigration issue and isn't going to pull out of Iraq with victory...or at least long term stability...within reach.
For the Democrats reading this, be thankful that Hillary will not be your nominee for President. If she did manage to defeat McCain in the general election, she'd be a one term president who got nothing accomplished. Why, you ask? Well, I imagine the Republicans in Congress would dig their heels in against any and all of her proposals. It would be politics at its worst, imo. And the United States needs less partisan bickering and a little more cooperation to get things done.
|
|
vipre
Lieutenant
Posts: 40
|
Post by vipre on Feb 29, 2008 21:16:59 GMT -5
"Cooperation" is a profanity in D.C.
|
|
|
|
Post by Atrahasis on Mar 5, 2008 2:49:45 GMT -5
March 5:
Well whaddya know, Clinton managed to win in Texas and Ohio. I thought Obama had her beat. The Obama machine doesn't seem so unstoppable now.
|
|
vipre
Lieutenant
Posts: 40
|
Post by vipre on Mar 5, 2008 10:04:06 GMT -5
Hillary takes RI, TX & OH while Obama gets VT. Man the Dems just have to do it the hard way don't they. |
|
|
|
Post by Atrahasis on Mar 7, 2008 2:09:26 GMT -5
She seems to slip in "you know" into her sentences just way too often.
"I stood up to, you know, the Chinese government..."
|
|
|
|
Post by redsharif on Mar 9, 2008 14:58:21 GMT -5
Hillary's comeback shouldn't surprise anyone. She and Bill are like the Terminator...just when you think they were blown up by a tanker truck, the Clintons arise from the flames sporting a metallic rictus grin.
As a Republican, I have to chortle with glee that the Democratic party is finally reaping the 'reward' they so richly deserve for championing identity politics. While Obama panders to the African-Americans, Clinton does the same with Hispanic-Americans. These days, thanks to the Democratic party, it isn't enough to be plain, old American. Everyone needs a hyphen. Now, these ethnicities regard one another with suspicion, if not outright bigotry.
Obama does not transcend race, and Hillary does not transcend gender. In spite of all the rhetoric about bringing hope and change to American politics, these two are in a race to the bottom in order to prove their 'victimization', based on race or gender. This isn't conducive to hope. It's just another chapter in the political business-as-usual handbook.
|
|
|
|
Post by CaptainPierce on Mar 11, 2008 18:56:37 GMT -5
Obama doesn't transcend race? He won the Iowa caucuses, and I can tell you as an Iowan that we are a pretty white state. |
|
|
|
Post by redsharif on Mar 11, 2008 21:50:20 GMT -5
No, he doesn't.
His base is African-Americans, well educated liberal elitists, and college kids who have been mesmerized by his empty rhetoric. I think if you look at the demographics of his supporters in Iowa, this view will be borne out. Caucausians of lower economic strata, older voters, women, and Hispanic Americans are more likely to support Hillary.
|
|
Hey buds, join 4shared now!
(More so on the national scene, quite frankly, since Bill had only been a state governor.) And, honestly, after 8 years of Bush, I could give two shits about "experience." Look at how many people in the Bush Administration had decades of Washington experience, and then look at how far down the toilet the country is now. 
