The Argument FOR Hillary

I somewhat agree and would be curious to see how many Obama supportes would not vote for Clinton if she won the nomination even though here positions are fairly similar to Obama's. Personally I am almost more leery of Obama supporters than Obama himself. I don't fault Obama for the type of campaign he is running as that is the type of campaign he should run given his skills and his history and he is doing a very good job at it. I am more troubled by the almost messianic zeal that is shown by Obama supporters at time and there almost with us or against us attitude they seem to take when Obama is criticized. To be fair much of the criticism of Obama is ridiculous, such as those trying to tie him to terrorists groups or that he is unpatriotic, but as another thread title noted he's not Jesus (and I would say that even if I was a Christian) and has flaws and some serious questions of his own. As I said in my post Hillary Clinton has some huge flaws too but the difference I see is that her flaws are known and she's weathered some very harsh and damning attacks against her and not only rebounded but succeeded. The one thing that should be very obvious to everyone is that Hillary Clinton is tough. I'm not sure the same can be said about Obama.

 

give us a break please. someone criticizes obama, someone defends him, you and other say we're too attached. first of all make a real criticism of him vs. hillary, you can't.

secondly, excuse us for being excited about a politician, the same way alot of people on this board were probably excited about bill.

 

talk about over-zealousness, how many ways can you say people are over excited about the guy. we get it. discuss a real issue.

 

I think we should vote for Hilary or McCain because we haven't had a President who didn't have substance abuse in the last 16 years.

Usually people with past substance abuse problems are more prone to make unwise decisions, as we can see from Lewinsky and Iraq.

 

honestly, I could deal with that. we know he did cocaine, i'm surprised it hasn't been explored more.

I just can't deal with the critque that he gets people excited about politics. agree with him or not, that's a good thing.

 

My time is again limited so I apologize in advance for combining my response to Major and Rox fan trapped in MN (BTW when are we going to get Clutchfans North going again?) with FB but they all hit on some of the same points.

First off policy positions isn't necessarily substance. I can sit around for a few hours or so and come up with several policy positions but that wouldn't make a Rocketsjudoka campaign for president very substantial. As I noted in my post the argument of substance versus style has more to do with understanding how that candidate might actually work to deliver them. I don't hold that Obama has policy positions but that the nature of his campaign and from rhetoric that supporters such as yourself have put forward how important those are and how those might be implemented. You yourself have said those positions don't matter. OK fine if they don't then what exactly are you looking for for Obama to change if his positions don't matter? If they do then how do you see those positions being implemented? Those are important questions to ask when besides healthcare Obama's position while similar are more liberal than Clinton's. The challenge that I've yet to hear articulated is if you are talking about change but also about being a uniter yet have a platform that at the moment is the most liberal how are those things going to happen. Will you sacrifice your platform if it becomes divisive? What if many don't want the kind of change you're offering?

In regard to Hillary Clinton she is offering change to but there is a difference in regard to what we know about Hillary Clinton in that she isn't afraid to be divisive and tough when needed. We also know that she's dealt with a major defeat and known how to bounce back from it and be successful. The difference between Clinton and Obama's career on the national stage is that Hillary pretty much since 1992 has had a target on her back from both Republicans and many of the old Democratic elite and yet has shown an ability to succeed. Obama OTOH has had a fairly charmed political life and hasn't had to endure the negativity that Hillary Clinton faced. Major made a comment comparing Hillary's 2000 Senate campaign to Obama's 2006. While both had the fortune of having their major opponents drop out half way through the election the Republicans in IL conceded the election to Obama by drafting a candidate who didn't bother to campaign and didn't even live in IL. While Lazio wasn't as nearly formidable as Guiliani he still ran an aggressive campaign and NY and national Republicans still poured in a lot of money against Hillary Clinton. As noted in spite of that hostility Hillary still won and in the face of the then Republican leadership threatening to make sure she was the last among the 100 senators has proven to a fairly good senator for NY. Obama never had that sort of negativity facing him coming into the US Senate.

True and I've listed several bills that Hillary Clinton has. As I've said I've never said that Obama is a bad candidate but I believe that Hillary Clinton would be a better choice. As I just said while Obama to his credit has been relatively productive he hasn't had to overcome the type of doubts and hostility Clinton has to not only be productive but also win over Republican Senators who practically admitted to hating her. Also as I noted in my early post while Hillary Clinton has served for 6 more years in the US Senate than Obama her career as a first Lady was unlike any in US history in terms of the amount of involvement that she had. In regard to experience you have a freshman senator vs. a senator who has already won two elections to the US Senate and for practical purposes served as almost a co-president for two terms.

Its a great speech no doubt about it and I've never faulted Obama for giving bad speeches. The problem is that MLK never ran for president and at the risk of getting flamed I will say that MLK wouldn't have made a good president. Speeches are great and the ideal candidate would be one who could combine the rhetoric of Obama with the toughness of Hillary Clinton and the experience of Bill Richardson but that doesn't exist. I have no problem with great rhetoric and agree that we should have more of it but great rhetoric isn't the end all of being a great or even a good president. As I've said before I think the comparison between Obama and JFK is very apt. Where others see a romantic image of a youthful president inspiring the nation with soaring rhetoric I see an inexpeirenced president with little understanding of both geo-politics and congress who got us into one regional war, twice almost got us into a global war, and the only major piece of legislation he passed was a tax cut. Obama might not be that and he might prove to be another Lincoln or at least Ronald Reagan but other than great rhetoric there's nothing that I see that says he will be that. Hillary Clinton OTOH is unlikely to go down in history for delivering the next Gettysburg address but from her history I see someone who's tough under pressure, conniving enough to co opt opponents and who has learned the hard way when to moderate. Not necessarily the makings of a great president but certainly a very competent one and after 8 years of utter incompetance I will take competance over the gamble of either greatness or mediocrity.

 

If you've bothered to read my posts I've raised several real criticisms of him ( his lack of experience 8 years IL Senate, 2 years US, that he has the most liberal positions yet is campaigning as a uniter but hasn't given any sense of how he will implement those) and have dismissed most of the wild eyed rantings against him. FYI for the record I never was excited about Bill (Clinton) and voted against him.

I've asked this before. How is Obama going to implement his platform? How is he going to handle when Republican's filibuster his bills or attach riders to his legislation? How is Obama going to deal with the PRC when he tries to implement protectionist trade legislation or get them to quit devaluing the currency? I would like to hear how the message of change actually translates into results.

 

And how much experience does hillary have? That's a none issue in the context of these two candidates and given her fluctuating positions on supporting bush in his mid east adventures I wouldn't argue she's all that tough.

 

I am not a hardcore Obama supporter, but I'm going to vote in the primary for him and at this point would vote for him in the general election. If Clinton is in the general election, I'll vote Republican or 3rd party.

The 'according to my friends' type argument is pretty poor, but I know a lot of independents, moderate Republicans, and even some Democrats that have said the same thing.

 

I think both Obama and Clinton are excellent candidates. I think in policies they are more the most part centrist or moderate/liberal and they are pragmatic (which I like). I started out neither full supporting either (hoping Gore would come in), but over time I like them both and certainly better than Edwards or Gore (7 years ago version) or Kerry. Also, while not a reason to vote for either, I think it is great either a women or African American man is likely to be our next president. This wouldn’t matter if they were not smart, thoughtful, pragmatic, and tough individuals, who I agreed with on most issues—but they are, and I do—this is just an extra bonus for opening minds and providing role models across a broader spectrum of America.

Case for Hillary....

--has been by all reports collegial in the senate and earned respect across the aisle. (One could argue more than Obama within the senate)

--her team also has much more experience (considering her spouse was a 8 year president who lead an excellent government relative to any others I can think of in the media age).

--she has come off as poised and tough and in tune with a broad spectrum of politics.

--she does have more traditional party support/partisanship--if like Major posits this might be seen by some as an asset.

--it is much less likely skeletons will come out of the closet. What hate and bile hasn’t gone to her and Bill’s way and they are still standing tough and in the thick of American politics. She is pretty inconculated from dirty politics. (So if you thought the Dem rep was a shoe in barring a big scandal hit/ negative racial politics working, and your priority was Dems winning over McCain—I could see going with her)

But here are some reasons why I like Obama better, and without hesitation will vote for him.

--I think he is more strait up on issues in general. (e.g., his direct and bold call out on the scapegoating of immigrants for inner city problems). I find Hillary nuanced about most things, Obama I think is a mix of bold and nuanced, and I like where he is bold.

--I think is personal experience is a bit more worldly (e.g., grew up in various nations and not born into an American elite family/surroundings, started out as a community organizer versus Children's defense fund--the latter is noble sure, but not exactly risky or bold or in the field).

--Not a main reason but side benefit. I think the fact his family is multi ethnic/multi racial is also an extra plus--there is the potential for this generation of young people to grow in leaps about being open minded, have dialogue and become much more progressive and thoughtful in matters of race and culture that his presidency would carry with him.

--I do not think beating McCain is a shoe in and think he is a less partisan figure. Now I don't think it is entirely Hillary's fault--she actually is pretty moderate/pragmatic--but the Clinton name polarizes a lot of folks. No need to rev up a demoralized Social Conservative/Reactionary Right--the collection of political groups I think the greatest threat to American ideals and American progress. If McCain wins I would much rather it happen without owing favors to these groups and the dynamic will be different with her in.

--I think he has better potential with regard to international relations. In the end of the day Clinton did authorize the Iraq war--and she has never really defended her vote well because there isn't really one. Maybe Obama would have voted for it, maybe not. But it isn't outlandish that he wouldn't have, early half of the moderates to liberals in the senate voted "no", it wasn't like just a handful. At the end of the day her name is behind the singular most tragic and negative American foreign policy mistake in at least 40 some years. My children will be at greater risk because of this, and of course have higher taxes too (for less in return). But Obama can lesson this. The bottom line is he can say it was a mistake, that our foreign policy direction has been a mistake, and be a part of a new administration that had nothing to do with it and where America will lead the world better. He has the potential to bring back more cooperation (shared forces, expenses, communication) from other nations--to better mend fences with allies or should be allies, and to better isolate and identity the real outside threats to free industrial nations.

Overall my 1st (think he is bolder/starter talker—e.g., immigration) and last (foreign policy) comments carry the most weight for me, I am behind Obama 99%. Personally more and more I am thinking it needs to be Obama/Hillary or Hillary/Obama. I think without a doubt if Hillary comes out ahead because of superdelegates Obama HAS to be the VP choice. But I am also thinking she might be the best choice for him--particularly if she has solid bounce back and takes 2 of 3 from Tex, Penn and Ohio but just not enough (when before I thought she had way too much baggage and too much concern about the old Clinton guard). No time to be timid now, I can’t think of a better move for the country and the Dem party

Besides, Hillary as VP would also be a hell of an insurance plan/disincentive against some nut-job trying to take him out.

 

Hillary hasn't done drugs and had gay sex in the back of a limo since Wellesley.

 

I thought Huma went to GWU

 

I said that Obama's positions were important, just not the most important.

I think Obama can accomplish a lot of his positions with his ideas of working together. I acknowledge that he will have some fights to get other ideas through, as does Obama.

As for MLK's position, I wasn't saying that it was just a great speech, it got things accomplished. It got legislation passed by inspiring people to act. That's the point I'm making. Without getting people to act we aren't going to see real change. Hillary isn't going to inspire people to act. Obama has a chance to do that. Without MLK's rhetoric we don't have a civil rights voting act at least not for another 10 years.

As an executive we've seen Hillary's campaign, and Obama's campaign. Both are by far their biggest executive undertaking that either have attempted. We see that Obama's campaign has been handled in a more accomplished way than Hillary's.

I also agree that great speeches aren't enough. But Obama's speech answers the criticism far better than I could.

You are correct that we know Hillary's negatives coming into this. I think given that what we know of them she is horrible. She starts out with a celing. It isn't as if everyone hasn't been trying to find Obama's negatives. That is one thing he has going for him as being fairly new to politics. He hasn't developed that many. I mean look at the stuff they are coming at him with now? Nothing of any substance at all. It's amazing.

I guess at least I do understand now, that you believe Obama does have well thought out policy positions. That is what I didn't understand before. I thought you were saying that he was all speeches and no substance.

 

Based on what, Major? Do you have a quote where Ms. Clinton says she enjoys going negative? Show me... I'm interested. You know, the more Obama supporters try to rip Ms. Clinton to shreads, assault her character, demean her decades long service to the Democratic Party, the less inspired I am by Barack Obama. I simply don't see why it is necessary to vilify her in order to support him, and why any hint of criticism of Obama is slammed, as if he doesn't deserve any, or never goes negative himself. He does. He's just subtle about it. Want an example? Obama was asked why he wouldn't debate Ms. Clinton prior to the Wisconsin vote. His response?

Barack Obama dismissed an ad put out by Hillary Rodham Clinton that criticizes him for not agreeing to debate in Wisconsin. He says Mrs. Clinton is engaging in “the same old politics of phony charges and false attacks.” Less than 24 hours after Mrs. Clinton began broadcasting her spot on Wisconsin TV, Mr. Obama’s camp released a response ad emphasizing that there already have been 18 Democratic debates so far, with two more scheduled. One is set for next Thursday in Texas and then another in Ohio (Feb. 26).

(from an Obama ad)

After 18 debates, with two more coming, Hillary says Barack Obama is ducking debates? It’s the same old politics, of phony charges and false attacks.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/obama-ad-responds-to-clinton-debate-attack/


I saw a reporter ask Obama why he wouldn't debate Ms. Clinton in Wisconsin. He responded, "We have another two debates scheduled. If I accepted a debate in Wisconsin, that would make about 20 debates since this process started." (he ignores the fact that they've had almost no debates one on one) "It's more important to have town hall meetings and see the voters. My opponent may not care about doing that, but I think it is important." (that's close to an exact quote)


Obama's clear implication was that Ms. Clinton didn't care about having rallies and town hall meetings, but he did. When he made that statement, CNN had just cut away from a live rally of Ms. Clinton doing just what he said she didn't care about. I found the irony fascinating. Now Obama supporters will say that his statement about Ms. Clinton was nothing, but it was a typical political attack. Nothing wrong with it, but it was no different than what Ms. Clinton has been hammered for doing herself. I just don't like the double standard. If Ms. Clinton has a political attack against Obama, it's the same "old politics, of phony charges and false attacks." If Obama attacks her, he's being new, fresh, and promoting change. Give me a break! He's a savvy politician. I said a couple of weeks ago to FB, when Obama lost the California debate, that if he was smart, he wouldn't debate Clinton if he could help it. Fine, he's not. Just don't pretend he's not being a typical politician by refusing to do so.



Impeach Bush.

 

He is also a smoker. I heard that he tried to quit but I am not sure if he is successful or not.

I lived with people who smokes a lot. I don't think I can vote for a smoker.

 

At least I can say she has the balls to be a female presidential candidates. I think that's harder than being a half-black candidate who grew up in a non-black background.

It is not easy to be a female candidate because democratic election is mostly a popularity contest. Old ladies are not attractive to guys whereas guys at their golden age like Obama will get many girls excited. Also, there is a lot of catfighting among girls, this combine with the hotness of Obama puts Hillary at the losing side among female voters.