- This topic is empty.
January 8, 2008 at 11:35 pm #586220
I think that Senator Hillary Clinton would make a wonderful president of the US. I think she’s smart, organized, experienced and forthright. I agree with her positions on issues and I believe she has a good plan for turning our country around. Also, I would love to see a woman in the Oval Office. So why am I still undecided and flirting with Obama? I worry that if she’s the democratic candidate we could end up with another four years of a Republican presidency. So, Hill-raisers and Hill-haters out there, let’s start talking. I’m curious as to your real opinions regarding Sen. Clinton.January 9, 2008 at 12:19 am #613683
I’m just this side of being inspired by the notion of Obama being president. Fresh ideas, not too many ties to the “old school,” and a following which could help turn the country back to where it ought to be. I’m holding off having any hopes since the process is still so fluid – but….
put me down as a closet Obama fan. Richardson would be a good running mate for anyone. Hillary, yes, I believe her but also think if the momentum holds, Obama would be a better president for change. Just my gut, no logic here.January 9, 2008 at 1:52 am #613684
I caucused for Edwards last time and will caucus for him this time, too.
I like Obama, but I am less impressed with his rhetoric and emotional appeal than others seem to be (I’m pragmatic and skeptical. I want concrete plans for things like health care reform, voting records that support progressive causes, etc.)
Hillary engenders hatred in a lot of people. I don’t really understand why, and I don’t hate her myself. But for this reason alone, I do not want her to be our nominee, because I think it’s imperative that we win–and protect the country from further damage by the right wingers. Beyond that, personally, she is too conservative for me.January 9, 2008 at 3:42 am #613685
I like Hillary. I don’t like some of her voting record or her current triangulation . I liked Bill but I recognized the terrible future that both NAFTA and the various deregulation bills would bring.
I don’t trust her judgment, and her top advisor has lied to me face to face concerning touch screen voting.
Other than that I am undecided :)
Edwards is not the orator that Obama is but he understands the difference between health care and health insurance.
I also hope that Obama understands that Bipartisanship means different things to Republicans and to Democrats. Some Democrats still think it means compromise, while Republicans have redefined it to mean “Stand aside plebeians! I am on imperial business” (Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem!)
However, if any of the three are the nominee, I will work my ass off to get them elected since they are all far more likely to “First, do no harm” than any of the Republican gang.
“The way to make money is to start your own religion.” [L. Ron Hubbard, 1954]January 9, 2008 at 9:14 am #613686
I have just one thing to say:
Glad about Tuesday night’s results mostly because they ran counter to the polls.
My second-to-last boss in the TV business was a very wise man who decreed that we would not cover polls in our newscasts – the horse race was meaningless, he declared, just takes us away from the issues. As the political-coverage manager, I completely agreed with him, and despair as I listen to so much “conventional media” spend so much time on polls. But tonight it was sweet to know that the polls were wrong … because that might force some of my former “old media” colleagues to stop putting quite so much of the spotlight onto them. Talk about facts, talk about crowd sizes at rallies, talk about vote counts, but polls? Methodologies are fallible. Among other problems.January 9, 2008 at 10:36 am #613687
I agree with Credmond on Obama.
#2 Edwards (definitely being left out of the media discussion)
#3 Clinton ( I don’t dislike her, I think she’s smart as a whip, I just think she’s following the centrist path and I personally think she’s too compromising)January 10, 2008 at 5:37 pm #613688
Just a note from the 34th district meeting last night. A speaker for Hillary was greeted with 3 people applauding loudly followed by a room full of laughter by the other 100+ people in the room when the anemic smattering was recognized for what it signified.
These are all people who will be out dorbelling for her in the rain if she is the nominee, but also the same people who are the most informed and attuned to the details and process of election year politics and the relative strengths and weakmnesses of primary candidates.
We’ve arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.
— Carl SaganJanuary 10, 2008 at 7:39 pm #613689
Another note from the 34th district meeting last night: the speaker for Edwards was greeted with cheering and wild applause from most of the 100+ people there. There was no speaker for Obama.January 11, 2008 at 9:35 pm #613690
My biggest concern with Obama is his relatively weak environmental agenda; I suppose it’s his midwest ties, but he leans far too heavily on biofuels. We need them in the mix, but as a bridge technology.
Edwards appears the strongest in both environment and healthcare of the candidates the press has decided remain to us. (lowmanbeach, I wish your second-to-last boss were in charge now…)
I’m disappointed in Clinton’s very conservative thinking…but she’s certainly better than the status quo.January 12, 2008 at 12:39 am #613691
My main concern with Edwards is fear that what happened to Bill Clinton might happen to him. Clinton ran on a progressive platform but once elected fell prey to advisers who pulled him aside and said “this is how it’s going to be”. B.C. was a corporatist who gave us NAFTA, and flushed the dollar down the toilet. Sure, the Iraq war is sucking the juices out of us, but Wal-Mart used to sell Made in America and NAFTA gave them and others the green light to basically take our manufacturing jobs and hand them to Asia.
Hillary is more of the same, and will compromise too much. We can’t afford her. She is lying when she says she will bring change.
Obama has his heart in a good place but Kucinich is the man who knows exactly the right answer to every question you can possibly think to ask. He alone exhibits the intelligence and temerity I look for in a leader.
I dare anyone to challenge Kucinich on any question, and compare him to any candidate! Issue after issue, Dennis Kucinich amazes me with his intricate knowledge of not just the problems, but well-thought-out solutions!
I’m sorry Edwards is considered more electable, and I like the guy a lot but regrettably the only person I can vote for is Kucinich. Until the end. I will write him in, unless he is chosen as the V.P.January 12, 2008 at 12:40 am #613692January 13, 2008 at 5:45 am #613693
I just wonder which country she would try to bomb first. She can’t seem to wipe the blood of innocent women and children in Iraq off of her hands right now.
Anyone stupid enough to give a guy like Bush any kind of authority to go to war needs their head, heart, and soul(if they have one)thouroughly examined. That goes for all the candidates who voted for the Iraq Occupation.
I’m just a regular citizen and I knew bush and co. were lying through their teeth just by looking at them speak.January 21, 2008 at 3:29 am #613694
it’s hard, isn’t it.
I remember Kennedy’s campaign and in spite of his charisma, how difficult that first hurdle of catholicism was to jump… and the difference between the campaign promises and the reality of his presidency. That’s the process, isn’t it.
And now we have two candidates who would each topple further barriers… Obama and Clinton. Obama is charismatic… we want to like like him, We want him to succeed.
I just keep remembering that is why we had 4 more years of Bush, not because America liked what he had done, but because at least half of America liked what he told us he wanted to do. They wanted him to succeed.
Hilary isn’t so charismatic… no matter how much her policy wonks tweak her image. She is centrist, but unlike her husband, she presumably will have a congress that will back her instead of fighting every step of the way. And i think she is pragmatic which helps. She will have to fight to succeed and that can’t be a bad thing.
On the other side, we know that incredible amounts of money and political pressure will be brought to defeat her. And we know she is far more militant than most democrats are comfortable with. she is too militant for me.
Edwards has a great message, but he also has a wife battling breast cancer and a family to raise. Even if they are able to work around those issues, it will create a ton of stress and distraction that will make the job of president more difficult.
Kucinich is every idealistic thinking democrat’s dream… but like most intellectual presidential hopefuls, not likely to get elected in today’s media market.
So what’s an idealist to do?
I can’t forget the women’s movement. Especially these days, my hormones won’t let me. Hilary is one of us.
So, I will vote for her because she is a woman. Now, isnt’ that lame.
But, as a woman, she will have to work harder to succeed. i want my president working very hard for me.
She will have more scrutiny than any other president in our history and i think it is time to restore some accountability to our White House. It’s unlikely that much will slip past that kind of scrutiny.
She understands housekeeping and it is time we had a president who was interested in the details of managing our nation. Someone who knows what it is like to juggle diverse needs and schedules every day… someone who understands that health care and health are essential to productivity… who understands that good nutrition isn’t just a goal but an investment in the future… who knows what it is like to balance egos and outcomes.
ok, so those are campaign promises like everyone else’s.
It’s just that i think we have a better chance of having those promises fulfilled by a woman who grew up having to battle her way to success… and i will bet my vote on it.January 21, 2008 at 5:31 pm #613695
I applaud those who will vote their conscience as well as this who are strategizing. It means your interested in the process and the results.
For too long fans of the constitution took it for granted. We sat back and thought our republic could not be taken away since broadcasters and newspaper reporters like Edward R Murrow and H.L Mencken and Joseph Pulitzer would sound the alarm and alert us to any threat to the republic.
But those days are gone. If we are the save the Republic and the Enlightenment ideals it was based on, we must get involved and actively seek out the information we should be getting instead of polls, pundits with consistent records of being wrong, fashion commentary and body language pop psychology.
We have to read boring policy and parse the meaning of various code phrases designed to reassure various demographics while remaining impenetrable to other. We have to do the work yet again that FDR did in repairing the damage done by the so called “free market”. Oddly enough the same deregulation of banking, securities oversight, and accounting standards have to be re applied for the same reasons as it did in the 30’s. Social security is only in danger if we roll it from an insurance system into a financial instrument.
Fixing the deficit is going to be painful no matter who is elected and the damage done to the economy may be no more avoidable than the mess Hoover left the country in.
But one thing is not in doubt. Fixing the situation will not be done by those with their head in the sand of those marching in lockstep with their chosen authority figure.January 23, 2008 at 6:05 am #613696
I just came back from listening to Madeleine Albright talk about why she supports Hilary Clinton for President and she said something that really resonated with me. She said, “i want my president to be confident but not certain.” In other words, she wants a President who doesn’t always think he/she is right and is open to adjusting his/her opinion based on current information.
She also said that she thinks a cabinet ought to be full of diverse opinions so that a President isn’t always hearing his/her own opinions parroted back at him/her.
She also stated that she (Madeleine Albright) thinks we should be out of Iraq.
After hearing her speak and witnessing the humility with which she approaches the immense problems this nations faces, i have to say that i trust her judgment.
If she believes Hilary will meet those conditions, then i think it is probably a good bet that she will. All the more reason for me to vote for her.January 27, 2008 at 4:45 pm #613697
Thank you JoB for sharing what you learned from Madeleine Albright. I was sorry to not be able to get out to see her, I’d be interested in learning more about what she had to say.January 27, 2008 at 10:41 pm #613698
WSMom… i bought her book which i will be glad to lend once i read it… and i think both JanS (?)and i will be at the event on the 3rd and we went together.January 27, 2008 at 11:02 pm #613699
I am going to try and come by for a little while. I’m not a football fan per se…usually just the Seahawks…but…I have to big TV, so may have some people coming by(and I’d love to see the Patriots have a perfect season..heh)…daughter and her bf, etc…but, I can leave if it’s just them – lol….January 28, 2008 at 12:55 am #613700
I say, let’s hear it for her.
This is the first time in my short early-thirties life where we have a woman who is qualified to be president. HOW AMAZINGLY COOL is that?!
I say let’s make history and finally do this and get her elected. It can be a really tough for a woman working in a predominantly (and traditionally) world of nearly all men, but she is tough enough yet fair enough to do it effectively.
Obama is wonderful, but as a young voter, I am really hoping for Hillary on this one.January 28, 2008 at 12:58 am #613701
By the way, the person who spoke about Hillary at the 34th Dems meeting was not a great public speaker (I’ll leave it at that), that had a lot to do with the feedback they got from the audience… I was there and it was not a true representation of her supporters, unfortunately… but the person who spoke for Obama did a wonderful job, as a Hillary supporter, I have to give that person credit!January 28, 2008 at 1:49 am #613702
In my mind, it’s as sexist to vote *for* Hillary just because she’s a woman as it is to *not* vote for her because she’s a woman. And she was on the board of Wal-Mart, for heaven’s sake…how much more corporatist and Republican can you get?
We need someone who with a track record of taking on corporate greed–and winning. The middle class is slowly vanishing (inflation, lack of pensions/retirement, stagnating wages, health care expenses, concentration of wealth, etc.) We need someone to tell corporate America, lobbyists, and the ultra-rich that they can’t always have their way.
One of the many reasons John Edwards earned my support. And I honestly think he would be doing better in the caucuses if the media wasn’t creating/emphasizing a horserace between Obama and Clinton, effectively shutting Edwards out.January 28, 2008 at 1:53 am #613703January 28, 2008 at 3:37 am #613704
Agree with Kayleigh on the media’s impact on Edwards as a candidate .. I wonder if he would consider another VP role?January 28, 2008 at 5:27 am #613705
call me sexist if you will. I suffered enough from the effects of sexism in my life to feel justified in turning the tables a little.
but… it’s not just about her sex.
Sometimes it’s not just about campaign promises either. I admit Edwards sounds great. I love his idealism.
But let’s be real. Our government doesn’t consist of just a president… they can only lead if they can get the congress to follow. Edwards will have to compromise his idealism if he wants to get anything accomplished.. just like any candidate will. What shows us that he will know how to do that and still deliver on any of his goals?
With Hilary, you get what you see. Someone who understands corporate America. Someone who understands how deals in congress are brokered. Someone who knows she will have to pay as much attention to the appearance of compromise as to the compromise itself to get anything done.
And someone the American press will watch like a hawk.
and, oh yeah, she’s a chick;-) is that cool or what!January 28, 2008 at 2:07 pm #613706
This election cycle is far too important to be determined by personality (real or imagined personality characteristics) or even race or sex.
Edwards was a trial attorney; he knows how to broker deals. He also was a U.S. Senator; he’s no stranger to how the system works. That he will compromise his ideals is a given; all politicans do to some extent. But he has less motivation to than Hillary or Obama; check out his campaign contributions:
I understand that we have needed a woman president for roughly 200 years. (shhhh, I think women are the stronger sex! ;-)) But her being a woman does not earn my forgiveness for her vote for the Patriot Act, or her serving on the Wal-Mart board, or her record of corporate campaign contributions:
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.