Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Democrats Government Politics

Best Presidential Candidate, Democrats 947

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the someone-resurrect-zombie-kennedy dept.
This story is to discuss the remaining democratic candidates for president. Please keep discussions limited to talk about Hillary and Obama. Keep discussions of the other party in the other story.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Best Presidential Candidate, Democrats

Comments Filter:
  • by Aurisor (932566) on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:28AM (#22290304) Homepage
    support whomever posts first.
    • Re:I personally (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 04, 2008 @11:00AM (#22290932)
      Obama has certainly taken the crown in the Democratic campaign as "the candidate making best use of the internet." Take, for example, this clip I saw yesterday. Not sure exactly who is behind it, but the message is inspiring and - frankly - can melt through the icy cynicism of the Grinchiest Clintonite.

      I would have liked more singing from Scarlett Johansson.

      Watch and enjoy.

      http://www.dipdive.com/ [dipdive.com]
      • Re:I personally (Score:5, Insightful)

        by eonlabs (921625) on Monday February 04, 2008 @02:26PM (#22294554) Journal
        Personally, I'm not very impressed with either candidate in terms of maturity. Both are mudslinging pretty hard. If I wanted to hear that, I could watch a kindergarten class.

        To choose one, I'm liking Obama at the moment.

        Right now, the country has lost the majority of its international image. This will probably result in our economy crapping out the deep end. Without a standard to tie our money to a value, the stuff isn't worth the paper its printed on, unless someone is willing to take it. If we lose international interest in what we do, we're screwed.

        He's been exposed to other cultures outside of politics, he talks well, he carries himself well, and I've liked some of what I've heard him campaigning for. He's also been pretty up front about a lot of his past. How many candidates admit to pot and cocaine use without being asked. He's come clean and that has a lot of value.

        I can't help feeling that Clinton's twisted, the more I hear her speak. Does anyone have any links to her stuff, because I'd honestly like to know more about why so many people are interested in her. I don't want to just shoot her down without more on what she's trying to run for.
        • Re:I personally (Score:5, Interesting)

          by rudeboy1 (516023) on Monday February 04, 2008 @03:11PM (#22295378)
          I'm not really sure either. I had about a 2-hour long heated discussion about Obama vs. Clinton. I cited numerous reasons why I thought Obama was the better of the two, and why I'm terrified of Clinton, mostly because I think she's batsh*t insane. After what I thought was a reasonably well thought out list of reasons, my girlfriend conjured the idea out of nowhere that I wasn't voting for Clinton because she is a woman. I think the fact that she's a woman is taking more spotlight than it really should. I'm sure Obama is getting a little extra time because he's black, but I don't think it is nearly as big a deal to his supporters as being a woman is to Clinton's.
          The first thing I think about when I think about Clinton is her singing along with Jack Thompson over video game violence. I can appreciate that you don't want kids to have these games, even if I think your arguments are craptastic works of fallacy. But when you move to ban these games, that's censorship. Period. Given the way things have been going in this country up till now, I'll be damned if I'm going to support someone for president that already has a record supporting censorship. Instead, I will be voting for whoever has the best chance of reversing the current trend of rights erosion. And, as far as I can tell, that would be Obama by a landslide.
    • Vital Issue (Score:4, Funny)

      by Stanistani (808333) on Monday February 04, 2008 @11:21AM (#22291320) Homepage Journal
      I am disappointed that neither candidate has come out in favor of accelerated particle beam weapon research.

      Screw the flying car - I want my death ray, the way this race is going.
  • by starglider29a (719559) on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:28AM (#22290312)
    One of these two will win the Democratic Party Nomination! Continue to read at your own peril.
  • Gravel? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by iphayd (170761) on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:31AM (#22290384) Homepage Journal
    Mike Gravel is still running. It would be unfair of Slashdot to exclude him too.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by thryllkill (52874)
      Mike Gravel's chances of winning the nomination are so slim, discussing him is a waste of time.
      • Re:Gravel? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Selfbain (624722) on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:46AM (#22290690)
        His chances are so slim because of logic like this.
        • Re:Gravel? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by dave420 (699308) on Monday February 04, 2008 @11:40AM (#22291716)
          No, his chances are so slim because he's a bad candidate. How much he's discussed this late into the game has absolutely NO chance of changing that.
        • by DesScorp (410532)
          "His chances are so slim because of logic like this."

          His chances are nill, and its all because of Mike Gravel, no one else. There is no conspiracy here. He's addressed the public, and been found wanting as a candidate. Same thing with Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, and Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter. All have small, rabid followings, and none have topped 5 percent nationally. The onus is on them to convince people they're viable. Nothing annoys me in a campaign more than Candidate X's followers pointing thei
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by beholdsa (1185729)
        The purpose of this topic is to discuss the BEST democratic presidential candidate, not the MOST LIKELY TO WIN candidate.
  • by FuzzyDaddy (584528) on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:33AM (#22290410) Journal
    I live in DC. We get three electoral votes for president, but since we are overwhelmingly democratic, our general election vote always goes to the democrat. Our primary is after super Tuesday, at which point there is usually a clear "winner" for the democratic nominee.

    My political friends from both camps assure me that super Tuesday is NOT going to seal the democratic nomination one way or another. Unlike the general election, delegates are not assigned all to one candidate based on the state total (for the democrats, anyway. Republican rules are different). The exact formula varies by state, but the delegate assignment is roughly proportional to the number of votes.

    Personally, I'm leaning towards Obama myself. He seems principled and energetic, and I like his principles. Clinton seems a bit more cynical. I think he'd have a better chance against McCain. McCain won't bring out the republican base; Hillary Clinton will.

    Policy wise, though, I think they're similar enough that I wouldn't mind either of them in the white house.

  • by ktappe (747125) on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:33AM (#22290428)
    I've not decided which of the two to vote for, but I do agree with something I heard John Grisham say last week: That having them pair up for a "super ticket" would probably be more negative than positive. Any voters who would not have voted for a woman AND any voters who would not vote for a black would BOTH be turned away and McCain would slide into the presidency.
  • by Liberaltarian (1030752) on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:34AM (#22290444)
    "Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."
  • by monschein (1232572) on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:35AM (#22290464)
    Who can win against a white male - a black man or a white woman?
  • meh (Score:4, Informative)

    by Pojut (1027544) on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:35AM (#22290466) Homepage
    I personally don't like even Obama OR Hillary...but, if forced between the two, I would choose Obama first. Hillary is a slight bit psycho, and her husband (in my opinion) isn't quite the sharpshooter he once was...Obama may have some "appease the masses" opinions, but at least he has a solid head on his shoulder.

    Hillary is just plain frightening. It's a shame that the first woman to really have a chance at the white house is a total lunatic.
    • Re:meh (Score:5, Insightful)

      by airship (242862) on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:59AM (#22290930) Homepage
      She's not a lunatic - she's a cold, calculating machine politician. We don't need another Clinton or Bush in the White House. Enough of the dynasties.

      Obama is naive, compassionate, charismatic, and idealistic - just the kind of change in leadership this country needs.
      • Re:meh (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Pojut (1027544) on Monday February 04, 2008 @11:08AM (#22291084) Homepage

        Obama is naive, compassionate, charismatic, and idealistic - just the kind of change in leadership this country needs.


        Like I said. I don't really agree with some of his political policies, but he does have a good head on his shoulders...that accounts for alot.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by yuriyg (926419)

      Hillary is a slight bit psycho

      Hillary is just plain frightening

      a total lunatic
      Time and time again I hear this said about her, without ANY proof/examples/logic/etc. behind it. Can you please explain yourself, or is this post just a troll?
      • Re:meh (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Pojut (1027544) on Monday February 04, 2008 @11:22AM (#22291336) Homepage
        Have you actually watched the woman talk for more than 2 minutes? That's all the example that you need.

        Hillary is the epitome of saying whatever it takes to get the most votes. Running to become the next leader of the free world while spouting off boilerplate sayings just to look good in the polls is frightening. I don't know about you, but I don't want my leader to do their best to appeal to the masses...I want them to focus on running the fucking country.

        Not to mention she is a backstabber. Did she or did she not agree with Obama to not sling crap at each other any more? And what is she doing now? Slinging shit again. Fuck that. I do NOT want the leader of my country to be trying to make others look bad so I will vote for them. You tell me why I should vote for YOU, not why I SHOULDN'T vote for someone else. This applies to all the other candidates as well.
  • obama@google (Score:5, Informative)

    by Deanalator (806515) <pierce403@gmail.com> on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:36AM (#22290492) Homepage
    Someone posted part of this clip last time, where Obama talks at google about the future of technology. This is the full 64 minute clip, complete with Obama's joke about sorting algorithms :-)

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=m4yVlPqeZwo [youtube.com]
  • by Random BedHead Ed (602081) on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:38AM (#22290536) Homepage Journal

    Please keep discussions limited to talk about Hillary and Obama.

    Let's be consistent: you meant Clinton and Barack.

    • Re:Hillary and Obama (Score:5, Informative)

      by pierced2x (527997) <pierced2x@gmail.com> on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:46AM (#22290676)
      Hillary consistently refers to herself as 'Hillary', not 'Clinton' (go to her website, or see any of her campaign swag). The same goes for Obama. I see nothing wrong with calling them their preferred campaigning name. I am especially tired of the people that say Hillary is being 'disrespected as a woman' because she is called by her first name. Let it go already.
  • by arkham6 (24514) on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:39AM (#22290554)
    "She is highly intelligent, has real experience and is an attractive candidate. But she is terrified to act on her beliefs. In fact, she seems so conditioned by what she sees as political constraints that one can barely tell where her beliefs begin and where those constraints end."
    • by ScentCone (795499) on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:48AM (#22290738)
      one can barely tell where her beliefs begin and where those constraints end

      I don't know. Sometimes she says what she really thinks. Just yesterday, she talked about garnishing the wages of people who don't buy health insurance. Now that's letting her colors show.
    • by gaspar ilom (859751) on Monday February 04, 2008 @11:53AM (#22291970)
      The "lack of experience" accusation against Obama is a Republican/Clinton "talking point" that is widely circulated, and many people have apparently bought into it. It is also false.

      EXPERIENCE
      Obama is a scholar of Constitutional law, and has more years of experience as an elected official, in the Illinois state senate. The fact that much of his advocacy and legislation experience are "local" is an asset, not a liability -- one that has probably kept him closer to understanding regular folks' concerns. (it is not the board of WalMart.) This has also kept him less susceptible to the cumulative impact of the vast corruption that is occurring on the national scale.

      Hillary, if anything, has the *wrong* type of experience - e.g.: taking lots of corporate money in the form of lobbyist campaign donations and her many "consulting" gigs. (many people call this "bribery.") ...Saying "every politician does it" is no excuse: Obama has stuck by his pledge to refuse corporate lobbyist PAC money in his presidential bid.

      ISSUES
      Many people assert that there is only a razor-thin difference between Clinton and Obama's policy proposals.

      First of all, I don't think Clinton and Obama are interchangeable: There are many policy proposals from Obama where practically *nothing* is forthcoming from Clinton. For example, Obama will (and already has, as Senator) take steps to:
            * limit the influence of corporate lobbyists
            * increase transparency of government
            * Technology and Communications: safegaurd privacy, "net neutrality", prevent consolidation of media, support open standards...

      None of the above items are even on Clinton's radar. (The last one involves a complicated set of "21st century" issues that every politician should be taking a stand on, because they affect: our economy, job creation, privacy, ... as well the functioning of democracy, itself.)

      Secondly: where Clinton and Obama's policy initiatives do coincide, it is often because of compromises each candidate has made. The difference is that Clinton has moved to the "left" -- trying to make herself marginally "electable" while attempting to maximize benefit to her corporate sponsors. Obama, on the other hand, is trying to maximize benefit for real, living people -- and he has to make comprises to get legislation passed by a sea of politicians who operate like Clinton. Clinton's policies are a swarm of disconnected proposals -- with few unifying themes save that some donor's interests are being protected -- while sounding "liberal" enough to maintain electability within her party. I think Obama, on the other hand, is actually applying principles to organize and apply his policy details.

      CHARACTER
      Most of Obama's presidential campaign contributions have come from a large number of small donors. (He has far more donors that Clinton -- while Clinton has relied on a smaller cadre of big-time donors.) Clinton, on the other hand, has actually said that taking lobbyists' cash is acceptable because they "represent real Americans." (Although you might wish it were otherwise, you cannot deny that "where you get your money from" indicates in the strongest possible terms whose interests you will be looking out for. )

      I strongly urge you to support Obama over Clinton on Tuesday.
  • Provenance and Iraq. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Average (648) on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:44AM (#22290638)
    Policy differences between Clinton and Obama? Minor.

    Leadership?

    I worry about provenance with Clinton. Why was she the head of the Healthcare task force? A recognized health expert? A well-known elected official? Wife of a guy who got 43% of the vote? That 'mandate', plus too much secrecy, doomed a not-so-bad health care plan and has cost us a lot of jobs and bankrupt Americans in the last 14 years.

    Then again, why was she on the board of Wal-Mart? We mention that (well, she doesn't mention on her website that she was the first female board member of America's #1 retailer). But, why? Was she a business expert? Run a corner store? Worked her way up from the mailroom? Was she the wife of the governor of Wal-Mart's home state?

    Obama has taken every step. He's sprinted to the top, no doubt. But, he's gone from knocking on doors in the projects to fighting a political machine in his district to convincing both rural and urban Illinois to inspiring a generation. No shortcut.

    Not to say she's been a bad senator. But, the Iraq vote is very troubling. Only six Senators are on record as checking in to the locked room to read the full (96 page) intelligence report. Yes, it was full of lies. But, John Edwards *did*. Clinton? McCain? Neither. They believed.

    And thinking of Iraq. The *only* way out of Iraq is to offer a new deal to the Iraqis. Clinton? The wife of a man whose crippling sanctions and annual bombing runs caused a whole lot of misery and entrenched the regime? Sure, from here we can say the sanctions were a good thing. But, for the man on the street who lost a child to deprivation? We need a president who is not connected to that legacy.
    • by KiahZero (610862) on Monday February 04, 2008 @11:48AM (#22291868)

      I worry about provenance with Clinton. Why was she the head of the Healthcare task force? A recognized health expert? A well-known elected official? Wife of a guy who got 43% of the vote?
      Because she did similar work, successfully, as First Lady in Arkansas.

      Then again, why was she on the board of Wal-Mart? We mention that (well, she doesn't mention on her website that she was the first female board member of America's #1 retailer). But, why? Was she a business expert? Run a corner store? Worked her way up from the mailroom? Was she the wife of the governor of Wal-Mart's home state?
      Because Sam Walton was looking for a woman to put on the board, and Clinton was a known quantity - she had represented the company in legal actions in the past - as well as a significant stockholder. Add in the fact that before that point she was an important member of the Rose Law Firm, was the chair of the Legal Services Corporation (before it was gutted by Republicans), and a host of other organizations, clearly demonstrating her qualifications to sit on the board.

      Claiming that Clinton took "shortcuts" to the top indicates you don't really know what you're talking about. Granted, Clinton isn't doing as good of a job of explaining her backstory as Obama has been, but that's not really an excuse for misrepresenting her qualifications as only being the spouse of a former President.
  • Important (Score:3, Insightful)

    by PolarBearFire (1176791) on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:44AM (#22290640)
    I like Obama, only because we need a President with a new last name. There's no scientific way to determine who would be the best president, but we need someone with new perspectives. Or at least not jaded enough to try new things. They're all politicians so everything they do will come under my inspection but so far the only two candidates that fit closest is Obama and McCain, IMHO. Still haven't made up my mind how to vote tho. Anyway, on to the flamebait stuff, the democratic logo is horrible, looks like a mutated dog.
    • by NeutronCowboy (896098) on Monday February 04, 2008 @01:17PM (#22293460)
      Nonono - it'll be terrific. While I will vote for Obama in the upcoming election, here's what I will do if Hillary gets elected:
      - vote for her in 2012
      - vote for Jeb Bush in 2016 and 2020
      - and finally, I hope that either one of the Bush twins or Chelsea Clinton decides to run for president after that, so that I can vote for them.

      The end result? A beautiful series of Bushs and Clintons that will have lasted for over 40 years, putting to rest the notion that the US is some sort of democratic haven.

      Why yes, I do base my voting strategy on whether I can create some giant historical joke. Why do you ask?
  • by andreabondi (1106587) on Monday February 04, 2008 @11:04AM (#22291014) Homepage
    Hey everybody, I'm from Italy, and I'm following with great interest your vote. Well, situation here isn't very good, we're approaching elections for the second time in 2 years. The last competition was between the 69-years old Romano Prodi and the 72-years old Silvio Berlusconi. Now Berlusconi is going to be candidated for the 5th time since 1994. Here things doesn't change. I like Obama because he's young and can be a change in the biggest and most important country in the world...
  • by the computer guy nex (916959) on Monday February 04, 2008 @11:09AM (#22291094)
    Can someone explain to me the real differences in these candidates? I've been following the primaries and I still can't find one issue where they actually differ.
    • by aug24 (38229) on Monday February 04, 2008 @11:42AM (#22291742) Homepage
      Obama is black.
      Clinton is female.

      HTH ;-)
      Justin.
      PS Not in America.
    • by Pulzar (81031) on Monday February 04, 2008 @11:53AM (#22291976)
      Can someone explain to me the real differences in these candidates? I've been following the primaries and I still can't find one issue where they actually differ.

      Policy wise, these are the differences as I understand them:

      Health care:
      - Clinton wants universal health care, and if you don't buy into it they'll penalize you
      - Obama wants cheaper health care, so everyone can afford it -- but if you can't, tough luck

      Iraq war:
      - Clinton was for it to begin with, but didn't expect Bush to screw it up so badly
      - Obama thought it was a bad idea, Sadam wasn't so bad, leave the guy alone

      Illegal immigration:
      - I couldn't figure out what the hell Clinton wants, she always goes into a long speech about middle class American families when asked about this
      - Obama wants to let kids of illegals attend school, and give illegals driver's licenses

      Violent games:
      - Clinton thinks Jack Thompson is right
      - Obama thinks parents should worry about what their kids play, as long as the games don't implement bubble sort

      That's about it, from what I've seen. But, it seems that most people will end up voting based on some intangibles, like charisma, ideals, inspiration, etc...

      I can't blame them, I'd vote for Obama for those reasons, too. Too bad I'm Canadian, so I just get to watch them duke it out on TV :).
  • Barack (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Edward Ka-Spel (779129) on Monday February 04, 2008 @11:10AM (#22291126)
    Chances are, despite growing up Republican, I will vote democrat this election no matter who it is. Bush ran the republican party into the ground. But not all candidates are created equal.

    Hillary is a strong traditional candidate. She is carrying out a textbook campaign. She appears to me to be very power hungry and is willing to do whatever it takes to win, but sometimes you want that in a president. I think she would make a decent/good president. I really didn't like Bill Clinton as president, but compared to Bush, the 90s look like the golden years.

    Barack, though, is something different. He looks like he is honestly and thoughtfully trying to do what is best for the country. He tries to understand the issues, think through the issues, and come up with the best answer to the issue. That is something very rare. I noticed in the California debates that Hillary would say "this is my answer, it's the best! Your idea is dumb!" Barack would say "I have considered your idea and think that this would be the result of your idea, so I have another idea that doesn't have the disadvantage your idea has." He is the only candidate I have seen that actually thinks an idea through. Everybody else (Republican and Democrat) seem to just throw ideas out that sound good, without thinking about it. Obama has the potential to be one of the top presidents ever. (He may fail of course, you never know...)

    I have been voting since 1992, and this is the first time I ever had a candidate that I wanted to win, as opposed to picking the lesser of two evils. (of course, I haven't voted for the winning candidate yet...)
  • Patriot Act? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sherriw (794536) on Monday February 04, 2008 @11:22AM (#22291338)
    If I was American, I'd vote for which ever candidate has ACTUALLY read the Patriot Act. Anyone? Anyone? No? Oh right... only the person who typed it actually knows what it says.

    Ok, then who is the strongest candidate AGAINST it?
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Trip Ericson (864747)
      Russ Feingold. He voted against it the first time, in the 99-1 vote. Sadly, he's not running.
  • by Neil Jansen (955182) on Monday February 04, 2008 @11:28AM (#22291476) Homepage
    I'm sure this has been said before, but if Clinton hypothetically wins two terms, that would be 28 years of Bush/Clinton dynasty. Basically 1/3 of the people in this country wouldn't have lived under a president besides a Bush or a Clinton. Heck, I don't even remember Reagan as a kid, so I'm currently a part of that statistic.

    I don't think it's exactly a conspiracy, I think it has more to do with the recognition the second candidate gets from the first. Similar to advertising, people find themselves asking "<insert name of no-name candidate> who?"

    Hillary is the last candidate I would ever vote for because of this. The founding fathers decided against a system of Kings and queens, princes and other royalty.. Not to get too idealistic, but I think that there are other people out there, with new ideas that deserve a shot at running the country.

  • The name issue (Score:3, Interesting)

    by irregular_hero (444800) on Monday February 04, 2008 @12:19PM (#22292566)
    This post, without coming out and saying it, actually explains why Sen. Clinton is probably not the best the Democratic Party can offer this election. Has anyone other than myself noticed that when referring to the field of candidates, people tend to refer to them by their last names, except when talking about Sen. Clinton? The lead post does that:

    This story is to discuss the remaining democratic candidates for president. Please keep discussions limited to talk about Hillary and Obama. Keep discussions of the other party in the other story.

    In the other posting about the Republican candidates, not a single candidate is referred to by first name:

    This is the Republican half- please only discuss the republican candidates in this story. Huckabee, McCain, and Romney only.

    Why single out Sen. Clinton by first name? Because, like it or not, the reaction most people have to her is highly personal and somewhat visceral -- and most always partly negative. I don't claim to know why that is, but it probably relates to the old "talk radio" chestnut of demeaning a President by refusing to make him "presidential". President Clinton was consistently referred to as "Bill" or "Willy" by those who had an ax to grind with him in order to remind people that he was just a... I don't know -- a person, I guess... whose presence in the office of President was somehow an insult. The same goes for those people who refer to President Bush as "George" or spit the mononom "Bush" as if it were an insult.

    Sen. Clinton absolutely has been tarnished by her association with her husband, and the resulting way that she gained a reputation as a "first-name-only" figure as part of the "Bill and Hillary" couplet -- or, God help us, the "Billary" conglomeration. And regardless of whether she is capable of the office (she certainly is), she's gained her status over time as someone who -- strangely -- can be demeaned by the use of her first name. She's got a huge uphill battle.

    I had a conversation with my fervently Republican father the other day where I mentioned the Democratic field and talk about comparing both Sens. Clinton and Obama's positions on key issues. His response? "Well, I'd vote for either of those guys (sic) just to keep Hillary out of there." He's lost the ability to connect her last name with her first name. And, strangely, so have our Slashdot editors. How can Sen. Clinton get past that?

  • by GodWasAnAlien (206300) on Monday February 04, 2008 @12:26PM (#22292700)

    Clinton's campaign, when asked about supporting free/open debates, said:

    "Calling for free debates might be seen as opposing copyright."

    Also note that B.Clinton signed DMCA, URAA, and the Sony Bono Copyright Extension Act.

    Comparing that to Obama, who met with Lessig, and signed a letter saying the the debates should be in a Creative Commons license.

    Who Disney would vote for?
  • words vs. actions (Score:5, Insightful)

    by chocolatetrumpet (73058) <slashdot@jonCHIC ... t.com minus city> on Monday February 04, 2008 @01:39PM (#22293744) Homepage Journal
    "As president, I will order an immediate review of our overseas deployments - in dozens of countries. The longstanding commitments we have made to our allies are the strong foundation of our current peace. I will keep these pledges to defend friends from aggression. The problem comes with open-ended deployments and unclear military missions. In these cases we will ask, "What is our goal, can it be met, and when do we leave?" As I've said before, I will work hard to find political solutions that allow an orderly and timely withdrawal from places like Kosovo and Bosnia. We will encourage our allies to take a broader role. We will not be hasty. But we will not be permanent peacekeepers, dividing warring parties. This is not our strength or our calling."

    - George W. Bush
    Thursday, September 23, 1999
  • by Squirmy McPhee (856939) on Monday February 04, 2008 @02:25PM (#22294542)

    Awhile back I was leaning toward Clinton, but she said a few things that lost me pretty quickly. First, at one of the debates the candidates were asked why people should vote for them. Each candidate responded in turn, talking about the things they would do for the country and why they were the ones for the job. Then they got to Clinton, who said "because I'm the one with the experience to win." I'm paraphrasing, of course, but there was really not much more to her response than that (in either content or word count). Voting for the candidate who can win for the sole reason that he or she can win is monumentally stupid, and when I heard Clinton urging voters to do just that I had to put my hands over my ears to keep IQ points from falling out of my head.

    That made me wary, but I chalked it up to the inevitable campaign trail gaffe. But then she started picking fights with Obama over nothing in an effort to get him off-message. Not only did he stay on-message, for the most part, but he did it with poise. When Clinton not only wasn't wise enough to stop, but got her husband involved, her whole campaign began to look like a group of playground bullies picking on the smart kid. Had Obama gone negative along with her then I might still be a Clinton supporter, but as it was he came off looking like a guy who genuinely cares about the country and wants to do the right thing while Clinton and her camp now look to me like a pack of trolls who see the White House as their birthright.

    So in a pretty short span I've gone from leaning toward Clinton and hoping for a Clinton/Obama ticket to being a strong Obama supporter hoping for an Obama/Anybody But Clinton ticket. I know a handful of other voters that Clinton lost over the course of the last month, so I'm hopeful and cautiously optimistic that Obama will wrap it up tomorrow. Then maybe Clinton will stop shredding the few tatters that remain of Democratic party unity.

Pause for storage relocation.

Working...