Obama, because he isn’t Clinton.
Obama, because ‘bros before hoes’.
Ok, not being from Michigan myself, I went off to try to figure out the inference I’m expected to glean from DSeid’s post. I work in the political consulting world, but I don’t pretend to understand all the little nuances, especially those that take place in other states. This CNN article from last October sheds little light.
I’m aware that a couple of states, including Michigan, elected to hold their primaries earlier than usual, and apparently earlier than the DNC “allows”. What I don’t get is, why would the candidates pull their names off the ballots? What could they possibly gain or lose by whether they do or not? What the hell gives the DNC the right to invalidate the votes of the people of an entire state by refusing to seat their delegates? And for heaven’s sake, what do money and the Republicans have to do with any of this?
To directly respond to the OP, I’m an Obama girl, much to my boss’s chagrin. And much to mine, he’s participating in a private conference call this morning with the Clintons and a small handful of other advisers, to discuss campaign strategy, since she’ll be out here in L.A. in the next few weeks. I am certainly not giving him any ideas. 
What silenus said. Anyone who thinks that Clinton isn’t divisive, listen up -
On their stated positions I’m closer to Clinton than Obama, but if Clinton wins the nomination I’ll vote for an independent (because I know McCain isn’t going to win the pub). I’ll vote for Obama because I believe he’s a decent person, and I’d rather have an honest president that I disagree with than a dishonest president that claims to hold some of my same positions.
I hear a lot of Republicans saying they would vote for Obama. I don’t hear any of them saying they’d vote for Hillary. They’re too busy shrieking when her name comes up.
Interesting article. I want to learn more. From that piece, this is a possible motivation for the other candidates…
Hillary has a lifetime **plus **the Senate term and one year.
As I said, whether or not it’s in an official capacity may matter in terms of being able to sell it but in practice there’s a world of difference. Anyone who thinks she didn’t learn more relevant knowledge as Bill’s wife during all the years he was Governor and President than Obama learned from Michelle is just being silly.
If Hillary wants to run on the accomplishments of the Clinton administration ,then she should be asked about NAFTA ,Enron and other failures . No free ride.
I have to agree with that assessment despite my support for HRC. In terms of bully pulpit – which, after all is mostly what that position is about – he’s miles ahead of her.
I’m just not sure that she wouldn’t craft a unique, more activist presidency than has been done in the past and for that reason I’m still leaning to her.
But that’s an excellent point and it’s why I think Obama would win over McCain.
True, but keep in mind the established ‘behind the curtain’ phenomenon that happens in terms of race when comparing polls to actual votes. That was one explanation proposed by CNN for the NH result.
That’s interesting, I bet lots of folks feel that way. I prefer the dishonest one.
That’s one of the fascinating and advantageous aspects to the way she gets to run – she sort of gets to claim the positives but not the negatives as she’s already done several times.
If Bill Clinton was a pilot would you let Hillary fly you around?
Nobody voted for her for First Lady. She was not in the cabinet. She didn’t have a security clearance. During the Lewinski scandal she was not even speaking to Bill. Her first task in the Clinton Administration was to recommend an Attorney General. Her criteria was that the candidate had to have 2 X chromosomes. The result was the disastrous Zoe Baird nomination. Her signature project, national health care, could not even get a vote with a friendly Congress and a spouse for president.
In the Senate, she voted to authorize the Iraq War. She has never apologized for that disaster. She voted for a saber-rattling resolution labeling the Iranian armed forces as terroriss. She has supported the proposed amendment to outlaw flag burning, a clear move to pander to the right wing.
What, pray tell, has been the positive fruit of her “experience”?
Since I became eligible to vote in 1974, I have voted for the Democratic candidate in every election. Only twice have I even remotely considered voting for a Republican- in 1988 (Bush v Dukakis), and 1996 (Dole v Clinton). If the nominees this year are McCain and Clinton, I may well vote for McCain. She is that repulsive to me, and McCain would be unlikely to run for reelection in 2012.
After 8 years of a (surprisingly) strong and dishonest (not in the same way) president, I’m ready for honest & weak. I feel that, with Clinton, we’d have non-stop battles between with Congress and a more divided country. Obama might not get much accomplished, seeming to me to be a little wide-eyed and innocent, but I don’t think the nation will have worse morale in 4 years like Clinton or a strong Republican would cause.
I’ve been wrong about everyone I’ve semi-supported thus far, however (I’ve never voted for a candidate that won the presidency)
Is Hillary inspiring to anyone? Seriously, someone pipe in who has ever been inspired by Hillary Clinton.
I’m voting and campaigning for Obama because in my 35+ years on this planet I have never gotten to vote for someone who inspires me. He will choose a strong cabinet and a strong veep and that is enough to get my vote.
Have you seen the movie Election? Hillary comes a little too close to being a real-life counterpart to Reese Witherspoon’s character. Defined almost completely by ambition.
Aside from that, I have serious problems with her foreign policy approach. She has been happily rattling sabers at Iran right along with the White House. I fear that as the first woman president, she would feel the need to prove her mettle as a commander in chief.
I object to Hillary’s leadership style. From what I can gather, it consists largely of screaming at her underlings. I don’t think that is an effective form of leadership. It’s the sort of style that would lead to a lot of turmoil in the White House and leaks to the press by vengeful staffers.
I don’t think Hillary could get things done. Republican congress-critters have to answer to their constituents, most of whom are Hillary haters. They’re not going to want to do anything that might seem like cooperating with her, and they’re not going to want to stand next to her at signing ceremonies.
Hillary is not an effective speaker, certainly not inspirational. One of a president’s most important functions is to inspire.
Hillary’s presence on the ticket will energize conservative voters. This means not only will they trun out to beat her, but that kind of turnout will hurt Democratic candidates further down the ticket.
And finally, on a more personal level, I’m just tired of baby boomer politicians. Time for the boomers to pass the torch.
I’ve listed my objections to Hillary (the candidate, not the person) in a number of Pit & GD threads, so I won’t enumerate them all here again.
But, essentially, I think this country is sorely in need of reunification. There are enormous problems the next POTUS will be inheriting from this disastrous administration, and our next leader needs to be someone who will bridge divides, build alliances, and act as a non-divisive ambassador for policies that many people leaning toward the right might not immediately embrace.
Regardless of how hard a worker she is, or how much she learned as First Lady (note that Obama’s actually served in elected office for longer), Hillary has absolutely no hope of being any sort of agent of “change”. There are too many people who hate what she and her husband (and his terms in office) “represent”, and too much pathological animus against her that will result in further partisanship, rancor, and obstructive behavior.
Does she deserve this reputation? Not completely. But her attitude, the tone she sets amongst the people around her, certainly have fueled this fire in the past, and nothing I’ve seen in this campaign makes me believe that a Clinton2 administration will be any different. Plus, the GOP is in shambles–tearing at the seams and splitting off into a myriad of niche groups and interests. Nothing will unite and mobilize the Republicans more than her candidacy.
Obama is smart, he’s competent, he’s inspiring, he’s persuasive, and he represents the future of this country (his youth, his multicultural background, his abandonment of partisan bickering). And as much as I would love to see a woman occupy the Oval Office, I would prefer that the first one not ride in on the coattails of her ex-Pres hubby, but have a long, established political career of her own.
I’ll take sound judgment and rational thinking over a knee-jerk preoccupation with a narrow assessment of “experience”. I think his winning the presidency will make this country feel better about itself, completely redefine our image in international eyes (which we sorely need to rebuild coalitions for the global problems we face), and be a positive step forward for both parties. Hillary would have, I think at best, an OK presidency crippled by factionism and backbiting–and that’s if she won, which I’m highly skeptical she could do.
If I felt she was a co-pilot (in practice, if not in official capacity), yes I would. I’d prefer that person to someone who hasn’t even been in the cockpit in any capacity, official or otherwise.
Cabinet, clearance, etc. are all official capacity issues. She had access to all of the information that was made available to cabinet and security folks. Just not by ‘name’ of course, so as to not piss off folks that would say things like, oh I don’t know “she wasn’t elected.” But the reality is what I’m going by.
As for Zoe Baird and healthcare, I’d call those mistakes helpful to have learned from at the time. I prefer those ‘unofficial’ off-the-job training/mistakes to Obama’s possible on-the-job training mistakes. Furthermore, I have more confidence in the usefulness of Bill Clinton’s advice and wisdom for his presidential spouse than that of Michelle’s for hers.
As everyone knows, she voted to authorize the use of force as a negotiating tool. She didn’t vote to go to war. Too bad Bush isn’t as good/as interested at/in applying pressure using such techniques and was set on going to war anyway.
Labeling the Revolutionary Guard terrorists might just be accurate and is after all a financial move primarily.
Outlawing flag burning is a blatant pandering vote and precisely why I like her. She knows how and when to lie in a way that is completely transparent and reassuring to those that can see what she’s doing. Since I don’t believe in honest politicians, I prefer my lies right out front where I can see them.
The positive fruits of her experience, of course, would be expressed during her presidency. Sort of the like every other candidate’s.
As for her Senate term, which got skipped over, she showed her ability to work with McCain to pass bipartisan, reasonable, sound bills and has shown a practical ability to move towards the middle to accomplish meaningful things like healthcare in moderate doses like for children, etc. I believe McCain and Clinton respect each other actually. As much as that means for two politicians, of course.
If she hasn’t accomplished anything yet, she shouldn’t get to claim this “experience”.
She officially can claim the same Senate experience Obama and Edwards can claim. And it isn’t true that she hasn’t accomplished anything yet. She has, in the Senate.
I do agree that it’s interesting and nuanced how she gets to claim the unofficial years of “experience” as first lady, but that’s how it goes.
Beyond that, frankly I find Obama and Edwards running for president after the tiny amount of time they’ve been at the Senate level to be a bit disconcerting.
Maybe if either of them had been married to a successful president for 8 years in addition to the Senate terms, I’d feel differently. In fact, I know I would. 