Best Presidential Candidate, Democrats 947
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.
Onlk Obama and Clinton? (Score:1, Insightful)
Gravel? (Score:4, Insightful)
Combined ticket is probably a mistake (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Gravel? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:SPOILER ALERT!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Or one of the republicans might become president.
Either way, the world loses.
Re:Onlk Obama and Clinton? (Score:5, Insightful)
Gravel is at less than one percent in every single poll ever taken, which would discount issues of bias in a particular survey. You may not like polls, and it's true that you can create an individual poll that drives responses in one direction or another. But it's hard to discount the enormous pile of evidence that we have that Americans don't see Gravel as a serious candidate (and for good reason).
Important (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
In that sense, discussing this election (ESPECIALLY considering Hillary is a technological idiot) is very on-topic.
Re:Gravel? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't the process of selecting the leader of the (for better or worse) one of the most powerful and influential nations on the planet have some relevance to the phrase "stuff that matters"?
Even if you live in another country, the US government and it's actions have some amount of influence on your existence. (whether it should have as much influence as it does is another topic for another thread).
Re:None of them are worth a damn. (Score:4, Insightful)
If one of your primary deciding factors is how trustworthy the candidate is, then the best you can do is pick the one you think will remain the least corrupted for the longest time. I don't know if that's Hillary or Barak. It looks like from your perspective Hillary has the handicap coming out of the gate since, as you say, she has "no principles" Who knows how long Barak would last against the temptations of the office, or how much worse than Hillary he could become?
If new york and california pull for (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Combined ticket is probably a mistake (Score:5, Insightful)
a) women
b) old people
c) funny religions
d) blacks
Re:meh (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama is naive, compassionate, charismatic, and idealistic - just the kind of change in leadership this country needs.
Re:Obama (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Gravel? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Gravel? (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, our founding fathers didn't trust the uneducated masses, either. We have a largely unelected judiciary, and even the Senate was not originally elected. The popularly elected House then was only given a term of 2 years vs 6 in the Senate! Even the presidential election is slightly skewed from true democracy by the electoral college.
Re:Great summary of Hillary (Score:5, Insightful)
That's right, you heard me [yahoo.com].
Re:meh (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Obama (Score:3, Insightful)
What happens now if someone doesn't buy health insurance? They go to the emergency room and get treated anyway. Other people end up paying for it in the form of higher hospital costs.
Obviously, the pure capitalist solution would be for hospitals to just refuse people who don't have money. I'm not necessarily against that idea either, but I doubt it'd ever fly.
So if Bob doesn't want health insurance and our choices are:
A) Bob is forced to pay for health insurance or
B) I'm forced (effectively) to pay for Bob's health insurance
I'll pick A over the B we have now.
Re:WTF? (Score:2, Insightful)
A good way to stop fueling terrorism is to make all drugs (including heroin) legal. ESPECIALLY drugs like heroin. People are going to do it whether it is illegal or not. Would we rather those billions of dollars a year go to the middle east (where they produce over 90% of the world's poppy) or into the hands of American farmers?
Yeah. I thought so.
Re:None of them are worth a damn. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:meh (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Patriot Act? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, then who is the strongest candidate AGAINST it?
Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Even though Obama is Black and did drugs, (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Gravel? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Obama (Score:3, Insightful)
All in all the above facts (mixed w/ my editorializing) lead up to a big ????? about her ability to be an *effective* President. A lot of americans don't like the idea of someone who positioned themselves to become president. See the post which quotes Douglas Adams. Who will follow and individual with these *qualifications*.
Other than that I think she's very smart, politically savvy... will hold her own on the international level (most leaders will actually respect her more for how well she manipulated everything to get into power) and knows how to pick a good cabinet of advisors = the most important part of the job.
Re:meh (Score:4, Insightful)
I expect them to speak truthfully to the American people, not trick them into becomming a bigger herd.
Re:Onlk Obama and Clinton? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm going to write in Gravel, in any case.
I live in Illinois, and I think that the state will go with our home-town guy. HRC isn't exactly the best candidate either, as far as unifying the party and moderates. If there's something that has blown the election for the democrats the past two times, it's been two "meh" candidates. Obama, even if I disagree with him, is not merely "meh."
Re:None of them are worth a damn. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I personally (Score:2, Insightful)
I am incredibly disappointed in slashdot today. To quote a commenter in the Republican story, "what is this, Fox news?"
We have more than two parties in the US. The last election had the Libertarians on the ballot in all but one state. None of the corporate news outlets mentioned this salient fact!
Another salient FACT is the FACT that the next President will be Republican. Both Obama and Clinton have far too many people who hate them for either of them to win the General Election.
The mainstream media say if you vote for a "third party" your vote is wasted, since they have no chance of winning. Well, the Democrats have no chance of winning this election, since they will nominate Obama of Clinton, both of whom are hated by too many people to have a snowball in hell's chance of winning.
So following the mainstream media's logic, any vote except e Republican vote is wasted this election.
But I don't follow that flawed reasoning. I am against the DMCA, the Bono Act, drug lwas, prostitution laws, gambling laws, the "Patriot" act, NSA surveillance of Americans, and all the other laws the multinational corporations have paid Congress to pass in the oast twenty years, all of which were passed by a clear majority of both wings of the corporate party that slashdot has wasted space discussing..
I say a vote for a candidate who will vote in laws I don't want is worse than a wasted vote. I'm splitting my vote between the Greens and the Libertarians. I'm not wasting my vote on a Republicrat, whether Obama, Clinton, or McCain. I, for one, do NOT welcome our old corporate overloirds, and I, for one, refuse to follow their unconstitutional laws.
mcgrew
Police State: In USSA, cops hassle YOU! [slashdot.org]
His chances are nill (Score:3, Insightful)
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 their finger at me and saying "well, he'd have more support if you'd just get behind him!". Well, he didn't convince me, and it's not my job to carry him. Its his job to gain a following, no one else's.
No matter how you might be attracted to their ideas, not enough other people are supporting them to give them a viable campaign. While I personally think the MSM has their favorites, they can't completely control the election process. Two months ago, they'd written John McCain and Barack Obama off completely. Funny how real voters (and not polls) have a way of deciding things for themselves.
Re:Obama (Score:2, Insightful)
More details here [amazon.co.uk]
Not necessarily against (Score:5, Insightful)
What kind of heartless asshole thinks only people who have money should get treated at a hospital? Money is far from the best measure of the worth of a person. Yes, there is a disproportionate number of worthless people who have no money. HOWEVER, there are also a disproportionate number of worthless people who are stinking rich. And there are a disproportionate number of wonderful people who are a great boon to humanity who have almost no money. People much better than I: all of the people out there teaching Head Start, all the people out there volunteering in the Peace Corps, working at rehab centers, and just plenty of normal people working the job within their abilities that helps the most, while raising decent children. If I don't have the fortitude to take the loss of income to go do the right thing, at least I can work towards a society that supports those who do.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
TACO, YOU STUPID FUCK!! (Score:2, Insightful)
What about parties you ignorant anus-smelling-like fuckface? There are a lot of other political parties, not just the republi-crats. Howzabout a forum dedicated to Libertarians, so maybe people can learn about and discuss what a political party's goals should be.
Oh, yeah, right - go ahead and mod me a troll for pointing out someone else's ignorance.
Re:Barack Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
I think your missing one of the key things that I happen to like about Obama though. A r/l friend of mine put it this way: Hillary knows what she wants to do and she knows what's best for the country. If she's elected she's going to run with her ideas and to hell with everyone else. Obama doesn't have all of his positions set in stone yet and he thinks that YOU know what's best for the country. Recall JFK's quote: "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country"
Obama is the first candidate that I've seen in my lifetime that I actually believe can unite this country. Can he actually pull it off? It's a tall order -- I can't say for sure and neither can anybody else. What I am sure of is that Hillary can't unite this country. It doesn't matter if that's her fault or not -- it's the current reality. You know how most of us feel about Bush? That's how the other side feels about the Clintons. If she wins then we can look forward to four (eight?) more years of slash 'n burn politics, governing from the 51% majority and claiming a "mandate". That's the last thing we need.
Re:I personally (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I personally (Score:4, Insightful)
As my son said (Score:2, Insightful)
words vs. actions (Score:5, Insightful)
- George W. Bush
Thursday, September 23, 1999
check your history (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I personally (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, I agree he doesn't have much experience, but, then again, I'm COMPLETELY puzzled by Hillary claiming to have 'experience' for the office. I mean, what is her experience? Sleeping with a sitting president for 8 years? And hell, if that is her claim to experience, she wasn't even that good at it...considering Bill's extramarital exploits during office.
That being said...POTUS I think by definition always is OJT. There is nothing out there that can prep you for it, as that it is unique. The closest you can come to it I'd say, is governor of a state. There are only 2 candidates that fit that bill, and one of them was only one term I believe.
At this point, I think you just have to guess which one would get in the office, and pick it up the fastest...AND who would surround themselves with the best and brightest to really run things.
Re:None of them are worth a damn. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not necessarily against (Score:5, Insightful)
You talk of freedom of religion as more important than healthcare, but healthcare (and education) has got to be a fundamental of human dignity, a dignity without which that religion are just a hollow clamour. The last time I looked the US was pre-dominantly a christian nation - what does this christian thing mean, is it just some kind of country club that only the rich are entitled too and where you are not required to pay any heed to the basic tenets of the faith. (Insert other religions as required - they're all pretty much the same on this issue).
I'm sure you'll say that my point of view is communist or some other bullshit - but if it is then call me comrade, because what you've got makes a mockery of the basics of human decency. "One nation indivisible" my arse.
Re:I personally (Score:4, Insightful)
This is why U.S. politics is in such a sorry state. We need to stop voting for the "lesser evil" just to defeat a "greater evil.
I'm tired of voting "against" someone, I'd really like to vote "for" someone, even if that means the greater of two evils gets elected. If everyone took the time to find and vote for someone they honestly believed in, we might actually start to get some candidates that people could support.
Re:TACO, YOU STUPID FUCK!! (Score:2, Insightful)
I for one, welcome our Libertarian overloards, and I wish people would vote for who they want to put in office, rather than vote to try to keep someone else out of office. I think that would help to bring about awareness of other political parties.
Re:I personally (Score:5, Insightful)
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:2, Insightful)
to me obama is the first in a long time of presidential candidates that has the country's interest at heart and has an open enough mind to accept the changes that are and will be happening in this country.
Re:I personally (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I personally (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the experience card is overplayed. I'd rather have a President smart enough to surround himself with intelligent and experienced people who listens to them then someone with "experience" who surrounds himself with yes-men and doesn't pay attention to those few advisor's that dare to disagree with him.
Besides that, what's "experience"? Being a Senator? A Governor? For how long? Does anybody with all that "experience" even remember what it's like to be a normal American any longer? Lincoln went from the House, to being a lawyer in private practice, to being President of the United States. I'd say he turned out pretty good despite his "lack of experience".
Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree there, because I support most of those "tired liberal ideas" and take issue with the idea that they've been "disproved". Regardless though, your next sentence still gives me hope for our country:
I'm hopeful that Obama can bring enough Independents and Republicans into the fold that we can actually change the tone of politics in this country. Do I know for sure that he can pull it off? Nope. Do I know for sure that Hillary can't pull it off? Yep. Hell, I think McCain could do a better job at uniting this country then Hillary can, and I say that even though I've lost respect for him over the last few years (mainly for kissing the ass of the religious right)
Re:I personally (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I personally (Score:3, Insightful)
How does this man compare on civil liberties actions? The other candidate - http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/clinton-slams-o.html [wired.com] - looks pretty good. She's never said she opposes widespread wiretapping, unlike the SAFE act (which Obama was vocal for.) http://w2.eff.org/patriot/safe_act_analysis.php [eff.org] for details.
I cannot support Clinton from a policy perspective when we have someone more in line with ideals concerning civil liberties.
Re:I personally (Score:3, Insightful)
Obama is right on more issues than he's wrong on, he's demonstrated an ability to inspire and unify, and I personally believe that his "outsider" status and youth would be advantageous in setting this Nation down a better path.
Re:Twisted (Score:3, Insightful)
I thought we were looking for a president.
Neither color nor gender should matter in this decision.
So far, the only arguments I've heard for Clinton are:
'You think Obama will be the first black president?' and
'Just think about what women would do'
I'm interested in what Obama and Clinton would do, not what women or black people would do.