That would be the worst mistake he could ever make. I hope he asks Joe Biden to be his running mate. I was sorry to hear he dropped out of the race last night. I like his views on ending the war, the NCLB act, and lots of others. I like Barack mostly for his energy and the possibility of finally having someone other than a white male as President. However, while I don’t agree with all of his positions, I don’t think his plans are horrible enough not to vote for him in the general election.
I really like Hillary Clinton and I admire her ambition and drive. I see her as a strong, pragmatic, get-things-done person. I think she sincerely wants to do things that are actually good for the country as a whole and that she would work very hard as President. I think the people who think Hillary is just power hungry are wrong - she knows she needs the power of the Presidency to get the things done that she wants to get done, therefore she wants to be President.
I think that she’s right that being First Lady gives her a leg up on experience than the other candidates. Especially since she clearly wasn’t a “typical” First Lady. She paid great attention during the 8 eight years they were in the White House to what was going on in the world and all of the behind-the-scenes work that gets done. No, she wasn’t actually President and didn’t get to be in all the meetings and have access to all the information Bill did, but I think it’s very disingenuous to say she didn’t learn anything.
Me, too. I’m no fan of Hillary, and I know exactly where the OP is coming from, but I don’t think she’d be a bad president. It’s just time to break from the Bush/Clinton dynasties.
I can’t believe y’all–all you otherwise politically savvy animals of the Dope–are writing off Hillary because she quote-unquote “Lost Iowa”. Bwah? I’m looking at numbers:
Senator Barack Obama : 37.58%
Senator John Edwards : 29.75%
Senator Hillary Clinton : 29.47%
Looks like a three-way tie to me, chillun. Or at least a two-way tie for second.
And I doubt whether a seasoned pol like Hillary is going to interpret this as anything other than a dry run. For her, it was like taking Man O’ War out on the track for a quick spin the week before the Derby. Certainly she’s not kicking any dogs this morning; nope, she’s huddled with her spin doctors, interpreting the results, figuring out where she went wrong, figuring out how to spin her image so as to attract whatever portion of the electorate voted for Obama’s image rather than hers.
It ain’t over till it’s over, and believe me, the fat lady hasn’t even come into the Green Room yet. Lots can happen between now and the primaries, all kinds of strange things can happen at political conventions, and TONS can happen between now and the actual election. Raise your hands, all of you who remember how Gary Hart’s entire campaign blew away on the breeze in about two minutes flat.
…Uh huh. I thought so.
Nah, this thing ain’t over, not by a long shot. The Fat Lady’s still putting on her makeup, fer chrissake. Don’t give up and leave the theater just yet…
Of course it is not over, but it is certainly not a three-way tie, either. The winner of Iowa has gone on to win the general election 60% of the time since 1980. Victory here is a reasonably strong predictor of future victory.
Hillary is too “corporatist”, too aligned with business. She is also trying to sell herself as being rather hawkish, but that can be chalked up to trying to overcome the “softy female” thingy. But those aren’t deal-breakers, I can deal.
I just don’t like her, and I know that shouldn’t matter, but it does.
Duck Duck Goose makes a solid point. Besides, Iowa’s caucuses draw only the party core, the people who are willing to spend two or three hours on folding chairs to pick a candidate. Obama’s approach in Iowa was to beat the underbrush to bring out Iowans who had never caucused before. He was immensely successful. The turnout on the Democratic side was nearly double what it had been. Even so, this stunning turnout was only 20 % of eligible voters. Let’s not crown Barack yet. Wait until an actual primary.
All the Hillaryvulsion® in this thread is just a tiny sample of what she’ll face nationwide if she’s the nominee.
This logic undermines itself. If you are highly suggesful at motivating people who are willing to incur high voting costs, then it stands to reason that you will be even more effective at motivating people to vote when the costs are low. This is why Iowa really is a decent predictor of overall success, although far from absolute.
It’s worth remembering that whether the nominee is Obama, Edwards, or Clinton, the nationwide media shitstorm will hit. Plenty of thinly disguised chatter about Obama being a secret Muslim or Edwards living in a big house full of hair-care products or something…we don’t know what, but something. It’s inevitable. It won’t be called swiftboating, but swiftboating it will be. I am in favor of any Dem nominee who can weather it and win anyway. Currently I think that’s Clinton, but I’m happy to be wrong.
Once the lower tier candidates drop out, won’t most of their votes go to either Obama or Edwards (though I can see Biden voters flocking to Clinton once he drops out)? And if, towards the end, either Obama or Edwards were to drop out, I can see their voters merging to back the one left behind.
There is no way this can end well- The “Mean 'ol men” will be blamed if Hillary loses, and the “Mean 'ol whites” will be blamed if Obama loses (As evident by some posts above- which smacks of racism in a sense imho). Since I’m in both camps, I’m screwed either way even if I vote for him/her.
Naturally, their political views would have nil to do with it.
I know you didn’t mean it this way, but last night, while watching Obama wade into the throng of enthusiastic supporters after his acceptance speech, I kept flashing back to Bobby’s assassination.
Maybe with Edwards they could play on the fact he has admitted to wanting to cut and run from Iraq and he can’t count to three or that he made his fortune as a Personal Injury Lawyer or that he appears to be anti-business. I think the hair-care jokes are minor by comparison. Of the big 4 Dems, he also seems to understand the Global Warming issue the least.
See headers:
What distinguishes your plan for Iraq from those of the other candidates?
What would be your top **[COLOR=Black]three ** overall priorities if elected?
What types of regulations and guidelines do you plan on implementing or promoting in order to deal with climate change and to make our country less oil dependent?[/COLOR]
She’s been a US Senator for 8 years, Obama has been one for half that (plus some years in a State Legislative position, which is minor here). So, if Hillary has no experience, then Obama has negative experience. Huckabee was a Governor for 10 years, so that’s about the same level as Hillary. Edwards was a Senator for 6 years. Romney was a Gov for 4 years. So far, Hillary’s experience there is looking pretty damn good. I would count Hillary’s exp as First Lady to be about on the level as Edwards exp as a Veep Candidate- interesting, but hardly critical.
Hillary still did OK in Iowa, but if she bombs in NH it won’t be good.
In eight years no one has so much as taken a shot at Dubya, and billions of people hate him- with Obama, all you really need to worry about are those mountain dwelling klansmen types.
Yabbut… [Warning: stereotype ahead] Those types tend to be good shots with high-powered rifles, don’t they?
Also, doesn’t a candidate campaigning have to engage in a lot more public exposure than a sitting President? Especially one known for restricting public appearances to mostly friendly venues?
It sucks that one even has to contemplate such a thing, but still it’s a thought that won’t go away. I seem to recall reading a news story to the effect that a number of black voters in SC are reluctant to support Obama out of fear for his safety. Now, maybe they (and I) are victims of unwonted paranoia – I devoutly hope so – but I don’t believe it’s a zero percent possibility.
Seven years, not eight, but she seems to be campaigning more on her eight years in the White House than on her Senate experience. Maybe I’m following this from too great a distance and have that wrong.
I can’t speak for BobLibDem, but a lot of people consider experience as a governor more valuable in this context. But nobody has a huge amount of experience among the major candidates - Richardson, Huckabee, Romney, and Giuliani are the only ones with any executive experience, I think.
Or at least a two-way tie for second.