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.
Obama (Score:1, Interesting)
None of them are worth a damn. (Score:2, Interesting)
For once my vote counts! (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
It all comes down to... (Score:5, Interesting)
Provenance and Iraq. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:I personally (Score:5, Interesting)
I would have liked more singing from Scarlett Johansson.
Watch and enjoy.
http://www.dipdive.com/ [dipdive.com]
From the old Italy, I hope Obama (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:meh (Score:3, Interesting)
Warning: Post from a conservative (Score:3, Interesting)
Barack (Score:5, Interesting)
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...)
Re:Obama (Score:5, Interesting)
If Hillary wins the nomination, it will be impossible to have a real progressive democrat president for four years. If she wins the presidency, then it will be impossible to have a real progressive for eight years.
Imagine another eight years of Bush politics. Remember, Hillary is pro-censorship, security, war, executive power, and secrecy. I think she's more like Bush than McCain.
Re:My election prediction (Score:4, Interesting)
Guess who's behind the smear campaign? That's right, Mike Huc^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HMitt Ro^H^H^H^H^H^H^HJohn McCai^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HGeorge W. Bu^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HHillary effing Clinton. This move will all but ensure that if he is nominated, he will not be elected.
If she makes it (which she almost certainly will) I am voting green. At least the Republican that will be taking office next January is a bit more moderate than the incumbent.... I hope....
There might be a lot of closet bigots... (Score:4, Interesting)
Have you seen the number of young voters Obama's brought out to the primaries? I'm not worried about the bigots... not at all.
Re:Great summary of Hillary (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Great summary of Hillary (Score:5, Interesting)
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.")
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,
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.
Re:None of them are worth a damn. (Score:5, Interesting)
In an ideal democracy, decisions are not left up to one person, but decided by the public. When our country was being conceptualized, we decided that the best way to govern was a compromise on pure democracy, where an elected official makes up their own mind and votes according to their beliefs/conscience. The idea being that he is a representative of the majority of the public that voted for him.
If the technology that we have now had been available in the 16th century, I believe that we might have sought a more pure version of democracy. While still complicated logistically (cost, fraud, etc.), it is now possible to put out a referendum on any given topic, so that a governing body can respond directly to the will of the people. It would be refreshing to find a presidential candidate the promised record numbers of referendums for this reason. It potentially represents a truer form of democracy, (assuming he/she votes accordingly).
So, getting back to the point, if someone says that Hillary will pander to voters, it's spun negatively. However, I'd like to at least suggest that if she completely flips her stance on an issue, (or any candidate for that matter), and it is a result of voter appeal, that democracy has worked, and that she is voting the way her constituents would want. I could care less about her personal ideals. If she were there solely as a puppet, acting on the whims of the public, that would be ideal to me. I have yet to hear an elected official say something to the effect of, "Personally, I hate the idea of X. I find it to be the worst idea in the world. But, my constituents think it's a good idea, so I'm going to vote for it." when that day comes, I'll feel better about living in this country. Until then, I'm still hoping that Canada annexes Mexico, so I can move some place warm.
Re:There might be a lot of closet bigots... (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe that's a chicken-and-egg thing, but FFS most of my peers just can't be bothered to vote, let alone research candidates. I've voted in every election since I turned 18 (I'm 28) and try to be informed about candidates and issues. I think it would help if elections were held on weekends or if Election Day was a national holiday, but I still think that most people in their 20s just can't be bothered.
Re:None of them are worth a damn. (Score:5, Interesting)
So what, we should just give up and go home, and let come whatever may? Even if you are right, being apathetic and cynical about it isn't going to change anything. It brings to mind learned helplessness [wikipedia.org] -- the idea that it sucks, and there's nothing we can do about it, so let's just give up, even when there is a chance to make things better. I think it's a little too cynical to say everyone that ever ran for President or wanted to be President did so for nefarious reasons. I'm sure plenty of them just wanted the fame and power, but I think at least a few wanted to try and do something good for the country.
Maybe he will, but that doesn't mean that he, or any other Presidential candidate, won't do anything good while in office.
By the same token, why should you trust anyone, ever? Politicians are just people capable of violating trust on a grander scale.
I don't necessarily disagree about HRC, but I don't think you and I know enough about about their relationship to make judgments. Maybe she didn't divorce him because she loved him and could forgive him? On the other side, perhaps it was political. Maybe it was a mixture of both. I don't think it's fair to judge someone on speculation about their personal life; maybe she was just being a really kind person, or maybe not.
Maybe I'm just too naive and optimistic, though. ;)
The name issue (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
Re:meh (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm afraid a Hillary presidency would be like a Bill presidency but without the intelligence or charm.
I'm voting for Obama, but I must say, he is a bit of a wildcard. About 2% of me wonders if he could turn out to be a terrible president a la Bush, given his fuzziness on the specifics of the issues. The other 98% of me just hopes for a change.
Re:Not necessarily against (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't wholly disagree with most of what you said, but I think 'everyone has to buy health insurance' is a better starting point than what we have now. If the problem with that solution is that it leaves Peace Corps workers out in the cold because they couldn't afford to buy health insurance on their crappy wages, and we feel like the Peace Corps is generally a good thing for everyone, then let's decide that our tax dollars will cover the health insurance for specific cases like that.
A system in which the public decides to cover the health care expenses of some worthy cases, to my mind, beats the status quo where the public essentially covers everyone by default.
Re:None of them are worth a damn. (Score:4, Interesting)
Did you mean 18th century? In the 16th century, Machiavelli was explaining why pure democracy (along with pure monarchy and pure aristocracy) was a bad idea.
I believe that we might have sought a more pure version of democracy.
No, we wouldn't have. This idea [wikipedia.org]was a very big deal to the constitutional framers -- they disagreed on the methods, but they all wanted to be sure that the rights of (political) minorities would not be trampled by the majority.
On the other hand, I think they would have loved the idea of popular sign-off on whatever the professional politicians came up with.
Kucinich? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:None of them are worth a damn. (Score:3, Interesting)
Where Hillary lost me (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:I personally (Score:3, Interesting)
White racists don't vote on the Democratic ticket--they tend to hate Democrats for all sorts of reasons, not the least of which being that Democrats periodically try to take their guns. There are more registered Democrats than Republicans. Even if there are secret racists in the Democratic party, this is more than outweighed by the number of Independents and Republicans who AREN'T racist.
Second, there is no evidence whatsoever that Obama has "stolen" the black vote. Indeed, it is still breaking in Clinton's favor...and she's not black. Obama has a lot of momentum behind him, and should he get the nomination, then yes, black people will vote for him. But they would anyway--they're overwhelmingly Democrats.
Arguing that people will vote for someone just based on the color of their skin and calling it sad is just bigoted. OP didn't seem to imply that white people would vote for the white candidate, or that Mormons will vote for the Mormon candidate. Instead, he turned the truly shocking idea that Democrats will vote for a Democrat into something far more perverse.
Re:I personally (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:I personally (Score:5, Interesting)
I know the feeling. I'm tired of voting with one hand and holding my nose with the other. But I think part of the problem is that we really don't get to vote against anyone.
If I had my way we could vote either for or against all of the candidates. Each one's "no" votes would be subtracted from their "yes" votes, and they'd be ranked accordingly, except that if they all wind up with non-positive totals the winner isn't the one closest to +1, no one is (except the voters :-), a new election (or primary) would be scheduled and none of the previous candidates would be eligible to run.
Under that system you could have voted for both Perot and George H.W. Bush and against Clinton, which would have kept Perot from being a spoiler in that race, and in 2000 you could have voted for both Nader and Gore and against everyone else, or for both Buchanan and Shrub and against everyone else, and the outcome in Florida would have probably been a lot more clear.
Ponies, Rainbows, and Unicorns, Oh My! (Score:2, Interesting)
Consider Obama's letters to John McCain on bipartisan lobbying reform. [senate.gov] Be sure to read McCain's absolutely withering reply to the junior Senator.
This demonstrates two things: First of all, it says that John McCain is probably not a very pleasant or reasonable man on the job; he is an aged Republican with tenure who is unafraid to play the "Don't you know who I am?" card when approached by someone who is relatively new to the political game. But that's practically to be expected. The real indictment is of Obama, who clearly does not know the first thing about how to deal with people like McCain, which is critical to his actually being able to pass the legislation he has promised the American people.
Hillary Clinton, in contrast, has the political clout and the experience on the hill to work with an often intractable Congress to get the Democratic agenda passed and to usher in a new era. I say "Democratic" agenda, because--as both candidates will readily admit, there are very few differences between what Hillary and Obama propose. Really, their stated goals about health care reform, equitable tax rates, and so on are a callback to what real Democrats have been trying to get passed for at least the last 12 years. (Just as an aside, in this day and age, there is NO credible reason why U.S. citizens should not have access to universal health care, just like literally every other leading nation. But we can thank a Republican congress and a complicit President for that.)
Because of the similarity of their proposals, Obama supporters who dislike Hillary tend to dislike her personally and never argue compellingly against her views. That's fine, Obama supporters--you're allowed to like or dislike any candidate for any reason at all. But just understand that when you're not engaging the issues, you've done little more than turn the presidential race into an inane popularity contest. ("I don't like her, and he can talk in public places to groups of people...just like every other politician!")
Many Obama supporters tend to skew so young that they barely even remember the Bill Clinton era, and have instead latched onto the potential idea of the President being a man of color. Again, that's fine, young voters. First of all--welcome to the political discussion. It is wonderful that you've found a candidate that you feel you can rally behind. Second of all, be on your best behavior, and please try to do more to raise the level of political discourse than just claim that your candidate is good at talking to groups of people while having darker skin.
These are exciting times for the Democratic party. We have not one but two credible candidates ready and willing to hold the office. With cooperation, I'm sure we can work together to ensure that the next President will be from our party.
Re:I personally (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think she's manipulated. I think she's calculating. Bit of a difference there, though I still won't be voting for her in the primary and will have to think long and hard about it in the general election if we are unlucky enough to see her win the nomination.
Re:I personally (Score:2, Interesting)
Why 3rd-Party Votes Aren't Wasted in California (Score:3, Interesting)
So it's ok to vote for the Libertarian or Green or Whatever Party in the fall election, because that way your vote indicates who you'd actually prefer to have running things, and the Democrats will get the state's electoral votes anyway.
The primary election's a bit different case - at least three of the parties have candidates that are significantly different from each other and it could be worth picking the best of them for your party.
None of the Above (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I personally (Score:3, Interesting)
I just finished watching (well mostly listening to) each of their two Google interviews: Hillary [youtube.com], Obama [youtube.com]. It cemented an impression I've had for a while. Hillary may be a very capable legislator, but Obama would make a better president. They both talked about a lot of the same things, but it was Obama who had the edge when talking about restoring America's place in the world. As someone who has lived in Muslim communities, lived overseas, dealt with racism, etc. he would be much more capable of working with countries like Iran, Pakistan, etc.
The other advantage is that he isn't carrying all the political baggage. In Hillary's talk, she keeps attacking Bush and Cheney, and doing it in ways that shows just how much she detests them, calling Bush "the current occupant of the oval office", etc. Sure, that may be playing to the audience, but it isn't helpful, and will hurt her chances of being able to work with these same people later. Obama doesn't get dragged into that.
Obama may have less experience, and may not be as tight a legislator, but the job of the executive isn't to legislate, it's to lead. I can imagine the US following his lead much more easily than Hillary's, and I can imagine his influence overseas would be better too.
Either democrat will be an improvement over the current administration -- hell, either republican would be too, but I think Obama is the candidate better suited to the role of President.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I personally (Score:3, Interesting)