I voted for Obama in the primary, but it doesn't matter who I vote for in the general election. (I live in Oklahoma)
This may be true in some cases, but in the case of many others (me included), those opposing Hillary are not opposed to a woman as President -- just that woman.
Several weeks ago, there was a poll on CNN, asking a) Do you think America is ready for a Black President? - 70%+ answered yes b) Do you think America is ready for a Female President? - 60%+ answered yes I am wondering what the result would be, if those people were asked the question "ARE YOU READY ...". Maybe close to 100% people will answer yes due to PC, if the question is asked in person. But if one's asked about opinions of OTHERS, the answer is probably close to their OWN opinions. The presidency thing is exaggerated here, in my opinion. The president doesn't really control economy; it's more about a face of the nation. I believe US president is more important to foreign policy than domestic policy. Why? When he/she says on the international stage are taken seriously as the voice and status of US - the only super power in the world. But domestically, he/she can't get many things done without support from Congress and yes, all kinds of interest groups. What drives America is the system, not perfect, but so-far proven to be a very efficient system. It's never really about a "strong leader" or a "charismatic leader" or even a "dumb leader". Let's be honest here, all dictators are charismatic. Of course, only a few charismatic leaders are dictators, I don't want to offend anyone here. People in those countries without free elections envy US to have a right to have their political opinion matter through their votes. I guess they are really done with "likable" or not thing. But US is now crazily after Charisma. Mao once said to all the youth in China: "The world belongs to you, and it belongs to us, but on the end, it belongs to you." He also told the youth that they are like the rising sun at 7 am. Young people quit school, destroyed everything "old" (culture), went to country side to get themselves re-educated by farmers. Due to disagreements of how to interpret and implement some of Mao's words, some of the young fought against each other, and even killed each other. The saddest part is, they killed each other in the same name - Protecting Mao. Is that what Mao wanted? No. Is that what the country want or the people want? No. Will such things happen in US? I don't think so. Why? Not because I have faith in human beings, but because I have faith in the system. It's trendy to blame everything on special interest groups, but the conflict between different interest groups keeps that dynamic balance. CR is not going to happen in US, not because the leader is strong or charismatic, but because the system keeps that in check. Look at the whole election, how much is it really about issues, or important issues? It's always about how certain words were interpreted. How Kerry was flipping flopping, and he denied of such things. If I was him, I would have come out and say it proudly, yes, I am flipping-flopping for the country and for the people. As a leader, I am supposed to take actions best suited for the country and the people, I don’t have the liberty to be stubborn and hold my own pride to pretend to be determined. How dare you to claim not to change, under the fast-pacing international and domestic environment? We hear all the time how bad Hillary is because she’s so calculated and aggressive. If I was her, I would proudly tell them, you are damn right that I am calculated, calculating for the country and the people. I don’t care about my own fame, what’s important to me is the benefit of the people. And of course I am aggressive, aggressively to fight any injustice and protect the best interest of people. But you will still get some pro-spins and con-spins. Does it really matter to anyone anything, at all? They are all empty words, and just spins. You always hear Obama supporters asking what experience Hillary had he didn’t. Well, it’s not the experience to lead the country, none of them has any, but the experience to fight adversities. Clinton is battle tested, Obama is not. The Clintons dropped a few words, the media and the “public” came out to denounce the Clintons. Is Obama going to rely on CNN and MSNBC against FOX? Last time, a war hero lost the battle, badly. Let me emphasize this, to me, all politicians are the same, same as human beings, none of us is saint. If you dig, you can always find something negative about EVERYONE. If you spin, you can always make something negative a big negative, or even a catastrophic huge deal. Let’s say Obama gets the nomination, be prepared to have Republicans continue with the Recko investigation and spin, and it will be full force instead of just mentioned by the Clintons. Now, I just saw the news that Obama campaign just raised another 7 million after Super Tuesday. The positive spin is how he got overwhelmed support. The negative spin would be, that’s a childish move to continue to oppress Clinton’s campaign with MONEY. It IS a money race, but that perception doesn’t sit well with Liberals claim of “fighting for the middle class” etc. You better hope, that none of the donations came from people on welfare. But I am pretty sure, there will be. Be prepared that it gets very ugly – a candidate hates the old politics that much and promotes change, has the money political machine running with strongest force; a candidate promised to fight for middle class squeezes money out of people on welfare to have expensive ads on Super Bowl. Obama can’t say that to anyone that “you did it too”, because he’s supposed to be the one above all those things. Charisma is like a nice suit, it makes you look good when you put it on, but it is not going to change your life. What’s the difference to me and my family whether Clinton or Obama becomes president? Probably not much, maybe I pay more medical tax under Clinton without enjoying anything, because my employer provides excellent coverage. But I just think everyone should be covered. Is anyone of them going to change policies dealing with Canada or China? I don’t think so. Nobody is going to change China policy, no matter how they promise, republicans or democrats. What if Republicans continue to occupy the White House? I maybe pay less tax, but I don’t think that’s right. Simply because with or without those tax cuts is not going to make or break me, and bigger deficit isn’t going to really affect me either. As for slipping dollar? I am diversified and hedged. Who’s the president of US, does it really matter? Probably it matters to the world perception. Domestically, it all comes down to the people around that president, and interest groups. After all, you still have that system to keep things not running out of control. Kennedy’s remark at the Brandenburg Tor “Ich bin ein Berliner” left fond memories to German people, but did it change lives of German people or US people? No. It was a nice sound bite. So many people so eagerly want CHANGE, you probably won’t get any on the end. Even if you get the change, that’s probably NOT what you expected. PS. A reply to B-Bob, Egal means “whatever” or “doesn’t matter” in German. I tried to use that screen name on other boards, but it was taken, and so was “echt_egal”. But “scheisse-egal” violated forum regulation, so I had to resort to “real_egal”. I want to say that I don’t mind a few personal attacks, as long as it’s not racially offensive, for I have been called different names on other boards. But one name calling upset me a little bit, that I was called a pervert once for someone believed that I pretended to be an “e-Gal”. Thank God, I didn’t register on match.com.
I look at it like this, obama is uniting, hillary is polarizing (through no fault of her own). you're right, the president is the leader and face of the nation, I'd rather have someone the media isn't always attacking behind stupid stuff like his church or something his preacher said. its not that hillary is battle tested, its that she will be bogged down in stupidity. like this thread.
Don't you think these results have a little to do with the candidates that are running? If Al Sharpton were the leading black candidate, don't you think these results would come out much differently?
Almost? I just saw a bunch of Obama supporters march by and bust into somone's house to search for Hillary literature. Luckily the people in the house had hidden it away in a safe house. Just the same the Obama supporters spray pained a big Nasa symbol on the window, to let others know.
Sure, Obama is uniting white females, Latinos and Asians. That is why they overwhelmingly voted for him. Hillary is obviously is a divider because blacks and white male voters dumped her like a trash.
not talking about voters, but if you want to use that as an example, hillary had to loan herself money for her campaign, obama gets more support as this campaign goes on.
I'll try one more time and then I'm giving up. "I get the same feeling. I also get the feeling that a fair number of men simply don't like the idea of a woman being President. Since that is based on personal interactions with people, I can't cut and paste some article or column supporting it (I could do that with some posts here, but I won't), but saying that it doesn't exist or that it is there, but most of the attitude towards Ms. Clinton is because of her "past" is being disingenuous, in my opinion. Sexism exists. It is being exercised against Ms. Clinton, whether one supports her or not. That is simply a fact as far as I'm concerned." Read the post. I'm saying that the belief that most of the attitude towards Ms. Clinton is because of her past isn't true, based on my personal experience talking to people. That saying such a thing is disingenuous. That a great deal of what I hear from people who don't like the woman is because she is a woman running for President. (I'll add this) Further, that a great deal of the animosity towards her is based on the embrace of the BS Rove and company has been aiming at her since Bill was elected in '92 and she was made the front person for their plan of universal healthcare, which millions and millions of dollars were spent defeating and during which she became a pinata for the Right. And that underlying the success of that effort is the inherent sexism in this country that manifests itself towards strong women. Sexism. I see it here all the time and some of those most strongly saying they aren't sexist are being sexist. If a man had done what Ms. Clinton has done during her career, we wouldn't have heard a fraction of this stuff. It is just how it is and has nothing to do with supporting her, or not (I don't), for President. Impeach Bush.
If Deckard doesn't support Clinton it's because he disagrees with her policies. If anyone else doesn't like Clinton it's because s/he is a sexist (lib?)pig. Clear now jo mamma?
Exactly. I assume this statement - "some of those most strongly saying they aren't sexist are being sexist" - is directed at me. If so, it is wholly undeserved and I resent it. I've argued Hillary's merits as a presidential candidate in the past here and I've done so elsewhere. If it weren't for Obama and her Iraq vote, she'd have topped my list going into the primaries. Since the primary season began though she has run a terribly cynical campaign. If Deckard and others insist on saying I and others only feel that way because she's a woman and then basically accuse us of lying about why we feel that way when we present reasoned explanations, there's nothing to be done about that. It's like arguing with Trader Jorge. Hillary's not being criticized for the same old, underhanded, dishonest campaign strategies of the past because she's a woman. She's being criticized because she's doing it against a candidate who actually has the integrity to refuse to respond in kind. I've said it before and I'll say it again: their policies and platforms are virtually identical; their readiness for the job is a wash. In this scenario, their approach to politics and their ability to create a mandate and, by doing so, change the nation and the world in a profound way is how I cast my vote. The above is not open for debate. The campaigns themselves have chosen these approaches strategically with Clinton arguing that she knows best how to beat the Republicans at their own dirty game and suggesting that Obama's unity approach is naive and won't work. Guess what? It is working. And not only with Dems but with Independents, Republicans and new voters. Hillary gambled and lost the bet that Democrats would favor someone who knew how to fight hard for one half the country against the other over someone who favored trying to unite us all. The most ironic thing about the sexism smear, at least where I'm concerned, is that the fact that Hillary's a woman is the ONLY major area in which I prefer her to Obama. I've wanted a woman president my whole life. But not this one. Not when someone like Obama's running the historic campaign he is.
Deckard: I would love it if you felt inspired to respond to the rest of my last post. I concede that those not following the election or HRC's career closely might oppose her for poor reasons and I certainly agree many of them might oppose her due to sexism (though I think most of those people are Republicans). But then there are those of us that have been following that stuff closely. And those of us that have resent a major Dem candidate trying to trick voters about the other one. Hillary and/or Bill have done everything they can to willfully mislead voters and trick them into believing: - That Obama's health care plan will selectively exclude people from coverage (lie) - That Obama supported Reagan's policies and thought only Republicans had "good" ideas (lie) - That Obama had reneged on his opposition to the war (lie) - That both Clintons opposed the war from the start (whopper of a LMAO lie) - That Obama does not strongly favor a woman's right to choose (whopper of a lie) Obama's response? To correct the record and go after Hillary only on true things she actually said or did. Deckard, you're right that the Clintons are not engaging in new levels of dishonest campaigning; they're engaging in the old dishonest campaigning. I don't blame them, given their history, for believing that's the only way to win. But Obama's proving it's not the only way to win and that there is a much better way to win and that that way can engage a solid majority of the country in a way that hasn't happened since (you guessed it) Reagan. I would really like to know your thoughts on all that.
p.s. to anyone who's confused by what Obama means when he calls for change or seeks to characterize his call for change as hollow or wishful thinking, my post above, I believe, accurately explains what he's talking about. The change is one from dishonest politics that divide to honest politics that unite. If it works (and it seems to be on its way) it will result in a Reaganesque mandate for a president with an extremely liberal platform. That is the opposite of rhetoric over substance. It is as substantive as it gets.
