You do realize they are very far apart on their views in regards to many issues. No offense but the feeling I get out of people who say they could support Obama or McCain are more interested in personality than issues. Except that Obama agrees with Clinton on almost all of the issues. Their policy differences are miniscule when compared to McCain or even many other Democrats. I'm sorry if this sounds like I'm picking on you but I do believe the issues matter. Qualifications are very important but what good does it do if you vote for someone who is qualified to be the President yet doesn't agree with any of the issues you support.
Are you kidding? There were tons of attacks on Clinton claiming that her tearing up wasn't genuine and a calculated move. Then there were tons of attacks on her and Bill Clinton claiming they were race baiting in the lead up to the SC primary. To a point though questioning your opponent's experience is part of a substantive campaign especially when you are fairly close on the issues. At the same time I would consider a campaign that has been dominated by vague calls for change and is primarily personality driven to not be substantive. Frankly most of the support that I see for Obama and the opposition to Hillary Clinton is all about their personalities rather than something substantive like considering policy differences.
Or honor, integrity, honesty, etc. Lots of people don't like corrupt politicians, even if they agree with them more on the issues. The Clintons, for all of their positives, have a pretty crappy trackrecord ethics records. The current hiding of information on pardons and finances is beyond ridiculous. (Are we to assume that a $500,000 contribution to the Clinton library was unrelated to a presidential pardon, and that releasing tax information AFTER winning the nomination is perfectly logical?) They have a history of ethical lapses and failures. For some people, that type of stuff matters - it has much more long-term impact on the Presidency than the issues, especially with a Democratic Congress limiting what a GOP President can accomplish.
And I agree that there are definately some ethical questions in Clinton's history but its not John McCain doesn't have some serious ethical lapses in his history either. For that matter the Rezko matter is still being looked inton and even Obama recognizes that ethically that was a boneheaded move to make. As I said before though given what you know about where they stand on the issues are you willing to vote against your issues?
I agree on McCain and Obama - but McCain has, seemingly, learned from his mistakes. And Obama, for all the Rezko ties, has yet to be accused of anything except making a dumbass decision. There's been no suggestion that Rezko got benefits from Obama. That may change, which could very well bring down Obama's campaign, but that's where we are now. The Clintons have a history of this stuff that never stops. The problem there is that they seem to be perfectly OK with being unethical. I think the issue of corruption, especially following 16 years of nonstop ethical issues within the White House, is ridiculously important. Moreso than any harm that McCain could do in the White House on the issues (ignoring the fact that I'm very moderate anyway and probably agree with 70% of the Dem agenda and maybe 30% of the GOP agenda).
I also wanted to add that you are discounting the power of the presidency, for instance consider that even though GW Bush is a lame duck with an opposition Congress you still see a lot of his policies in place. Consider also that Bill Clinton facing a congress that so loathed him they impeached him was still able to get a Supreme Court nominee through. Also the executive branch can do a lot of things even without congress in regard to issue executive directors and making appointments and setting the direction of executive policy. Just consider the difference in enforcement by the Interior Dept, EPA and FCC between the Clinton Admin. and the GW Bush Admin..
All certainly true - and if it was a Bush-like candidate on the other side, I would totally agree. However, I think McCain, in the grand scheme of things, is very moderate. I don't have nearly the same concerns with him on things like the EPA and the like as I do with Bush. The Supreme Ct. thing would be a concern, but I don't think anyone out of the mainstream will replace a left-leaning judge that retires going forward - the Dem Congress knows what's at stake there. I also am of the opinion - maybe wrongly - that a Clinton administration with a Dem Congress will be a repeat of 1992, trying to force through a bunch of crap that results in a severe backlash. Based on those articles I posted recently in the Audacity of Data thread, I sense that Obama, even with a Dem Congress, will seek to find solutions that are at least remotely acceptable to the GOP, and will seek to find more widely supported solutions than what I expect out of Clinton, who I think would be perfectly fine with a 51% acceptance on most issues.
Thank you for this. Ain't no way I would trust Hillary with a Dem congress. With Obama, maybe. McCain would be insurance against giving the Dems too much power.
Not by the so called latte liberals. I remember the questions, but they didn't come from the far left.
Questioning experience is a valid comparison. The manner in which it was done is a different manner. Clinton used the exact same scare tactics as the GOP used in 2006. It was disgusting, and disingenuous then just like when Clinton did it now. Leadership style is also a valid and substantive issue to talk about during a campaign. Obama's campaign is very much about that. It is especially valid when the candidates are so close on policy positions. That is where his change rhetoric comes into play. Furthermore there is a difference, even if you believe his change rhetoric is meaningless in the scheme of a campaign, it still isn't sleazy, underhanded, or damaging to the party in a general election should he lose the nomination.
I really didn't want this to become a bash Hillary thread, but damn she's making it hard. A Q & A with newsweek How can you win the nomination when the math looks so bleak for you? "It doesn't look bleak at all. I have a very close race with Senator Obama. There are elected delegates, caucus delegates and superdelegates, all for different reasons, and they're all equal in their ability to cast their vote for whomever they choose. Even elected and caucus delegates are not required to stay with whomever they are pledged to. This is a very carefully constructed process that goes back years, and we're going to follow the process." ---------- Even elected and caucus delegates are not required to stay with whomever they are pledged to. Is she kidding? We'll be hearing more about this I'm sure!
I also like how she's now splitting elected (primary?) delegates and caucus delegates. That's a new one. Amusing (but in many ways accurate) article on Hillary: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/andrew_sullivan/article3510778.ece I think this the best part: They have been thinking of this moment since they were in college and being a senator or an ex-president or having two terms in the White House are not sufficient to satiate their sense of entitlement. Even if they have to put their own party through a divisive, bitter, possibly fatal death match, they will never give up. Their country, their party . . . none of this matters compared with them. ... The Clintons are comfortable with this polarisation. They need it. Even when running against a fellow Democrat, they instinctively reach for it. Last week, in response to the Obama camp’s request that they release their tax returns, Clinton’s spokesman called Obama a new Ken Starr. For the Clintons, all Democrats who oppose them are . . . Republicans. And all Republicans are evil. And evil means that anything the Clintons do in self-defence is excusable...
I think this might be a matter of a difference in of style. As the Commander in Chief it is a matter of considering who you would trust handling a crisis and I would say it is valid to consider who you would rather have answering the crisis phone. I think something like saying "Al Qaeda will definately attack the US if so and so gets elected" would be beyond the board. As far as it being disingenous I don't see how it is disingenous as I'm sure Clinton and her campaign staff actually believe they she would be better at answering the crisis phone. That is a good point and I don't want to discount style altogether but at the same time if you want substance then more things should be considered than just how a candidate makes you feel. You are only saying that as an Obama supporter as a Clinton supporter or a supporter of any candidate could argue that attacks by primary opponents are damaging as they could win the nomination. Consider for instance if Clinton wins the nomination then all of the attacks on Clinton being leveled by Obama supporters could fatally weaken her chance to winning the presidency. The argument that someone is dividing the party goes both ways. This goes to my point though that I believe that many of the criticism directed at the Clinton campaign has to do with frustration that it is still around and hasn't been steamrolled yet. My own opinion though is that conventional wisdom isn't always right and that a longer fight might actually benefit both campaigns, especially Obama's as it will prepare him better for a tough general election if he prevails.
Thoses are the rules of the Democratic party. You're criticizing Clinton for not taking advantage of those rules. One could argue that Texas having a double vote seems odd and unfair but then again those are the rules too and I see little complaining when the Obama camp exploits oddities of the Democratic nomination process. I'm curious if the math was reversed would you expect Obama to not do the same?
Has anyone EVER done this? Her campaign, just a few weeks ago, said very clearly that they would NOT do anything like this (as did Obama's). Hillary has gone from saying "small/red/caucus states don't matter" to "the voters don't matter". That is what she is suggesting, if her argument is that the pledged delegates don't need to vote the way their voters wanted them to. Legal and ethical are two very different things. The Clintons often seem to be on the wrong side of "ethical" - this is just another in a string of examples.
The whole Superdelegates to me is just r****ded. This was a way for the Democratic party to give elected officials a vote to override the will of the people. If the superdelegates have to vote for their constituents back home, then why not just have the popular vote as the only vote. This whole business of superdelegates being able to change their mind for any reason is troublesome. I don't think Hillary has a choice anymore. She has to step down in order to save the Democratic party.
This is an unprecendented primary campaign so I'm not sure there is historical precedent that applies. As far as her saying what does and doesn't matter I don't see how that can be held against her. Any campaign trying to rally its supporters will seek to minimize defeats and maximize victories. I don't hear Obama saying how bad it is that they lost in TX, CA and NY. As far as what is ethical there is a reason why the Democrats set up their rules to be the way they are in regard to that they considered this type of situation. While you and others might not like it anymore than some might not like the electoral college I wouldn't consider it unethical anymore than someone winning the general election through the electoral college or House of Representatives than vs the popular vote. The pattern I see is Obama supporters getting very upset that Clinton is sticking it out to win. Well this is an election and frankly I don't think a candidate who isn't in it to win is really worth supporting.
