We've gone round and round for weeks now on the hope vs substance debate, etc, etc centered around Obama. For those of you that think Obama falls short, I'd like to hear the argument FOR Hillary rather than simply against Obama. If you say Obama lacks substance, presumably then Hillary doesn't (otherwise, why would this be a knock against him in the primary). What is the substance? (specifics, please) She makes the argument that she's the more experienced candidate and she's a better manager (neither of these are substantive arguments, by the way). What are the facts that support this?
Good grief, Major. I've already said I'm voting for Obama... I just don't think he's Jesus. (anyone can feel free to copy and paste my posts defending Ms. Clinton!) Impeach Bush.
Then you're not my target audience. I'm curious if anyone can defend the notions that Hillary has substance and is a better manager - without using the very vague platitudes that they accuse Obama of using.
there is no argument for hillary. the wife of a disgraced ex-president who was just a two bit corporate lawyer? sure, she's a senator now, but what's she accomplished, other than getting re-elected?
she's right on healthcare. she has shown herself to be pretty politically savy in the senate. she has become a lot more moderate and hence can appeal to the center more on a policy basis. she will have a better crew of people to nominate to positions due to the clinton establishment pull. she's probably more prepared to fight back against the smear campaigns. if its a close election there is absolutely no chance hillary gives up like gore. she has a record of public service. (i can't stand her. but these are credible arguments that can be made)
I'm still undecided, but there are definitely strong points for Hillary. For those who think that the Clinton years were a positive period, Hillary is seen as someone who can return the priorities and policies of the 90s. She also has more first-hand knowledge of how the Presidency actually works, which would help her to actually enact the "change" that everyone's clamoring for. Plus, as Krugman wrote, she actually has a plan for universal healthcare.
This pretty much sums up why she is the best. <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5FvyGydc8no&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5FvyGydc8no&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
But let's break these down: HOW is she right on health care? What has she accomplished in the senate? I agree that's been seen as more moderate - but her policies aren't necessarily so; look at health care for example. Why would she have a "better crew"? Would those same people not be willing to work in an Obama administration? How is she more prepared to fight back? She certainly has been slimed a whole lot over the last 16 years - but it's not like she fought back well. She ended up with 47% of the country completely and totally unwilling to vote for her under any circumstance. That's about as bad you as can get. Agreed about not giving up a close election - but how does that make her a better President? What is the record of public service? She's spent less time as an elected official than Obama. Just to be clear - I'm not trying to tear Hillary down in this thread; I want to see the specifics of the Hillary argument. There's been a lot of Obama-bashing because he uses vague things like "hope". I'm arguing she benefits from vague things like "experience" but there's no substance there either. I'd like to get into a discussion of the specifics.
Certainly that's an argument for her. But she claims not to agree with all the policies of the 90's admin. For example, she's anti-NAFTA which was one of Bill's big achievements. And a lot of the policies of the 90's were the result of losing all of Congress under Bill's watch, and being forced to negotiate moderate policies. As for knowledge of how the Presidency works - what types of things? All these candidates have advisors, so why wouldn't they have that kind of experience? As for Krugman - you can find any number of people defending both plans. Robert Reich argued that Obama's plan was superior to Hillary's. What specifically makes her plan better?
you have to require universal healthcare. otherwise those who don't have it...generally younger healthier people...not only will take away badly needed funding from the system but also will still have the same problem of few catastrophic injuries or disease. also it'll essentially once again force poorer people to not get insurance. im not sure to be honest. look at defense. unfortunately i think so. wesley clark comes to mind. it makes her a better choice for viewpoints that those on the left of republicans prefer. after law school she did post grad work for children. she also worked for a non profit i believe. i think she's also done tons of pro bono at the rose law firm. im not that familiar with it but i think she certainly has a history of public service as well. i assure you i have tons of concerns with hillary. notably defense. but i think these are some qualities of hers that her supports would tout. i being not one of them...don't know the details.
I would not call Bill Clinton a disgraced president. during his presidency we had the best economic time in history of the united states. Had good foreign relations. If he ran again I can guarantee he would win. Hilary on the other hand is too much a war monger for me. Obama has been always against the war another big thing.
How do those poorer people get insurance under the Hillary plan if they can't afford it? Presumably, if you had a mandate, you have a way of enforcing it - what is it? Hillary, for what it's worth, cannot answer that question as of yet. Is it not a concern that the fundamental difference between the two plans is that one has no mandate, and the other has one that has no enforcement mechanism? And that, for all the time and effort she's put into developing a health care proposal, she still cannot answer that question? What about defense? What's different in their two viewpoints that makes her more moderate? Wesley Clark has been talked about as a very real VP possibility for Obama. I don't think he'd have any issues working in an Obama administration. Except moderates (as well as some Republicans) strongly favor Obama. And Republicans are set to vote against Hillary. So while Hillary might be better in a close election, Obama is much more likely to win without it even being close. Every poll and every analyst (left or right) agrees that Obama is a stronger general election candidate than Hillary. Is this any different than Obama being a community organizer and helping strengthen communities? I agree - but I don't think it's much different than Obama's. Understood - I agree that she has a lot of strengths. It's the "don't know the details" part that I'm focused on. For what it's wort,h if you're not one of the people that is screaming that Obama is a hope-mongerer or whatnot, then this wasn't really meant for you. I'm asking those who believe Obama doesn't have enough of a resume to tell me what makes Hillary's resume better. I'd suggest that if you get beyond the platitudes of "experience" and "manager", they have pretty similar credentials underneath.
Let me say that I am going to vote for Obama. My wife is going to vote for Hillary. I have hated Hillary since her vote for the Iraq War. I vowed never to vote for her in a primary, but would never do something so foolish as to not vote for the Dem candidate, though until literally the final hour I decided to not vote Nader in 2000, but to voter for Gore. No regrets like many of my friends. I must say that I have not been that impressed by Obama on the war score either as he all but repudiated his anti-war speech until the polls flipped and it became the majority opinion. I have no doubt he would have voted to "authorize whatever" as Kerry, Edwards, Hillary and virtually every other presidential hopeful did. I hope I am wrong but I view Obama merely as a younger Clinton, (not Jesus) prone to compromise too soon with the conservatives, but hopefully not as cynical and or traumatized by 16 years of slime. I am impressed by the fight Hillary is putting up. She is a fighter and I don't think the fact that the 16 years of the Right Wing slime machine has worked so effectively says differently. Hillary is imho more charismatic than Gore (at least pre 2000 defeat) and Kerry or McCain. Obama blows her away on the charisma factor ,unfortunately for her, and this is often decisive in politics. I will be sad to see Hillary lose as I believe it is her last chance. I feel Obama has other chances, but that is not a reason to vote for Hillary. Being a good Senator is a noble career and Hillary should be even better once it is her sole focus. Bill Clinton is better off going back to his post president career, which he hopefully has not tarnished permanently by his behavior while campaigning for Hillary. Maybe he will be a better ex-president once their presidential days are over. My son tells me that it seems everyone at UT is for Obama, though many are not interested in politics, don't know the issues but like Obama because he is new and the Clintons and all other politicians are crap. At least it is a start. I do remain somewhat afraid of the Bradley factor in that polls might not be accurate wrt to Obama as people hate to admit that they would vote against a black just because of race. But for this factor, he blows away old man McCain who will try his best to scare folks with terrorism and will imitate Bush wrt to this. Wesley Clark or Webb would be a good VP for Obama as they will come at Obama hard on the terrorist scare and fear stuff and the American people might fall for it again.
doesnt she say she wants to garnish our wages to force us to pay for hc? and more than prepared to do her share of smearing. 8 years in the senate. what else? that really doesnt make her much more qualified than obama. she also has a questionable record of private service. her 6 years on the board of directors of wal-mart before her husband became president and enacted trade policies which directly benefited wal-mart and hurt the american worker. i will not any under circumstances vote for hillary clinton. i will not under any circumstances vote for mccain either. however, i could see myself voting for obama if i know that texas is in play for him. otherwise im 3rd party. if you democrats nominate her you will be sorry. here is why i will never vote for hillaroid... she is a warmonger and says bush isnt being hawkish enough on iran she will not commit to having the troops out of iraq by the end of her first term (2013!). that is totally unacceptable. she is pro-amnesty/open borders (like bush) she is pro-gun control (like bush) she supports the north american union, just like her husband supported nafta (like bush) she is anti-free speech and has protesters removed from public events (like bush) she continues to lie about obamas record and her own she says she will garnish our wages for health care she is too tied to corporate america and lobbyists (like bush) she sat on the board of directors for wal-mart for 6 years and her husbands trade policies ended up directly benefiting them, while hurting the american worker. we have had a clinton or bush in the white house since 1980 - is this a democracy or a two family monarchy?
She likes hot peppers "I eat a lot of hot peppers because they keep me healthy and going," Clinton said. "But more importantly I eat them because they remind me of South Texas and being here is so special for me."
Bush pro gun control? Wow, in my head I actually heard that sound that's made when you snatch a vinyl record off of the player.
Hillary does not appear to be afraid to stick up for the often-discriminated-against GLBT community... Tolerance is a plus.
