It's time!

[cryptique]

I write off Hillary for one really sad, totally unfair reason: she is absolutely despised by a huge number of people on the "other side" of the political spectrum. Not just disliked, but outright hated. And as has been observed here already, many in her own party are no better than lukewarm about her.

 

If she wins the nomination, she'll have an incredibly tough time getting elected. If she wins the White House, she'll have an even tougher time getting anything done (unless her party also wins large enough majorities in Congress, which could happen, but I'm not counting on it).

 

I don't see much logic or rationality among the Hillary haters, but they've managed to swell their own ranks to the point where Hillary is probably the single most polarizing political figure in the country. I don't think that's her fault -- but it's the situation she finds herself in.

 

Does she have what it takes to be president? I would say yes. Will I vote for her? If she gets the nomination, sure ... but I just don't think she's the best bet for the Democrats this year, because of all the bile the mere mention of her name stirs up among an enormous group of people. It sucks that it has to be that way, but someone like Obama is going to have a much easier time working with Republicans, when he needs to.

 

In the end, my main interest is to defeat the Republican nominee in November. If I thought Hillary was the best way to guarantee that happening, I'd be supporting her. I don't, so I'm not.

[ZenLunatic]

Yeah but the thing that baffles me is that feelings don't negotiate peace in the middle east. Connections, relationships, respect, hard work, experience do. What if we elect Obama because he makes us feel good and it turns out it takes him 2 years to get his bearings? Or it turns out that speeches notwithstanding he's not very good at foreign policy?

 

I am not saying these are inevitables. He could be great. He could hit the ground running and be the best president any of could hope for. But without any existing evidence to back it up, why are so many people so willing to throw the dice, at such a precarious time in our nation's history? Like I said, let's assume for the moment that on an issues-based level, that there's not that big of a difference between Hillary and Obama.

 

Not looking to spur on an 8 page debate on this -- just find the whole thing interesting.

 

We get these feelings for a reason. Feelings that he will get the job done. We need to trust them. We need change and he gives us the best hope for change. It takes risk, I am aware of it and for it. I guess it comes down to what type of person you are.

 

If you wanna play it safe, then Hillary is your person. She is safe, dependable, and predictable. She will not bring the change Obama would bring.

[mountain bed]

You just hit the nail there cryptique.

 

If HC doesn't win tonight she has a problem on her hands. At some point she's going to have to consider (out of desperation) going after Barack with the dirt. Which I'm sure she doesn't really want to do. The Clintons have been well loved by the African-American segment of the voting public for a long time - does she really want to risk alienating them with negative attacks on Obama? That could bite her on the ass in a state like South Carolina, where 50% of the registered voters are black.

[IRememberDBoon]

We get these feelings for a reason. Feelings that he will get the job done. We need to trust them. We need change and he gives us the best hope for change. It takes risk, I am aware of it and for it. I guess it comes down to what type of person you are.

 

If you wanna play it safe, then Hillary is your person. She is safe, dependable, and predictable. She will not bring the change Obama would bring.

 

good lord

[JUDE]

If Hillary gets the nomination, she

[John Smith]

I'm saying you have a short memory. Was Washington free from corporate influence in the 90s? Were there no wars? Was the minimum wage $20 or something? I think 7 years of Bush have led you to believe that we lived in the Garden of Eden before he was sworn into office.

 

 

With all due respect, that is absurd. To suggest only one party is responsible for the mess we are in, when both parties cater to, and are corrupted by the same corporate interests, is an act of intellectual dishonesty or a willful act of self delusion.

 

my .02 on this is that the Republican party had control of everything (still do in a sense) and they were able to enact nearly every policy they had on their wish list. Turns out their theories don't work in practice. Turns out that they are bad at governing. The current state of our country today is nearly all directly the result of republican policy, period. Some will say but but Hillary voted this way,, or Obama voted that way and they will be right but the democrat position or votes for the six years prior to 2007 were irrelevant because of the power grip republicans had on the government.

 

As for today...I went to a tax conference in DC back in October. As part of the conference every year they have a lobbyist come in who has his ear on the hill. He discussed issues for a while then discussed a revenue neutral bill his lobby put forth to congressional leaders that was in line with both parties desires/policies. He told us, without mentioning parties, that the leadership of one party turned down the proposal flat our because they did not want any bills to pass that the other party could politically benefit from. Near the end of his talk he discussed 2008 and next November. Here he talked about how the republican party wants everything on the hill the be a train wreck because they feel that it is their only chance in November. That they need to make congress overall look bad to stain the democrat candidates and to get people generally po'd about congress and their performance. He also predicted many many Bush Vetoes for the same reason. Sad, very sad. If Dboon really has friends who work on the hill he could easily confirm this. So in essence the republican party still has control of both houses of congress by virtue of the powers afforded them as the minority...powers which they wanted to end four years ago but use with abandon today.

 

As to the issue of inexperience annd the mess that the incoming president is going to inherit... whomever is president will only be as good as the advisors around him and that the quality of the presidency is entirely dependant upon how he uses that advice. No one person is going to have the vision, or the skill set to handle every issue that comes their way, or that is already waiting for them when they get there. A lot depends on those people they choose for their cabinet and how well they are working or willing to work with congress.

[Chendizzle]

Fuck the two party system yo.

[John Smith]

Fuck the two party system yo.

 

I would generally agree with that and think it would be great if there were no parties at all, just competing phillosophies and grass roots campaigns. However there is way too much money already sunk into the two major parties and they are too entrenched in government and in the pshyce of our people. Thus they stick around.

[John Smith]

I don't mean to bash Bush but this quote from him on the no child left behind program is priceless...

 

"Look, I recognize some people don't like accountability. In other words, accountability says if you're failing, we're going to expose that and expect you to change. Accountability also says that when you're succeeding you'll get plenty of praise."

[Edie]

I would generally agree with that and think it would be great if there were no parties at all, just competing phillosophies and grass roots campaigns. However there is way too much money already sunk into the two major parties and they are too entrenched in government and in the pshyce of our people. Thus they stick around.

 

Interestingly though, their names stay the same, what the two parties of the last 150 or so years stand for has changed almost 180 degrees. Republicans were the party of Lincoln and Democrats generally were white southerners -- who were all about state's rights.

[Good Old Neon]

my .02 on this is that the Republican party had control of everything (still do in a sense) and they were able to enact nearly every policy they had on their wish list. Turns out their theories don't work in practice. Turns out that they are bad at governing. The current state of our country today is nearly all directly the result of republican policy, period. Some will say but but Hillary voted this way,, or Obama voted that way and they will be right but the democrat position or votes for the six years prior to 2007 were irrelevant because of the power grip republicans had on the government.

 

As for today...I went to a tax conference in DC back in October. As part of the conference every year they have a lobbyist come in who has his ear on the hill. He discussed issues for a while then discussed a revenue neutral bill his lobby put forth to congressional leaders that was in line with both parties desires/policies. He told us, without mentioning parties, that the leadership of one party turned down the proposal flat our because they did not want any bills to pass that the other party could politically benefit from. Near the end of his talk he discussed 2008 and next November. Here he talked about how the republican party wants everything on the hill the be a train wreck because they feel that it is their only chance in November. That they need to make congress overall look bad to stain the democrat candidates and to get people generally po'd about congress and their performance. He also predicted many many Bush Vetoes for the same reason. Sad, very sad. If Dboon really has friends who work on the hill he could easily confirm this. So in essence the republican party still has control of both houses of congress by virtue of the powers afforded them as the minority...powers which they wanted to end four years ago but use with abandon today.

 

As to the issue of inexperience annd the mess that the incoming president is going to inherit... whomever is president will only be as good as the advisors around him and that the quality of the presidency is entirely dependant upon how he uses that advice. No one person is going to have the vision, or the skill set to handle every issue that comes their way, or that is already waiting for them when they get there. A lot depends on those people they choose for their cabinet and how well they are working or willing to work with congress.

 

And therein lies much of the problem with politics nowadays, the democrats and the republicans vote according to party lines, what is good for the party first, in place of what is good for the country. However, if you believe only one party plays that game, well, I really do feel as though you are sadly mistaken.

 

Aside from our standing/reputation in the world, and the laws and policies put in place as a direct result of 9/11, the Patriot Act for example, laws and policies that would not have otherwise passed or perhaps even been conceived of, how drastically different is our government at governing compared to say, Bill Clinton?

 

It could be argued that the Democrats, in their heart of hearts, wanted our adventure in Iraq to fail, as some people have suggested. I don

[willywoody]

Andrew Sullivan made a pretty good case for Obama here:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/obama

thanks for posting that article. it definitely has some food for thought.

[uncle wilco]

as i see it:

 

the republicans abandoned conservative principles with their political victories, which had given them a sense of entitlement. they arrogantly decided to move the political fence to create a bigger political yard for themselves. they worked to attract moderates in a foolish power grab and alienated true conservatives (such as me) from their ranks and caused many to leave the party. what passes as the GOP now is a total joke. republicans sabotaged themselves with greed and corruption.

 

we then get bush spending our money like a teenager with his dad's credit card and a war we had no business starting. we get bigger government and a blind eye turned towards our nations economy.

 

THAT my friends, is NOT conservatism. the conservative philosophy is not to blame. what is to blame for the last 8 years is the ineptness of those running the GOP. but it sure would help if the democrats had a freakin' plan. i'm so pissed off at the GOP, i'll pretty much agree to almost anything but what the Huckabee's and the Romney's of the world have to offer.

 

therefore, Obama is getting my serious consideration. the two party system has long been broken.

[Mr. Heartbreak]

I just wish it was November 5th already, so they could start the next recount.

[Reni]

I don't mean to bash Bush but this quote from him on the no child left behind program is priceless...

 

"Look, I recognize some people don't like accountability. In other words, accountability says if you're failing, we're going to expose that and expect you to change. Accountability also says that when you're succeeding you'll get plenty of praise."

 

I saw that on the news yesterday - he was speaking in Chicago - I think Rahm Emmanuel's head was about to explode.

[uncle wilco]

I just wish it was November 5th already, so they could start the next recount.

any odds yet on which county in florida is gonna screw it up this year?

[Good Old Neon]

I saw that on the news yesterday - he was speaking in Chicago - I think Rahm Emmanuel's head was about to explode.

 

 

You have to love the way in which he delivers these sorts of pronouncements, as if everyone else is, intelligence-wise, on a much lower plane than himself.

[Sir Stewart]

"Ironical"

[Good Old Neon]

any odds yet on which county in florida is gonna screw it up this year?

 

 

The one with the highest per capita contributions to The 700 Club?

 

I keed, I keed, but seriously....

[Mr. Kinsley]

therefore, Obama is getting my serious consideration. the two party system has long been broken.

 

 

Man. I need to get to the eye doctor, 'cuz I thought for a second there you were thinking of voting for Obama. Pretty funny, huh?

[uncle wilco]

The one with the highest per capita contributions to The 700 Club?

 

I keed, I keed, but seriously....

 

ha, ha

 

pat robertson is an a-hole and nobody i respect.

 

 

 

Man. I need to get to the eye doctor, 'cuz I thought for a second there you were thinking of voting for Obama. Pretty funny, huh?

 

no sir, that's the truth.

 

if he gets the nomination and thompson doesn't get the GOP nod (which he won't).

 

obama will be my front-runner.

[ikol]

my .02 on this is that the Republican party had control of everything (still do in a sense) and they were able to enact nearly every policy they had on their wish list.

 

Really? They dismantled nearly every Cabinet Department, ended entitlement programs, replaced the progressive income tax with a flat tax, outlawed abortion, privatized Social Security, and clubbed a baby seal all without my noticing it?

[cryptique]

Really? They dismantled nearly every Cabinet Department, ended entitlement programs, replaced the progressive income tax with a flat tax, outlawed abortion, privatized Social Security, and clubbed a baby seal all without my noticing it?

You forgot to mention stealing lollipops from little girls and kicking puppies.

[Analogman]

Ralph Wiggum Launches '08 Presidential Run

[ikol]

You forgot to mention stealing lollipops from little girls and kicking puppies.

 

No, I actually did that this morning, so we're good on that.