Obama or Hillary? [Archive]

JohnnyV

Dec 15, 2006, 7:26 PM

I'm with spartca. Obama and Hillary are both pasteurized versions of the same spineless jellyfish that is the Democratic Party. Unlike lots of liberals, I don't romanticize the Bill Clinton era just because George Bush is so bad; therefore there is zero appeal in Hillary, who to me is just another slimy platitude-spewing politician who voted for the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, takes shitloads of bribes from the Israel lobby, and won't actually change anything important.

Obama is an intelligent black man who speaks more articulately than Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. Give him a gold star for that and his ability to teach law at the University of Chicago, the institution that gave birth to the neoconservative movement and unleashed the Project for the New American Century, the unholy alliance between people like Dick Cheney and Likud expansionists like Benjamin Netanyahu (their masterpiece was the invasion of Iraq and their biggest pending item on the to-do list is the bombing of Iran, but they're all hiding out now because Bush screwed things up for them so badly.) Obama voted for the wall between Mexico and Texas and probably would have voted for the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, had he been in Congress at that time. He's going around to audience after audience, serving up lots of "hope" and charisma, peddling his fluffy book, and offering the nauseatingly safe and noncommital solutions to the Middle East like, "we have to show the Iraqis that our patience is limited and they will have to solve their own problems" (as if the US didn't go and invade their country uninvited, and as if Obama's party didn't overwhelmingly go along with Bush's invasion in 2003).

With liberal allies like this, we don't need enemies.

JohnnyV is a proud third-party supporter, and will continue to give donations to the Libertarians, Greens, Independents, and Socialists. To Hell with the Democrats!!! :)

J

bibottom30064

Dec 15, 2006, 8:29 PM

The return of Gore, no matter what he says now he will not be able to resist the mainstream Dems drafting him at a crippled convention.

Star Gazer

Dec 15, 2006, 8:42 PM

I may be the unusual bisexual, however there are no democrats that I would vote for. Obama has no track record and we have no idea what his views are. hillary is only in it for the power and she scares me.

Looking at her I can understand why bill strayed so often. Hell if I had to wake up next to hillary I would have found another man.

If the democrats are going to win they will need to come up with a candidate better that Obama or hillary.

Obama, no track record, hillary is a far left who can't be trusted.

If either of these are nominated than it will be another republican president for sure. If we are lucky it will be Rudy, I suspect he is pro gay at least.

Herbwoman39

Dec 15, 2006, 10:52 PM

Star Gazer, you're not alone. Hillary gives me the shivers. As for Obama, I've never even heard of him before this topic.

Honestly, all politicians are looking the same to me. I like the Libertarian party because they're for less government involvement in our lives. I just don't hold out much hope for a candidate that isn't totally in it for himself.

ghytifrdnr

Dec 16, 2006, 12:11 AM

I don't think it matters a bit who the Democrats select, or the Republicans either. This country is circling the drain and there isn't a politician of any persuasion who can save it, and most don't even know it. :(

wanderingrichard

Dec 16, 2006, 3:36 AM

NEITHER

ambi53mm

Dec 16, 2006, 9:34 AM

I’m glad the time to decide hasn’t arrived yet only in the hope that there will be more of a selection to choose from. A few years back there was a Native American convention at the UN. I recall one middle aged Native American woman speaking out that it was time that a woman took the lead of this country seeing how the men in her opinion had done such a poor job. I believe there is wisdom in her words. Perhaps what we need is a woman’s touch to put us on a path of healing, both the divisions within and our reputation and credibility abroad. This isn’t necessarily an endorsement for Hillary Clinton but I will listen to what she has to offer before blowing her off totally.
There was a thread recently posted about friends and who you relate to with the most ease and comfort. Many of us both male and female gave an overall preference for the female. There is something in a very generalized gender sort way that we as men lack. I can’t describe it but I can feel it if that makes any sense. I will be watching and waiting as 2008 approaches as I’m sure many of us will. Let’s hope we base our selections with wisdom.

Ambi :)

mannysg

Dec 16, 2006, 9:49 AM

If either one is the choice, the Democrats will lose.
I really believe that it will be at least another 10 or 20 years until either a minority (black, hispanic, etc.) or a woman (any race) is elected President of the US, no matter which party they are in.

Saying that, I wouldn't vote for either one of them, but I would vote for Colin Powell if he ran for President (Yes, I know he's not a Democrat.) (Not sure if I have his name spelled correctly and I'm too lazy to look it up right now.)

12voltman59

Dec 16, 2006, 4:31 PM

I am not a fan of either of them--JohnnyV laid out many good reasons for disliking them both--as far as Barak Obama is concerned--at this point I really don't know much about him.

He is undoubtedly intelligent, well-spoken and as they say--highly photogenic. He may very well be qualified for president, it's just too early to say for him, but then--look at what we had had these past six years!!!!!

At this point---I don't think Obama brings much experience to the table.

I also agree with JohnnyV about the fact you get some interesting people who run as some form of independent candidates, but with the way the system is rigged by both the Dems and Repubs--even if an indepenedent did get elected President--he or she would be stymied from accomplishing much thanks to the leadership of both parties.

What we really need in the good Ol' US of A is a major transformation of our system that kills the Electoral College and allows for a proportional voting system that is open to multiple political parties and also makes it we have a coalition form of government.

The probability of such change taking place is slim to none though and the way our politics is today--I don't want any major changes taking place in regards to our Constitution for if we had another Constitutional Convention---it might get hijacked by some extremist groups like fundamentalist Christians that allows them to fullfill their dream of making this country a theocracy or some such thing.

Basically we are pretty well screwed!!!!

The way things are being run these days---we are headed for one huge pileup somewhere on down the tracks!!!!!

twodelta

Dec 16, 2006, 6:51 PM

If either one is the choice, the Democrats will lose.
I really believe that it will be at least another 10 or 20 years until either a minority (black, hispanic, etc.) or a woman (any race) is elected President of the US, no matter which party they are in.

At the risk of sounding politically incorrect, I must agree with the above statement. It would take maximum support and voter turnout from minorities and women, and neither group is historical politically active.

Saying that, I wouldn't vote for either one of them, but I would vote for Colin Powell if he ran for President (Yes, I know he's not a Democrat.) (Not sure if I have his name spelled correctly and I'm too lazy to look it up right now.)

I also agree with this statement. My political philosophy and Mr Powells may not be exactly the same, but I firmly believe that he is a man of high character and would have no hidden agenda. Dave

Tigerguy193

Dec 17, 2006, 12:05 PM

Some of the posts on this board surprise me. Hillary, far left? :eek:

She's been voting consistently centrist and her best buddy in the Senate is a Republican from South Carolina.

And Obama has no record? He has a voting record that dates to 1996. You just haven't heard about it yet because the campaign is not underway.

But there is more to the race that just them. If you look at the situation through a historical lens, you'd see John Edwards as the early front runner.

Edwards also has an extensive voting record.

Though, Edwards may be who America wants, but who does America actually need?

The biggest issue in the coming decade is not going to be terrorism or Iraq. On a worldwide scale it's going to be Global Warming. Something will have to be done to stop it and as of now, the US is not interested in helping.

If we don't change our policy on global warming, the EU is going to be forced to take the leadership role. Thirty years down the road, when we're seeing that global warming is slowing/reversing, no thanks to the US, then the EU will realize it can do anything it wants without the help of the US.

Then all the EU needs is an army to be the only superpower.

So who does the US need? We're badly in need of Al Gore. We MUST take the leadership role and must prove that we're the world's only superpower. And it probably HAS to be done in the next Presidential term. Electing a Republican or a Democrat who opposes global warming research will be the US's death knell.

Will Gore be able to win? Absolutely. He'll be able to mount an entire campaign on "How much better America would be if I'd been elected in 2000."

SLIMES

Dec 17, 2006, 12:58 PM

Wes Clark's my favourite. He's got some good liberal ideas but won't be too devisive.

animated_Alan

Dec 18, 2006, 12:13 AM

I have a feeling that Edwards would get the nomination if he decided to run. He has the experience of a national campaign, he'd have the backing of most Democrats, and the voting record as well. Just my opinion. I agree about Hilary...just gives me the willies. And I'd have to learn a whole lot more about Obama before I'd consider voting for him.

meteast chick

Dec 18, 2006, 12:24 AM

I'll admit, I voted for Obama as my state Senator, and I'm glad I did. He has brought alot of light to Illinois. He has stated he is pro-civil unions for homosexuals, but has repeatedly avoided putting that on our state ballot, even though we just voted in November and you all know since he just put his foot in the presidental ring, he'll not touch that topic for awhile, not even with a 10 foot pole, no matter that Illinois is a repeatedly Democratic state.

Hillary, errm, umm, eek. Next.

Edwards or Gore, well I voted for Gore/Lieberman and lost in 2000, voted for Kerry/Edwards in 2004 and lost. I was too young to vote for Bill Clinton, but I would have if I could have. So far my track record is not good voting and winning Democrat, but to me the jackass is the lesser of 2 evils. I'll probably not vote in the primary unless it's someone I really believe in. Doesn't mean I'm against either of these 2 gentlemen, it's just that it's played.

The fact is, the Democrats won the Senate and the House by a landslide due to Bush backlash. So what does that mean for the presidental race?...not good.

luv and kisses,
xoxoxoxoxoxo
meteast

animated_Alan

Dec 18, 2006, 12:47 AM

I admit to some concern about winning the White House in '08. After all, Democrats now control the Congress, so giving the Democrats the White House in '08 would set up the same situation we have now except in reverse. No checks and balances. And you know what they say about absolute power. Don't get me wrong, I'd still rather have a Democratic Congress and White House than a Republican one. And there's really not a Republican I'd want to see in the White House at all.

fishfry29

Jan 18, 2007, 4:19 PM

You can poke me in the eye with a sharp stick before I will vote for ANY republican for ANY office, simply for their stand on Labor, health care, social security, and fiscal irresponcability. The Dems will be stupid to run Hillary, but look at the mess theyve made in the last several elections by making gun control and abortion major issues...Hillery will be more of the same. I like Obama, but think the party will be better served with him as Vice Prez. Hillery needs to spend some time in a kitchen or on her knees in front of Bill.

jamiehue

Jan 18, 2007, 5:17 PM

[QUOTE=JohnnyV]I'm with spartca. Obama and Hillary are both pasteurized versions of the same spineless jellyfish that is the Democratic Party. Unlike lots of liberals, I don't romanticize the Bill Clinton era just because George Bush is so bad; therefore there is zero appeal in Hillary, who to me is just another slimy platitude-spewing politician who voted for the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, takes shitloads of bribes from the Israel lobby, and won't actually change anything important.

Obama is an intelligent black man who speaks more articulately than Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. Give him a gold star for that and his ability to teach law at the University of Chicago, the institution that gave birth to the neoconservative movement and unleashed the Project for the New American Century, the unholy alliance between people like Dick Cheney and Likud expansionists like Benjamin Netanyahu (their masterpiece was the invasion of Iraq and their biggest pending item on the to-do list is the bombing of Iran, but they're all hiding out now because Bush screwed things up for them so badly.) Obama voted for the wall between Mexico and Texas and probably would have voted for the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, had he been in Congress at that time. He's going around to audience after audience, serving up lots of "hope" and charisma, peddling his fluffy book, and offering the nauseatingly safe and noncommital solutions to the Middle East like, "we have to show the Iraqis that our patience is limited and they will have to solve their own problems" (as if the US didn't go and invade their country uninvited, and as if Obama's party didn't overwhelmingly go along with Bush's invasion in 2003).

With liberal allies like this, we don't need enemies.

JohnnyV is a proud third-party supporter, and will continue to give donations to the Libertarians, Greens, Independents, and Socialists. To Hell with the Democrats!!! :)

J[/QUOTe cheney ....puppetmaster shapeshifter very dangerous (man) in order to diffuse him and his ilk will take someone besides o and h

mdvbi

Jan 18, 2007, 5:35 PM

I would like to see Kucinich run again!

Otherwise, it's getting really difficult for me to tell the difference between the two parties these days...
WOW, if you can't tell the difference between the two parties..you're not paying enough attention!! get on to yourself!!!

Azrael

Jan 18, 2007, 5:35 PM

JohnnyV is a proud third-party supporter, and will continue to give donations to the Libertarians, Greens, Independents, and Socialists. To Hell with the Democrats!!! :)

J
Hell yeah from a pissed off young Green!

mdvbi

Jan 18, 2007, 5:44 PM

someotherguy

Jan 18, 2007, 7:09 PM

When neither option will do, seek a third. Let's breed them and then nominate their child: O'Billery Homama.

tydwater51

Jan 18, 2007, 7:30 PM

Neither. Hillary is too divisive and will drop out, choosing to build her career in the Senate. Obama is an interesting new face but ultimately, if the Democrats want to win, they will go with a more mainstream candidate like Edwards or even Gore. Not Kerry though. A loser. IMHO.

twodelta

Jan 18, 2007, 11:22 PM

When neither option will do, seek a third. Let's breed them and then nominate their child: O'Billery Homama.

ROTFLMAO :bigrin: On a more serious side though. The main problem with third party, is that it stands no real chance of winning, no matter how good the candidate is. Yes, there have been a few exceptions over the years, but they are few and far between. - Dave

rockstarvomit

Jan 18, 2007, 11:24 PM

I'd go for Obama after having seen him speak last year.

but that's my name!!

Jan 18, 2007, 11:57 PM

I would like to see Kucinich run again!

Otherwise, it's getting really difficult for me to tell the difference between the two parties these days...

Yeah I feel the same about the Torys (Conservative) and "New" Labor.

Polititians suck, and not in a good way.

etncple

Jan 19, 2007, 7:06 AM

darkeyes

Jan 19, 2007, 7:14 AM

Polititians suck, and not in a good way.

Dunno bout that babes...not wot the papers say sumtimes! Woteva..most r jus tossers!

darkeyes

Jan 19, 2007, 7:32 AM

Being a bit more serious than my last post, I am not convinced that whoever gets the democratic nomination will matter very much. Whoever it is will certainly be better than Bushieballs, or ne other Republican creep. At the end of the day whoever wins it, if elected will be shackled by reality and reaction from the right and the media, and maybe even its own congress should the democrats retain control that is, and certainly if they dont. Also I am deeply cynical about politicians as a breed like most of us, and if the US is anything like here, idealistic and decent politicians of the left will be vilified and crucified by the media and right wing business interests to such a degree that their position will become almost untenable.

Those who know me are well aware I am an idealist, and believe in a wholesale dismantling of what we understand as democracy. This is not to say I am not a democrat, for that is far from the case, but I do believe that for ordinary people to have any real say in how our world is run, we must create a democratic system which is more responsive to the dreams and desires of of the people.

So as with the transition of power from Blair to Brown, or even in time possibly from Brown to Cameron and the Tories in the UK, in the end it is the rich and powerful of the US who will benefit as usual at the expense of the vast majority of decent people whoever is nominated, and any progress made will be merely window dressing and populist. The one hope which I see is that it would at least be a less harsh regime for the people of the US and indeed the world, but even then, I am not holding my breath!!

12voltman59

Jan 19, 2007, 8:54 AM

I have to say that in terms of chosing between Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama--at this point I would tend to lean towards Obama.

I really don't want Clinton to be president for the simple fact--we need to get away from this Bush-Clinton-Bush transfer of the presidency---it is time to end this.

The only thing I am afraid with Obama becoming president---there are still so many in this country who would never accept a black as president--I am afraid an Obama presidency would ratchet up that extremist fringe to hyper drive---Obama would be a big assasination target---something not at all good for the country if they were successful in killing him--I think our democracy is too fragile now to handle such an upheaval this would bring....

But then again--thanks to the last six years of the George W. Bush administration----so many of the foundations of the country are very fragile now.....

Whoever becomes president next time has a whole lot of messes to pickup to such a degree---they probably will only be able to make little if any forward progress since they have so much of the basics that need to be fixed.

tommyswing

Jan 19, 2007, 11:42 AM

I don't think either of them will win the nomination. Hillary must have the Black vote to win and she won't get it running against Obama. Obama must get the backing of the Jewish voters, esp in NY, which he probably will not get thereby splitting the party and leaving it open for Gore or Edwards(my best guess as of now) as a compromise canidate for the Dem Party. Imay be wrong but ........

Hillary has a plan to destroy him in the media. It has begun with the revelation he was in a strict Muslim school for the 4 years. Where did this info come from, the Hillary campaign. She is in a win win position, she will not lose the black vote over this. President Clinton didn't lose the gay vote when he signed The Defense of Marriage Act.

joxbear69

Jan 19, 2007, 3:36 PM

I am more of a Rudy fan myself.
But if I tended toward the Democratic options, I would go for Obama

12voltman59

Jan 20, 2007, 1:37 PM

Of those on the Democratic side--I think Joe Biden is the best potential candidate---he actually seems that he has taken the time to think things out and even though he knows he needs to put things down into sound bite form for our limited attention span media machine---his policies seem to have a degree of intelligence behind them---

He is a much better candidate, IMHO, than John Kerry was---Kerry might have great intelligence but he just sort of trips himself up verbally and is just too timid to come out punching with both hands at the spin machine's attacks upon him---

Biden knows how to fight back and can take as good as he can give--it is too bad that is the way things have to be, but they are such---

Obama might be too weak in that regard as well---but say what you will about Hillary---she knows how to fight and she probably has one of the best machines out there--

I really don't know who will emerge as the Republican frontrunner but with Hillary now having finally throwing her hat in the ring----she is automatically the Dem frontrunner---

We may be saying--"Madame President" in January 2009----

SLIMES

Jan 23, 2007, 7:11 PM

Yeah I feel the same about the Torys (Conservative) and "New" Labor.

Polititians suck, and not in a good way.

The party of Jack Straw will never be the same as the party of Norman Tebit.

You're being ridiculous. the gap has narrowed but there is a clear difference.

eeyoresgr1

Jan 23, 2007, 9:08 PM

I honestly do not know who I would vote for, I am not highly impressed with either Obama or Clinton.

Clinton is not too far left, to be honest Obama more left than she is. She is purposfully voting more centralistic right now in case she runs so that she is more in the center of voters and can collect not only demacratic, but republic votes as well since she is voting closer to what they want. I agree politically with Obama and the way he is against the war. Clinton has voted for the war. However, there is something about Obama that does not sit well. Maybe it is the fact that he is currently running on charisma alone and that reminds me of some people we dont want to bring into power, besides he has no experience with international politics which in the comming years is will be crucial. I have a feeling something about him, something about his past will come back to haunt him in the next few months, but thats just me.

Another thing is money. Obama has 4 mil, that may sound like a lot but its not. Clinton has much more money and her supporters have more money as well access to it. She will be able to raise the 100mil needed for the election where Obama may be able to, but it will take him longer.

I think what we need is someone fresh, someone new. I dont think anyone will go for edwards or dean, been there done that type of thing. Although to go against what I am saying Al Gore has not only the finances but currently with his film he has the popularity of possibly running again. It would be nice to see the democratic party support someone not based on money and popularity, but the best candidate for the job...oh well thats not going to happen anytime soon. :flag1:

Louie1217

Jan 24, 2007, 1:43 AM

Obama for sure!

12voltman59

Jan 24, 2007, 2:05 AM

Bill Richardson, who recently put his hat in the ring for the Democratic presidential nomination, in terms of knowledge and ability is probably the most qualified candidate seeking the nomination. He has been a successful governor of a state, experience valuable as president---most of our recent presidents have been former governors.

Senators really don't do too much---a governor has to deal with the legislators of the state house and senate; the two political parties and the various factions in each party; then get them on board with his plans and get legislation passed and on his desk for signing into law.

The only thing is, is that Hillary is already the 10,000 pound gorilla of the Demorcratic Party. because when it comes down to it in politics, like most other things--it comes down to "show me the money baby!!!!"

Check this story out y'all:

http://www.observer.com/20070129/20070129_Jason_Horowitz_politics_newsstory1.asp

The horse race that really counts is now on--at least to determine one presidential combatant for one side---the same thing is going on the Republican side now as well.

meta23

Jan 24, 2007, 11:43 AM

Hillary isn't left wing; what she is, is she's a shameless panderer. She will say anything, support any position, if it'll get her into power.

That's why she voted for the Iraq war--at the time it looked popular. That's why she has spoken out in favor of censorship of video games--it looked like a good way to ingratiate herself with both right wing Christians and feminists, and only alienate a few geeky gamers nobody cares about anyway.

She's anti-immigration, further to the right than Bush on that issue, because again she knows that illegal immigrants can't vote so it's a cheap way to pander to right wing Christians. She voted to limit people's ability to declare bankruptcy and get out of debt, because she knows who owns her (i.e. the big banks). She's supported all the evil "anti-terrorism" legislation, including TIA, Homeland Security Act and PATRIOT, because it increases government power (which she hopes to exercise real soon now).

Sure, she supports keeping abortion legal. That's because the majority of Americans support that.

The only unpopular position I can find her taking is on same-sex marriage, and that's probably a case where she simply couldn't take the populist route without totally alienating most Democrats.