Best Presidential Candidate, Democrats

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.

I personally

[Aurisor]

support whomever posts first.

Re:I personally

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[eonlabs]

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

[rudeboy1]

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.

Re:I personally

[Oktober Sunset]

Should have told her to shut her racist mouth and stop keeping the black man down. That would have put a stop to her lame argument.

Vital Issue

[Stanistani]

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.

Re:Vital Issue

[SilentBob0727]

I think you're in the wrong party there, chief.

Re:

[daeg]

Don't forget you can throw Jeb after 16. By then, Chelsea will be ready to take the thrown, with a Bush twin coming right after.

Simply terrifying.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:I personally

[rrhal]

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.

Capitalization doesn't change your opinion to fact.

Certainly you can find an equally large number of McCain haters - just listen in to Brother Rush some morning. And the Baptist base of the moral majority think that Romney is a heretic. And these are people inside the power base of the republican party.

The people that hate either Obama or Clinton aren't likely Democrat voters anyway.

Re:I personally

[Snocone]

So St. Peter is at the Pearly Gates checking up on the people waiting to enter Heaven, and asks the next one in line "So, who are you, and what did you do on Earth?"

So the fellow says "I'm Barack Obama, and I was the first black to be elected President of the United States."

St. Peter says "The U.S.? A black President? You gotta be shittin' me! When did this happen?!?"

And Obama says "About twenty seconds ago."

Re:I personally

[EnderGT]

While I find your joke to be in poor taste, I'm worried that there's some truth there. There are far too many people in this country, in this world even, who judge people by the color of their skin, and who, in all likelyhood, will find the election of a black man to the presidency to be too large of an offense to be ignored and will at least attempt to take matters into their own hands. This is no reason not to vote for him, though. Personally, I'm disappointed that none of the candidates, on either side of the fence, agree with my personal politics to the degree that I feel comfortable voting for them. Looks like it'll be another case of "voting for the lesser of two evils" for me.

Re:I personally

[ConceptJunkie]

Looks like it'll be another case of "voting for the lesser of two evils" for me.

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:I personally

[unitron]

I'm tired of voting "against" someone, I'd really like to vote "for" someone...

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Parent post is verifiably false.

[Behrooz]

The parent post is verifiably false on both counts, either horribly misguided or a shill for the corporate stooges they referenced.

Obama's 2004 Senate campaign finance records are easily [opensecrets.org] available [opensecrets.org] and seem to be noticeably not dominated [opensecrets.org] by banking interests with a stake in bankruptcy law or their employees.

This matches up with Obama's vote against [senate.gov] the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005.

It's also difficult to credit Obama as a 'corporate stooge' given his record of seeking accountability and transparency [senate.gov] for lobbyists.

Get your facts right if you're going to contribute to the discussion-- mod parent down.

Re:

[cayenne8]

"Maybe I'm missing something, but who "hates" Obama? I don't think he's qualified in the least to be PotUSA, but he's a likeable guy and a great speaker who tries to emphasize a positive message."

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

Re:

[HairyNevus]

Here's a fact: future events that haven't happened are never facts, let alone "FACT"s. Also, after 8 years of the Bush administration there's a lot of people who are willing to suck it up and vote Democrat just to get the "lesser of two evils" (unlike you and me). 8 years ago those people didn't vote, or voted 3rd party, and we *almost* got Al Gore, so this time around I predict a change. As much as you say too many people hate Obama or Clinton, I have a feeling most of those are what we call "Republicans"

SPOILER ALERT!!!

[starglider29a]

One of these two will win the Democratic Party Nomination! Continue to read at your own peril.

Altrnate endings

[tomhudson]

1. Q. A plane with Huckabee, McCain, and Romney crashes into the convention center where Obama and Clinton are debating. Who's saved?
   A. The United States.

2. Good news, bad news:

   The good news: You wake up and find that everything was a dream - Bush not only never won the election - the votes were properly counted.
   The bad news: You slept a LONG TIME, Rumplestiltskin - Richard Nixon is president.
   Alternate bad news: Miss Carolina just won the dem nomination - for the children.

3. "Breaking news bulletin: China, in cooperation with Google and Apple, has just purchased 51% of the United States in a secret Treasury auction, beating out the Gates-Halliburton bid. No elections for YOU!"

Gravel?

[iphayd]

Mike Gravel is still running. It would be unfair of Slashdot to exclude him too.

Re:

[thryllkill]

Mike Gravel's chances of winning the nomination are so slim, discussing him is a waste of time.

Re:Gravel?

[Selfbain]

His chances are so slim because of logic like this.

Re:Gravel?

[dave420]

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.

His chances are nill

[DesScorp]

"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:

[beholdsa]

The purpose of this topic is to discuss the BEST democratic presidential candidate, not the MOST LIKELY TO WIN candidate.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Gravel?

[Chris Burke]

The worst part is that the die-hards in the Green Party actually do believe this. "There's no difference between Democrats and Republicans". Yeah, well, stop drinking the kool-aid long enough to realize that if Al Gore had won in 2000 we wouldn't fucking be in Iraq right now.

It's funny you should mention that, because I was one of those Greenies who, at least in 2000, believed Gore and Bush to be close enough to each other that the differences didn't matter. I preferred Gore largely because of his environmental policies, but not enough to vote for him instead of my true choice of Ralph Nader. Because really, how much worse could Bush be?

Well then Iraq happened and every day since I've been looking at the sky and begging forgiveness for ever saying "how could he be worse?" I was a fool, I admit it, so please stop making the point!

Re:Gravel?

[MightyYar]

The uneducated masses pick the candidates who get the best press rather than bother to research what the candidates' positions and records are.

Unfortunately, you must let the uneducated masses have an equal voice if you hope to call this a democracy. The best tack, then, is for the educated elite to push for better education... which for some reason they tend not to see as obvious.

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.

For once my vote counts!

[FuzzyDaddy]

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.

There might be a lot of closet bigots...

[cduffy]

...but there are a lot more young people who are tired of being made to feel as if they're political nonpersons, a worthless demographic that never actually gets out the vote.

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:There might be a lot of closet bigots...

[Nimey]

That's because most under-30s are, in fact, a worthless demographic that doesn't vote.

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.

Combined ticket is probably a mistake

[ktappe]

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.

Re:Combined ticket is probably a mistake

[sayfawa]

This whole election's outcome will be based on peoples' prejudices. What does America dislike the least:
a) women
b) old people
c) funny religions
d) blacks

Re:Combined ticket is probably a mistake

[Anonymous Coward]

This whole election's outcome will be based on peoples' prejudices. What does America dislike the least:

a) women

b) old people

c) funny religions

d) blacks

I'll take women for 800, Alex.

Re:Combined ticket is probably a mistake

[Valdrax]

I'll take women for 800, Alex.

Oddly enough, that's illegal in most states.

Douglas Adams had it right:

[Liberaltarian]

"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."

It all comes down to...

[monschein]

Who can win against a white male - a black man or a white woman?

Re:It all comes down to...

[Liberaltarian]

What makes you think that the GOP will nominate a whi-- *looks at the GOP field*

Damn. Fair enough.

meh

[Pojut]

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

[airship]

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

[Pojut]

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:

[yuriyg]

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

[Pojut]

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.

Re:meh

[Pojut]

Appeal to masses? Well how do you expect a president to run the country without that?

I expect them to speak truthfully to the American people, not trick them into becomming a bigger herd.

Re:meh

[reidconti]

If you liked Bill, you'll probably like Hilary. But there's a chance Obama could be a hell of a lot better.

Except for the fact that Hillary has come out against some of Bill's better policies, like, you know, free trade.

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.

obama@google

[Deanalator]

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]

Re:obama@google

[00_NOP]

Yes, but does he use emacs or vi? That's what we want to know!

Sadly I fear the the answer is "no"

[Per Abrahamsen]

Once we get a candidate that can honestly answer "yes" to "Do you use Emacs or vi?", I'll vote for him without any further questions.

Re:Sadly I fear the the answer is "no"

[Per Abrahamsen]

But what if we get a president that uses Emacs?

That would be great! Think of the wars we could avoid, if the president could simply 'M-x doctor <ret>':

Potus> I wan't to invade Iraq!

Doctor> Why do you say you wan't to invade iraq?

Potus> Because I hate Saddam Hussein!

Doctor> Is it because you hate saddam hussein that you came to me?

Potus> Yes, the bastard tried to assasinate my dad!

Doctor> Earlier you said you hate saddam hussein?

Potus> Did I? That seems so negative. Maybe I should reconsider.

See how much better the world would be with an Emacs using president.

Hillary and Obama

[Random BedHead Ed]

Please keep discussions limited to talk about Hillary and Obama.

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

Re:Hillary and Obama

[pierced2x]

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.

Great summary of Hillary

[arkham6]

"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."

Re:Great summary of Hillary

[ScentCone]

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.

Re:

[msuarezalvarez]

So, what do you propose instead? To refuse medical attention to those people when they show up in a hospital? To socialize the cost and pay it yourself? Something else?

Re:Great summary of Hillary

[ScentCone]

Sorry, she said what?

That's right, you heard me [yahoo.com].

Re:Great summary of Hillary

[gaspar ilom]

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.

[Average]

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.

Re:Provenance and Iraq.

[KiahZero]

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

[PolarBearFire]

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.

Re:Important

[NeutronCowboy]

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?

From the old Italy, I hope Obama

[andreabondi]

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...

Warning: Post from a conservative

[the computer guy nex]

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.

Re:Warning: Post from a conservative

[aug24]

Obama is black.
Clinton is female.

HTH ;-)
Justin.
PS Not in America.

Re:Warning: Post from a conservative

[Pulzar]

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

[Edward Ka-Spel]

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?

[sherriw]

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:

[Trip Ericson]

Russ Feingold. He voted against it the first time, in the 99-1 vote. Sadly, he's not running.

Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton?

[Neil Jansen]

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

[irregular_hero]

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?

How would Disney vote?

[GodWasAnAlien]

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

[chocolatetrumpet]

"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

Where Hillary lost me

[Squirmy McPhee]

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:Onlk Obama and Clinton?

[jalefkowit]

From my limited understanding of human psychology, I detest polls or referring to them as evidence at all. The wording of the question as well as the order in which the questions were asked affect it too much.

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).

Re:Onlk Obama and Clinton?

[DrMaurer]

The issue is that Gravel and Kucinich both polled fabulously on the issues/votes/ideas, when divided from their names.

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:WTF?

[Pojut]

As technology grows and becomes a more regular part of the everyday citizen's life, this next election will have a MASSIVE impact on us all, including from a technology standpoint. The next president will play a role in dictating funding, telcos, ISP's, piracy...you name it, this election is going to dictate quite a lot in terms of technology (not to mention everything else, of course)

In that sense, discussing this election (ESPECIALLY considering Hillary is a technological idiot) is very on-topic.

Re:WTF?

[kent_eh]

Slashdot: News for nerds, stuff that matters

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:My election prediction

[timster]

I'm sorry, but I wasn't aware that there were any Muslims in the race. Are you referring to Mike Gravel? I haven't really done any research on him.

Re:My election prediction

[SilentBob0727]

Obviously you haven't heard about the viral internet smear campaign [snopes.com] about Barack Obama "being a muslim". The facts are he had non-practicing Muslims for a father and stepfather, and attended local schools instead of expatriate schools in Indonesia. Those facts, combined the fact that he's the N-word, and enough hearsay and outright lies, are enough for most people to jump on this "Obama Is A Muslim Terrorist Trying To Dismantle The USA Or At Least It's Plausible Enough To Me That I'm Scared To Vote For Him" wagon.

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....

Re:None of them are worth a damn.

[Monokeros]

Why should I believe that he won't be warped and corrupted by the power of the President's office?

You absolutely shouldn't believe that any candidate won't be corrupted by the office. Any winner will be. Some worse than others. It doesn't matter how "pure" their intentions are to begin with.
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?

Re:None of them are worth a damn.

[rudeboy1]

While I am generally fixed on the idea of voting for Barak, I wanted to bring up a point here about Hillary that I think needs some consideration.
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:None of them are worth a damn.

[Doctor Faustus]

If the technology that we have now had been available in the 16th century,
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.

check your history

[joggle]

Dude, the founders never desired a pure democracy, even if the techonology were available. Why do you think we use the electoral college system? Why are the senate rules designed so that the minority may prevail? For details one what they considered when forming the Constitution, read the Federalist and Anti-federalist Papers. The last thing they wanted was mob-rule (which is what they considered pure democracy to be). I think the French Revolution gave a good example of why a pure democracy is not desirable.

Re:

[NeutronCowboy]

I had a discussion with my girlfriend around this, and she said the same thing. Here's my problem with that approach: I can't keep up with every last bill, with every last project and with every last special interest initiative that is worming its way through the political machine. I already have a full-time job, I have hobbies and I have a girlfriend that wants attention as well. I cannot, and will not do the grunt work necessary to make an informed decision about every last idiotic bill that someone cough

Re:None of them are worth a damn.

[omeomi]

They all want the job, which should be enough in itself to disqualify them.

Not a bad idea. The electorate should just choose some random person to be president every 4 years, and surprise them with the news at work one day.

Re:

[natrius]

The Athenians thought that was a good way to do it. [wikipedia.org]

Re:

[sorak]

(about Obama)

Why should I believe that he won't be warped and corrupted by the power of the President's office?

It is very easy to dismiss someone on the assumption that every politician is corrupt. The problem is that they are not all equally corrupt or equally incompetent. One has to be better. So do you have any reason to believe Obama would be any better or worse than anybody else?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Disqualify them?

[DesScorp]

"I don't trust any of them. They all want the job, which should be enough in itself to disqualify them."

Funny you should say that. Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan tells people he'd like to propose a Constitutional Amendment, stating that "anyone willing to do the ridiculous things necessary to become President is hereby banned from that office".

Re:None of them are worth a damn.

[Shining Celebi]

I don't trust any of them. They all want the job, which should be enough in itself to disqualify them.

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.

Why should I believe that he won't be warped and corrupted by the power of the President's office?

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.

Clinton has no principles, she panders to any voting bloc she thinks can help her, and not only did she not divorce her adulterous asshole of a husband, but she can't keep his mouth shut during her campaign.

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. ;)

Re:Obama

[malevolentjelly]

I half-way agree. I am pro-Obama, but I think I have every reason to hate Hillary. The fact of the matter is that we've got a republican in the democrat field looking to cock-block progress by using a well-known "democrat" name.

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:

[foniksonik]

OTOH there was that whole White Water thing that still leaves people wondering.... and the fact that she chose her potential political career over divorcing her adulterous husband - many times... which leaves some people wondering what her priorities are (power/influence > integrity/values)... then of course she started her political career off the back of her husband (which isn't that strange but is a big deal for a president rather than a state rep or senator) and went to New York to do it (which was a

Re:

[Mongoose Disciple]

I actually don't think that's that bad of an idea. In principle, maybe. In reality...

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:

Not necessarily against

[wurp]

I actually agree with your conclusion (given the false dichotomy you've given) to prefer Bob to have to pay for insurance. That said...

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.

Re:

[Mongoose Disciple]

Hospital treatment isn't free. The money has to come from somewhere. Ultimately that's the kernel of the problem: everyone wants to treat having quadruple bypass surgery as a basic human right like freedom of speech or religion, but freedom of speech doesn't cost a gigantic pile of money.

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 wo

Re:Not necessarily against

[PinkyDead]

I have to say I'm appalled by your (plural) callousness in regard to this issue. I do not live in the US and my point of view is completely from the outside - but where I live we pay 1 half of 1 percent of our salary to pay for healthcare for everyone. Granted our public system isn't the plushest of stays, but you get what you need and no questions asked. And when you think about it, what are you out? $50 a month? Are you that greedy and obsessed with amassing your little cash pile that you'd miss such a paltry sum?

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:

[Nerdfest]

For future discussions, please use the term "The White Witch", just to keep things clear.

Re:Well...

[cduffy]

I'm not terribly fond of candidates who put a message of "I'm the only person who can bring us together" out there like Obama has

Do you really think Hillary can? Consider her negative poll numbers; granted, they may not be entirely justified, but that doesn't change the fact that they're there. (I also think that "the only person" is a not-entirely-fair caricature of the message, as he strongly prefers to frame it in positive terms). Obama has a history of striking considered compromises (look at the death penalty legislation when he was a state senator for a prime example) and is equally at ease speaking to evangelicals (whose language he speaks fluently -- which not many Democratic candidates can do) and to the traditional left. His history as a constitutional law professor and civil rights lawyer is also encouraging.

I certainly can't disagree that there are a lot of Obama supporters doing Hillary-bashing. Perhaps it's because a good number of those folks who are members of Hillary's negative numbers end up in the Obama camp? That's certainly the case for me, even though I'd still be supporting Obama if I didn't dislike Hillary. If she wins the nomination, I'll vote 3rd party, as I've had enough of her fearmongering, think-of-the-children, divisive, anti-tech, pandering politics; supporting even symbolic anti-flag-burning legislation and doing photo ops with Jack Thompson earned her a black mark in my book long before Obama became a household name.

Re:Even though Obama is Black and did drugs,

[geminidomino]

Watch 3 of Hillary's speeches, see 4 different women.