Let me first state that I am a conservative economist and moderate social issue voter. I probably associate myself more with libertarian beliefs socially than the "new" Republican beliefs despite my own Baptist faith. With that said, I've been paying a great deal of attention the Democratic campaigns as I feel they are likely to sit in the Oval Office next year. One thing is puzzling me. Hillary Clinton has been painted by most conservatives and by a lot of independents as the devil. Her socialist leanings scare the dickens out of a lot of voters. Yet those same voters swoon for Obama. The anti-Hillary Clinton crowd has managed to paint Obama as somehow being the OPPOSITE of Hillary. This baffles me. I admit that I'm still learning about each candidate, but are they really that different in their beliefs? It seems to me that the only difference between them is that Hillary openly runs on those beliefs while Obama runs on the idealism of hope and change. But politically, aren't they both the same? If someone could help me sort this out I'd appreciate it.
I think it has a lot to do with her attitude rather than what she stands for on issues. People think she is cold calculating and Obama as a warm understanding person. I guess many people believe she talks down to them instead of talking to them. Oh factoring in she is a Clinton as well, which is worse than devil for many Republicans, but they would embrace G W, go figures. Personally, I have no problem with either her or Obama.
Carter's biggest problem is he doesn't realize a president's biggest task is how to successfully delegate responsiblities to "competent" people under him rather than trying to solve everything himself.
Its definitely more about attitude and appearance than anything else. When you ask an Obama supporter what do they like about him, he/she will say the "Change" word. Then you ask change to what? A lot of them wouldn't have the slightest clue.
change from divisive politics. rather that's real or not is another story, but I think most obama supporters will tell you that. its been repeated by several posters in this thread. the only reason that you think supporters don't have an answer is because you don't want to hear an answer because you've already made up your mind that there is no substance in him or his support. so you will ignore anything that proves you wrong.
To me at least a leader's most important quality should be competence, I really don't care how he/she do it, just get the things done. I love the famous saying by Deng Xiaoping "white cat, black cat, as long as it can catch the mice, it is a good cat".
I've noticed it too. I see Obama is being more liberal than Clinton, so attacking Clinton for leaning too far left is strange. I see the race generationally. Clinton is marketing herself as the baby-boomer candidate, while Obama is more of a Gen X candidate. This primary is a litmus test of hegemony between the two generations. Maybe if Obama wins we won't have to hear about all the sex people had in the '60s anymore. A guest analyst on NPR yesterday was saying every Democratic primary is the same: a Starbucks constituency vs a Walmart constituency, with the latter one always winning. Clinton is the Walmart candidate here. The analyst sees the only difference this time is that Obama is black. I thought it was an interesting way to look at it.
Change from divisive politics? doesn't every politician say that, what does that exactly mean? I am having trouble understanding how is that different than others, can you explain?
did the democrats win this past november on change or standing up to republicans? do republicans who are strong on crime, against abortion and entitlements talk about working with people?
concerning politics; i think its fair to say that hillary is more socialist than obama as for obama being the "opposite"...thats more of a statement about their character than their politics
You still didn't answer my question, what is Obama going to change? Divisive politics? the democrats won in November, that didn't change a thing.
The way I choose who gets my vote is opposite of most people. Most people vote with their gut. They vote for who is most likeable and conforms mostly to their ideals. I'm more pragmatic than that and I want my president to be so also. I know there is no utopia and everything is about balance and compromise. You always two sides of everything and you can't get everything you want. If you want something, you have to give up something. I think Hillary understands this much like Bill did. Bill knew the biggest problem was the deficit so he had to give up some of his pet projects to address the problem. I think Hillary will do the same since she has a record of working with the people on the other side to tackle issues. I think she will address the war without just yanking the millitary out which probably be the biggest mistake we could make. I think she will tackle health care problems without just taxing everyone to death. To tell you the truth, I want a president who is politically calculating. I want a president who can give a little to get the results that really matter. The only complaint I have about Hillary is she doesn't inspire like Obama or Bill did.
Did you talk to every single Obama follower to know that? And maybe you know what is Obama planning "change"?
It's pretty simple, really. Most politicians have platforms and their goal is win the support to implement their vision over the objection of other viewpoints. For example, the Clinton health care plan or the Bush tax cuts - it's an "opponents be damned" philosophy and it's one that's really been the tone of politics the last 8 years. When the GOP was in charge, they marginalized the Dems far more than historically has been the case. So when Dems took control in 1996, they did the same. The result is that both parties are completely obstructionary to the other and nothing gets accomplished. The Obama philosophy, in theory, is more the approach from the late 1990's. Consider completely opposive viewpoints (his starts from fairly far left) and develop compromise legislation that addresses the major concerns of major parties & players. The result is that you actually get things accomplished instead of yelling about the need for health care now, and then 4 years now, yelling about the same damn thing because no one could accomplish anything. The funny thing is that his "change" is essentially to go back to the Clinton/Gingrinch years minus the partisan bickering. For all their hatred of each other, they functionally knew how to work together. Look also for example at the Dem congress and Reagan - Reagan managed huge tax cuts with a much more liberal Democratic Party back then because they ultimately knew how to how to work together. That would never work in today's environment - the legislation would be dead on arrival. It's also that he's trying to bring about a change to a time when people actually believed in politics. It happens every 20-30 years where people get excited about their country again. It happened with JFK and Reagan for example. It sucks in a new generation of voters and such. All indications are that, while Dems have been trying to get young people involved since forever, this is the first campaign that's actually successfully done it. It's very difficult to get disillusioned people and bring them into the process. That in itself has value and changes the way campaigns work. You've seen it in just the last few weeks when all the traditional assumptions about money and who would win and negative campaigning are all being seriously challenged.
Did you? If not, you shouldn't make such an ignorant generalization. You didn't say "if you talk to an Obama supporter, they might say this". You say they "will". If you don't like getting called out for ignorant statements, don't make them.
