A Republican is preparing to vote for a Democratic POTUS, sell him on your choice.

Great Debates
21

I’m pretty much where the OP is on the issues, and prefer Hillary. I agree that policy wise there isn’t much difference between her and Obama, but I think she’s more likely to be able to actually turn things into legislation. People seem to dislike her because she comes across as triangulating and as someone who enjoys the wheeling and dealing of politics, but personally I think someone like that is far more likely to actually get something like UHC or difficult energy legislation through congress.

Obama is too much of an unknown. He’s certainly likable personally, but he’s had the advantage of basically getting good press his entire political career. He basically was handed a senate seat in '02 (04? can’t remember now) That’s certainly going to change in a national election, and while for all I know he may turn out well, I can also see him imploding once he’s faced with the full brunt of Republican attacks and press criticism, either during his campaign or when he’s actually in office.

Agree with the anti-Edwards setiment as well. Watching Cheney run circles around him in '08 was painful, I doubt I’d vote for him even if he gets the Dem nomination.

22

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I tend more and more to favor Obama.
[/QUOTE]

The two main reasons to vote against Hillary is, numero uno, the nepotism angle. Do we really need the presidential list to read Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clinton? It grates.

And numero two-o, she’s kind of an android. Not that this makes her unusual in a political candidate, but she’s more extreme than most. I just don’t care for her, on a personal level I dislike her.

Note that neither quality means that I couldn’t see myself voting for her, depending on what the Republicans come up with. I couldn’t vote for Guiliani or Huckabee, I’d vote for the Democrat no matter who they were.

But Obama is someone I can imagine voting for with a clear conscience.

23

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Well, tell us what specific policies he’s going to push to affect change, and see if you convince the OP to vote for him.
[/QUOTE]
He’s already said he’s really unlikely to vote for Edwards so I doubt I could convince him. Honestly I’d be happy with either Obama and Hillary either and their positions aren’t far enough apart to make much of a difference.

My support for Edwards largely boils down to three things:

  1. Hillary opposes the war now, but she didn’t when it mattered.
  2. Our next President will almost certainly have a Democratic Congress. Obama’s bipartisan talk makes me nervous. I want a President who will work wholeheartedly to support the platform of the Democratic Party. We’ve had too many years of the country being pulled to the right by the Republicans. I want some movement in the other direction.
  3. I like the fact that Edwards is making the plight of the working man a central part of his campaign.

Edwards was my Senator when I lived in North Carolina. I didn’t find him “oily” then and I don’t find him “oily” now.

24

[QUOTE=foolsguinea]
Bill Richardson is the true centrist/moderate in this mess: unlikely to get a lot of support in the primary phase, but a decent shot at swing voters (unless they hold against him that his father was a banker & his mother was a Mexican; or something like that mess at Dept. of Energy when he was Secretary). He might be a place for you to start, if you’re leery of a lefty.

I’ve been leaning towards Biden as the real voice of experience, but am willing to work for Obama as a sort of younger, nimbler-minded version of Joe. Richard Lugar, whom I really wanted to get the GOP nom in 1996, took Obama on an anti-proliferation tour of Eastern Europe & seems to like Barack, & that goes some way with me.

I think HRC is competent; & don’t let them kid you, any Dem nominee will be cursed as the second coming of Lenin, from the convention through late 2015; if you like her, I’m not saying you’re wrong.
[/QUOTE]

I should have mentioned, Bill Richardson was the Dem I liked the best, but his campaign never took off. I still wonder if he could pull off the VP nomination.
Strange, I am no fan of Biden, I find Obama smarter and cleaner. Perhaps I just don’t know Biden well enough.

[QUOTE=duality72]
OP: You could try this “pick your candidate” survey.
[/QUOTE]

These surveys are always skewed in odd directions. They don’t reflect anything vaguely real. Cheap and crappy games are all they are.

BrainGlutton, sad to say, but I think our President should at least look Presidential and probably should not have a trophy wife. Additionally, you and I both know he is very Liberal. More so than even Edwards. That is why you like him so much.

[QUOTE=Malodorous]
I’m pretty much where the OP is on the issues, and prefer Hillary. I agree that policy wise there isn’t much difference between her and Obama, but I think she’s more likely to be able to actually turn things into legislation. People seem to dislike her because she comes across as triangulating and as someone who enjoys the wheeling and dealing of politics, but personally I think someone like that is far more likely to actually get something like UHC or difficult energy legislation through congress.

Obama is too much of an unknown. He’s certainly likable personally, but he’s had the advantage of basically getting good press his entire political career. He basically was handed a senate seat in '02 (04? can’t remember now) That’s certainly going to change in a national election, and while for all I know he may turn out well, I can also see him imploding once he’s faced with the full brunt of Republican attacks and press criticism, either during his campaign or when he’s actually in office.

Agree with the anti-Edwards setiment as well. Watching Cheney run circles around him in '08 was painful, I doubt I’d vote for him even if he gets the Dem nomination.
[/QUOTE]

Interesting take, you think Hillary will actually have the advantage in getting legislation through. I could see this argument. I almost think Obama has the advantage in getting elected though if he gets the nom. The anti-Hillary bias seems to be rabid.

Jim

25

I support and like Richardson (though survey says…Kucinich. I don’t think Richardson has a chance in hell and I’d love to hear otherwise) and I think he’ll be a VP or Cabinet man, but I’ll take Obama as my pick of the front runners. Anyone who’s too rabidly Democrat will run into roadblocks too…we must work with the Pubs, not stomp on them when we’re on top, or the whole dance will never end.

And Edward’s “working man” thing seems pandering to me. What’s he really know about Joe Sixpack?

26

I would recommend Hillary. If you’re going to commit suicide, you might as well make it go fast.

27

[QUOTE=What Exit?]
Global Warming and environmental issues, a clean exit from the war in Iraq and stepping up our rebuilding of Afghanistan and UHC are my big three issues.

I care about keeping our military strong and rebuilding our reputation around the world.

I care about keeping ID out of science classes, I am pro-choice, I think we need to provide full rights for all couples and we need to get back to balancing the budget.
[/QUOTE]
Move to the UK. :wink:

28

[QUOTE=Love Rhombus]
And Edward’s “working man” thing seems pandering to me. What’s he really know about Joe Sixpack?
[/QUOTE]

Meh, I don’t like him, but he is legitamately a “self made man” from a working class family, and I think that lets him honestly claim some connection and empathy with people from a similar background. It’s not an act (like Fred Thompson’s pick up, or GW’s ranch).

29

Given a choice, I will be voting for Hillary, not for Hillary but for Bill. He is truly a statesman that can do great things to improve our international image. I think she’ll pick Bill Richardson as her veep which would be an excellent choice IMO. UHC, a woman’s right and our bill of rights would be safe under Hillary.

The past position on Iraq is a strawman afaic. There is no way on earth we would enter another Iraq situation with Hillary at the helm. I think too much emphasis is placed on how people voted at the time. There was bad intelligence and the timing was urgent. While I think it is important to get our troops home in a quick and orderly fashion, to think that it will happen in 6 months is folly. The logistics alone dictate 12-18 months. While the death tolls seem to be improving, the civic duties are stagnant over there. That is the real problem. Having our troops on the ground isn’t going to improve their politics. I want my son (a marine) home, guarding us from enemies both foreign and domestic.

All said, I would vote for anyone that could properly pronounce “nuclear”

30

My cousin worked with Obama on the Harvard Law Review and said that he was the most impressive human being he’d ever met (at that time).

Things like a lack of experience can be easily dealt with via appointment of good advisers. Intelligence and character and charisma and general presidentialness, all which Obama have in spades, not so much.

31

Obama. He’s the only candidate who doesn’t foment the stupid 60s culture war divide. All other issues pale in comparison to that one. Until that rift can be healed we can’t get anything done.

Obama’s lack of experience is a qualification not a hindrance. Experience means beholden to Saudi/Chinese money like Clinton/Giuliani, or old enough to die in office like McCain. He can easily make up for lack of experience by putting Richardson as Sec State.

32

[QUOTE=MaxTheVool]
Things like a lack of experience can be easily dealt with via appointment of good advisers. Intelligence and character and charisma and general presidentialness, all which Obama have in spades, not so much.
[/QUOTE]

Well, candidate Bush in 2000 was going to appoint good advisors to make up for his lack of experience as well, which is one of the reasons I’m a little wary of Obama this time around. Not that I think Obama will turn out that bad, but I think part of Bush’s problem was that he ended up with a bunch of behind the scenes advisors (Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc) exerting too much influence.

33

[QUOTE=What Exit?]

Can you convince me and maybe some other readers on voting for your candidate of choice. Alternately, why should I vote Republican in this election?
[/quote]

The more important question: why should you vote, at all? Does pulling a lever release certain chemicals in your brain that dull the pain even if you understand it has about the same effect on decisions made in the smoke filled rooms as, say, investigating the entrails of a goat? Or what?

You’re hosed.

You understand these are contradictory objectives, right?

Why are you voting again?

34

[QUOTE=Love Rhombus]
Anyone who’s too rabidly Democrat will run into roadblocks too…we must work with the Pubs, not stomp on them when we’re on top, or the whole dance will never end.
[/QUOTE]
Typical soft-on-crime liberal. You think the Republicans will respect that attitude? The dance isn’t over until you quit stomping, and you don’t quit stomping until they stop moving. Then you mock them for being lazy.

That being said, I tend to favor Clinton. She seems practical, moderate, a known quantity. Obama seems like a decent fellow and would probably make a good President (lord knows the bar is set low enough now), but Clinton has already proven that she’s effectively indestructible. If she were going to flinch away from the heat of pure partisan politics, it would have happened years ago.

It’s unlikely that she’ll go too far out on a limb for any ostentatiously liberal cause (not an entirely bad thing in itself), but I think it’s also less likely that she’ll screw up in any costly way. After eight years of American freefall, I’m not in the mood right now to watch the Dem candidate try to unfurl the banner of hope and usher in a magical new era of progressive bipartisanship. I just want the country back on its feet.

Clinton seems to me like the best choice for the job. She seems to have more political chops than Obama. He may well be direct, forthright, uncorrupted by big politics-- but screw that noise, I want someone who can ably navigate a course of endless political compromises.

35

[QUOTE=Terrifel]
Clinton seems to me like the best choice for the job. She seems to have more political chops than Obama. He may well be direct, forthright, uncorrupted by big politics-- but screw that noise, I want someone who can ably navigate a course of endless political compromises.
[/QUOTE]

Heh, and you think Hillary is your candidate to do that? What makes you think Obama wouldn’t be able to navigate a course endless political compromises? His obvious shattering under fire, meek personality, and apparent lack of any political skill? :rolleyes:

36

What Exit?: Also, if I may ask without too much of a hijack-- what’s up with the Republicanism? Because your list of campaign issues frankly does not seem that Republicanistic. At all.

37

[QUOTE=Phlosphr]
Heh, and you think Hillary is your candidate to do that? What makes you think Obama wouldn’t be able to navigate a course endless political compromises? His obvious shattering under fire, meek personality, and apparent lack of any political skill? :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]
I didn’t say he couldn’t. I just think that Clinton could probably do it better.

38

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Move to the UK. :wink:
[/QUOTE]

Tempting, I love Scotland, if I won a large lottery, I would probably move there, but my work and family and friends are all here. Unless you know a company willing to relocated an AS400 RPG programmer and a skilled AT&T Software Engineer, my wife and I are staying here for the duration. :wink:

[QUOTE=Liberal]
I would recommend Hillary. If you’re going to commit suicide, you might as well make it go fast.
[/QUOTE]

Rather than just make easy stabs at Clinton, who would you really recommend and why?

[QUOTE=mswas]
Obama. He’s the only candidate who doesn’t foment the stupid 60s culture war divide. All other issues pale in comparison to that one. Until that rift can be healed we can’t get anything done.

Obama’s lack of experience is a qualification not a hindrance. Experience means beholden to Saudi/Chinese money like Clinton/Giuliani, or old enough to die in office like McCain. He can easily make up for lack of experience by putting Richardson as Sec State.
[/QUOTE]

Interesting perspective, but why Richardson for Sec State and not either VP or Interior? I like him, but I don’t see him as particularly skilled to be Sec State.

In fact, I like the idea of Hillary appointing Bill as Sec State, it could be argued that is what he was best at. Building relations with the world and mending fences. He is the ultimate smoozer it seem like.

[QUOTE=marshmallow]
The more important question: why should you vote, at all? Does pulling a lever release certain chemicals in your brain that dull the pain even if you understand it has about the same effect on decisions made in the smoke filled rooms as, say, investigating the entrails of a goat? Or what?

You’re hosed.

You understand these are contradictory objectives, right?

Why are you voting again?
[/QUOTE]

Seriously, why did you even bother to post. This was neither funny nor informative. It was basically thread shitting.

The one piece that was debate was the contradictory objectives, why do you see a strong military and rebuilding our reputation around the world as contradictory?
We had built excellent reps with a strong military under both Roosevelts and Reagan and even Bill Clinton. The key is a strong military and finding a way to use it minimally.

[QUOTE=Terrifel]
What Exit?: Also, if I may ask without too much of a hijack-- what’s up with the Republicanism? Because your list of campaign issues frankly does not seem that Republicanistic. At all.
[/QUOTE]

Good question, I register Republican as an 18 year old. I was a young Republican at 16. Theodore and Lincoln were in my opinion our two greatest Presidents and I voted for Reagan in 1984, my first time to vote. I then joined Reagan’s Navy and served as part of the forces I still believe led to the final downfall of the Soviet Union, but that is another debate. I am a hawk, I am basically pro-police, I am anti-tort, I lean towards fiscal conservative, I did not use to so open minded about gays, I grew in that regard to be more tolerant, pro-choice never seemed important to me and I very much opposed to the old welfare Liberal Democrats. Clinton changed a lot of my attitudes towards democrats as he worked to balance the budget and did fix welfare. The Democrats are no longer the party of Ted Kennedy and the Liberal Left, just as the Republicans are far from the politics of Ike, Nixon and even Bush the first. Both parties have move to the right as I moved towards the left. It appears I have met the Democrats in the middle.

I guess I have always been Green, but I think Green makes business and national defense sense. I have wanted to get America off our Arab Oil addiction for decades. I believe that innovative technologies that are greener would greatly help our manufacturing sector.

As far as UHC, I believe that small businesses and employees are crippled in many ways in this country as the best workers usually seek jobs with companies that can offer decent health care and it has become very difficult for many if not most small companies to be competitive in this area. Additionally even large corporations have been hamstrung with their union locked medical benefit packages and it is one more incentive to offshore jobs. On my liberal leanings, I think it is shameful that 15% of Americans have no preventative health care. If we ever fix our system, the reduced major illnesses from preventative health care may well pay for most of UHC by itself.

Finally, as some one very pro-military, it was hard to align myself to the Democratic Party. This current administration and way my party has allowed itself to be hijacked by Neo-cons and Theo-cons disgusts me. The administration has spent and wasted more money than the worst offenses of prior Democratic administrations.

Jim

39

[QUOTE=What Exit?]
Interesting perspective, but why Richardson for Sec State and not either VP or Interior? I like him, but I don’t see him as particularly skilled to be Sec State.
[/QUOTE]

He was Clinton’s ambassador to the UN and has also done a fair amount of negotiating with foreign leaders on the side while governor (in Sudan and I think N Korea as well, though I might be making that last one up).

In anycase, I suspect he’ll drop out of the race soon and run for the open Senate seat in NM rather then accept an appointment in the executive branch, but we’ll see.

40

[QUOTE=Malodorous]
He was Clinton’s ambassador to the UN and has also done a fair amount of negotiating with foreign leaders on the side while governor (in Sudan and I think N Korea as well, though I might be making that last one up).

In anycase, I suspect he’ll drop out of the race soon and run for the open Senate seat in NM rather then accept an appointment in the executive branch, but we’ll see.
[/QUOTE]

I forgot about the UN assignment. I feel stupid.