Arrogance may have been part of the drive train, but the steering mechanism was quite clearly bad policy from the get-go. If you think Bush would have done well if not for his arrogance, well, there’s a bridge I have a deed to, if you want to invest in some real estate. The market’s great right now.
Well, that’s understandable. Unfortunately, a great many swing voters make their decisions on personality whether we like it or not. And if we nominate Hillary, those voters will be turning away in droves.
That’s the lesson we should have learned from nominating Dukakis, Gore and Kerry.
I get that you think that in choosing Obama over Clinton, because we like him more, that some of us are falling into the same trap that ensnared so many Republicans who voted for Bush because he came across as someone they’d want to have a beer with. Not so. It’s not about personality, it’s about character.
Hillary has shown herself to be an utterly unscrupulous liar, engaging in exactly the same tactics that Karl Rove honed so well for the Republicans. And I think it’s about time that we condemn in our own party, that which we so vigorously condemn in our opponents. Rewarding that woman with the nomination after the despicable behavior she and her husband have engaged in over the last few weeks would be tantamount to giving the Republicans carte blanche to continue to use those same tactics with us ad infinitum.
Well I don’t subscribe to that nonsense, and neither does Barack Obama. I do think there’s a vast chasm of difference between Senator Obama and Senator Clinton – they are not just the same simply because they’re both Democrats. Clinton is a pandering, lying, arrogant woman who, in my opinion, is just Bush Left. Obama is much more of a diplomat, and has proven to be able to treat people – even those who hold entirely different viewpoints from himself – with respect. And yet, he’s strong enough and willing enough to fight back when attacked.
I pray we are not foolish enough to give Hillary the nomination. I now find myself in complete agreement with Jophiel’s sentiments; “I’ve shifted from “I’ll support whoever is the Democratic candidate” to “I’d seriously consider McCain or, more likely, not vote on the presidential ticket” if Clinton is the nominee”. I sincerely, genuinely believe that in spite of policy differences, an honest Republican is better than a dishonest Democrat any day of the week.
Yeah, I thought we learned our lesson eight years ago on that one, too.
Hentor,
McCain has been clear. He wants to keep the troops there until we can believe that Iraq will be stable when they go. He says they stay however long that takes because the alternative is, in his mind, worse.
He went against public opinion and said the surge would work when HRC ridiculed it to good pr. To my amazement it has worked. He was right.
I think that he’ll do better at actually assessing what needs to be done to get the situation stable enough for us to leave than HRC would. And no matter what they say, no one will pull troops out when doing so would destabilize things worse.
If you believe all this, I don’t know why you would not vote for McCain in the first place. The surge has worked? It hasn’t achieved its stated purpose.
Obama has repeatedly argued that he was against the war from the beginning. Why would you vote for him, when McCain has consistently been for it? If you want troops to remain there, you ought not to be voting for Obama, who has said that he would get the troops out by 2009.
Again, I wish that people would figure out what they believe in, and vote for the person most likely to bring that about, and not based on slogans, like the clearly false “straight talk express”.
Hentor I may be surprised that it worked, but it has by any reasonable measure. Deaths, both American and Iraqi, are down. Iraqi forces are taking on more of the responsibility. Some refugees are returning.
Will it get the Iraqis to the point that political action can finish the job? I don’t know. But it has worked to stabilize the situation, despite HRCs saying that believing it would “required the willing suspension of disbelief.”
But there is no need for a hijack. You asked why any Democrat would vote for McCain over HRC, and I will try to explain more why
Defeating the Pubbies is not my goal. Having a great country is. I want the best leader for the job. Let’s match up the two on what I think the job should have.
A positive vision of the future for America. Neither is great there. I am not aware that HRC has a vision at all. McCain’s is a reasonable enough one.
The ability to articulate that vision - to inspire. Neither scores well there either.
The wisdom to choose intelligent advisors who share that vision. I think both have the wisdom and networks to do that.
Sharing my positions on issues that I think are important. I’m not sure I believe what HRCs beliefs are, but taking her stated beliefs at face value, they are not too far off from each other on issues that matter to me. Both will address global warming. HRC cares about healthcare reform but her track record at achieving it is poor and I think her working on it from the Senate would be just as useful. Ethics, again he wins. No torture, he wins. Immigration, a wash. Supremes noms, she wins but not by much with a Dem Congress. Both are hawks, both voted for the war. A wash.
Experience He has a track record of delivering major products. She has a track record of being a first lady and a Senator who mainly kept her head down. He’s worked across the aisle to get things done. She much less so. He wins. Handily.
Character. Yes I care about character. HRC is a liar and a panderer. McCain is not perfect. He has indeed pandered to the religious right this cycle. But he doesn’t lie. He doesn’t use Rovian tactics. He wins this one by a mile.
The ability to get us out of this partisan battle that has led to the perpetual election cycle. She the master of creating the battle and exacerbating it. Her approach in this cycle is only the most recent evidence of her love for “the fun” of the smear campaign. She’ll focus as much on winning the next time as on leading he country. He won’t care. He’ll reach across and then some.
Between those two, McCain wins. IMHO he’d be much better for the country. Heck even much better for the Democratic party as I’d guess a Clinton White House would result in Congressional reversals next cycle.
I think that there are many Democrats who feel the same way.
While McCain has said he will take action to address GW–which is commendable given his current audience–he hasn’t offered any kind of plan (that I can find). Hillary has offered a somewhat detailed plan involving cap-and-trade. Maybe he will roll one out for the general, but as of now I think Hillary has him soundly beat on this particular issue.
The most important (and long-reaching) thing a President does is nominate justices to the Supreme Court. These nominations outlast a President’s political lifetime and can alter the landscape of American public life. (See Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade.)
Now do you think the people that McCain and Clinton would appoint would be similar? Take a look at the justices appointed by Reagan - Scalia, who is a nightmare IMO and the most conservative justice on the Court, and Kennedy, who is a little less scary than advertised. Though I have to admit that O’Connor was a great appointee. Bush I gave us Thomas and Souter.
I would always trust a Democratic president to appoint socially liberal justices that would support minority rights and a woman’s right to choose. I don’t think this is a priority for the Republican party. Sure, every now and then a justice moves beyond partisanship and becomes truly transcendent - Earl Warren comes to mind - but I don’t want to see a conservative appointed knowing that abortion rights are constantly being challenged on the state level. And yes, I’m aware that the Senate must confirm a nominee.
If this kind of thing doesn’t matter to you, then I suppose you can afford to vote for whichever candidate suits your view for the next four years.
Well put, Hippy Hollow. The real question becomes, which victorious Democrat is most likely to give severely overweight Clarence Thomas a heart attack? That might actually be advantage Clinton.
ETA: A non-fatal heart attack, mind you. Just enough to get him off the bench and back jogging.
Indeed. We need to be very frightened of a Hillary nomination and work tirelessly to prevent it, or we all lose.
I get my information off both the websites of Obama and Hillary and follow the sources of their statements. Invariably, I find the Hillary camp’s statements as more straightforward and closer to the truth - it’s not even close.
I am distinctly aware the the mainstream media is more favorable to Obama but my reading of it has been that Obama has gotten a huge pass from them a number of times and favorable treatment is not indicative of anything.
The “race issue” comes to mind. Just about every one in the mainstream media jumped behind Obama in condemning the Clintons when there is nothing “racist” about their comments. That was a very dishonest charge from Obama’s surrogates that he didn’t stamp down fast enough - waiting 10 days before responding, conveniently after seeing that he got a boost in the polls.
Another issue is the “kindergarten issue” that just about everyone bashed Clinton for but if you look at it, the Clintons were merely factually responding to a lie that the Barack Obama wished to insinuate -i.e. that the Clintons had an agreement about the presidency, ambition, etc. Now this is clearly a hypocritical statement considering the factual response of the Clintons.
There are so much more to point out. Consider: Hillary is being decried as negative when the fact is Obama was the one who attacked first. The fact is Obama came out with the first negative campaign in the season. You know, things like that.
His position on Iraq may not have changed that much but his advantage on Hillary on this point is overstated. He faults the other camps for initially supporting the war, but: He delivered a speech against the Iraq war when it was not difficult for him to do so. An overwhelming majority of the Illinois State legislature was against it. In fact, he admits that he doesn’t know how he would have voted had it been him in the Senate. And then he has gone on to vote exactly like Hillary.
Just remember what Eisenhower did.
What is the point of citing one other person’s opinion on the topic?
I find the entirety of the thinking behind this all very suspect. The claims against Clinton seem hystrionically overblown. She might be my third choice among the three, but she is clearly, given any moment of thought on the matter, far closer to the positions that I hold on most all topics than the candidates from the other party.
What is it, in fact, that she is supposed to have done that makes her so freakishly horrid? Give me facts, not vague character assassination (such as she is more ambitious then the other people running for the fucking presidency of the US).
My problem with her is that she is too centrist, and has taken some positions that seem to be an appeal to the middle rather than where I stand. However, Obama has also been running to the right. Calling the Republicans the party of ideas, as he did, is simply taking a page from the Republican bullshit book, and I don’t need any more Republican bullshit. Either he really believes that they were, which takes him down to below Richardson or Kucinich in my book, or he was making a cold, calculating political ploy, of the kind Clinton is being lambasted for here.
Stop the insanity people. John McCain is not your friend. If John McCain were an ice cream flavor, he’d be pralines and dick.
ETA: I just flipped over to Daily Kos after this post, and one of the first things I saw was this:
If you’re crazy enough to want more Bush, then just vote your fucking conscience and vote McCain to begin with. Don’t try to game the Democratic side of things with your “Oh, put forward my candidate or I’ll vote for the other side” bullshit.
McCain first introduced a cap and trade bill in 2003. If it had passed it
Tell me exactly what work HRC has done on the subject while she’s been in the Senate? Which Climate Change bills did she author or sponsor? He’s led on this subject (and gone against his party in the process), she’s followed. Nope, on this one he has her soundly beat.
Look, I have no desire to convince anyone that McCain is great. He’s not. But Hentor expressed a belief that any Democrat who would abandon ship to vote McCain in a HRC/McCain match-up is going by personality alone is false. Many of us who are likely to do so (and more likely to do as the campaign gets uglier on the Democratic side), would do so based on our analysis of qualifications and handling of the issues. What we wouldn’t do is knee-jerk lock-step check off any Democrat in that box just because she’s a Democrat. And perceived character (or lack of) will be part of that analysis.
BTW Hentor great debating points, accepting the Clintonian Big Lie at face value, ignoring the analysis of how the candidates actually would affect the issues, and instead calling McCain a name. That’s below what you are capable of.
Just to follow up with something else I just came across at The Washington Monthly:
Uh-oh. When you talk to more than one person, it looks like it’s much less cut and dried. I don’t like the sound of Obama losing by a point against McCain. Of course, I won’t jump ship if my prefered Democrat isn’t chosen. I know what I stand for, and that drives my voting decisions.
Are you capable of providing any specifics? What the hell is the “Clintonian Big Lie”? Do you mean about McCain’s budget proposal, his preference for corporate tax breaks and the permanence of the Bush tax cut? That summary didn’t come from the Clintons.
Oh, the name-calling? That was just a reference to Wayne’s World. I thought it was funny.
The Big Lie in this case is Clinton’s claim that Obama praised Republican ideas. He never did.
I meant my list of which issues mattered most to me and how they each stacked up.
I guess we are all entitled to our senses of humor, such as they are.
Part of what I stand for is honest campaigning and a break from Rove tactics. Maybe it’s a pipe dream, but I can’t see myself rewarding the worst offender.
If Clinton wants my vote, she needs to justify why she deserves it. If she fails at that, that’s her failing. It’s not mine for refusing to just give her my vote because she wears blue.
He didn’t? He said:
Here’s discussion of it: The Left Coaster: Sen. Obama's Party of Ideas
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/17/194039/687/771/438567
Again, in the primary, I would probably vote for Obama before Clinton, but he quite clearly did say exactly that. Now, who’s Big Lie are you buying into?