[QUOTE=AdmiralCrunch]
But this is the exact attitude young voters are fighting. Who gives a fuck about symbolic history? We have to actually live it.
Vote for Hillary because we need a shrewd politician to work the system. Vote for Hillary because her stance on key issues. Vote for Hillary because she’s a centrist who appeals to independents or whatever. But for God’s sake, don’t vote for her out of some misguided ideal of democracy. That’s not progress; that’s bullshit.
[/QUOTE]
Show me where I said anyone should vote for Hillary? And show me where any other nation has had two viable candidates who are minorities going up for the top job at the same time!That’s what makes this historic. We shouldn’t be bemoaning the fact that one of the candidates isn’t 100% like we want. When the fuck has that ever happened? Usually, we’ve got a bunch of absolute fuckwits running. This time, there’s actually a good crop of Dems running, not one, but two. (“Good,” in the sense that they stand a chance of winning the White House.) So we should be celebrating that fact. The GOP still hasn’t been able to narrow the field to any significant degree, and is unlikely to be able to do so without things getting ugly (which will play well into the hands of whomever gets the Democratic nomination).
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan]
Show me where I said anyone should vote for Hillary? And show me where any other nation has had two viable candidates who are minorities going up for the top job at the same time!That’s what makes this historic. We shouldn’t be bemoaning the fact that one of the candidates isn’t 100% like we want. When the fuck has that ever happened? Usually, we’ve got a bunch of absolute fuckwits running. This time, there’s actually a good crop of Dems running, not one, but two. (“Good,” in the sense that they stand a chance of winning the White House.) So we should be celebrating that fact. The GOP still hasn’t been able to narrow the field to any significant degree, and is unlikely to be able to do so without things getting ugly (which will play well into the hands of whomever gets the Democratic nomination).
[/QUOTE]
I don’t care if it’s historic. I don’t care about progress. That’s irrelevant. Hillary is a shitty, divisive, and uncharismatic candidate. I’m pissed that she’s winning.
I agree with the OP on all counts - except the us vs them bit in regards to baby boomers.
I do dislike that the debt and such… is being left on the shoulders of the kids - and the likely paring down of Social Security and no one is batting an eye lash.
I think a vote for Hill is a vote for the Repub nominee. I’m no republican anymore - but if Hill’s the nominee, I think I’ll stay home that day (or completely skip the Presidential section of the ballot).
I HATE the lies that she and her campaign are peddling. And I won’t be surprised when she miraculously wins South Carolina either…
Boomer here: Barely read the OP; didn’t read any other posts, but this is far from my first rodeo. Can see how HRC and BHO are being set up as the POTUS and VPOTUS nominees, with enough fabricated tension between the two to make it interesting (no puppet show here!), and I’m happy with both of them and can see the possibility of a four-term Dem run. Were I Edwards I’d drop and spend the campaign treasure chest enjoying the time I had left with my wife.
[QUOTE=dropzone]
Boomer here: Barely read the OP; didn’t read any other posts, but this is far from my first rodeo. Can see how HRC and BHO are being set up as the POTUS and VPOTUS nominees, with enough fabricated tension between the two to make it interesting (no puppet show here!), and I’m happy with both of them and can see the possibility of a four-term Dem run. Were I Edwards I’d drop and spend the campaign treasure chest enjoying the time I had left with my wife.
[/QUOTE]
Yep,
Your analysis shows that you not only have no idea what the fuck is going on, you also do not care.
[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
If it’s Clinton vs. McCain, count me among the Democrats For McCain.
[/QUOTE]
There is no such thing as a "Democrat for McCain’, you’d at the very least have to switch to the Connecticut for Lieberman party.
Good luck on that “100 years in Iraq” plank. It’s a real ‘national unifier’, a surefire path to the new American century that so many people across the country are craving.
[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
Let them decide for themselves. If nominating Hillary leads to President Hucklebee and his Taliban Party, then so be it.
[/QUOTE]
This is why it is important that Hillary not get the nomination; she is a hugely polarizing force among liberals; and an almost entirely negative one for conservatives. Soneone said upthread and I agree that she is the maybe the only Democratic candidate whose nomination might end with a Pubbie electoral win.
That said, if she becomes the Democratic candidate, I will hold my nose and vote for her. I believe the Pubbie candidates are competing to see who can appear most clinically insane for their base. I would rather the worst democratic candidate than the best republican this time around.
[QUOTE=Boyo Jim]
That said, if she becomes the Democratic candidate, I will hold my nose and vote for her.
[/QUOTE]
Likewise and vice versa I’m sure.
Why the hell isn’t Feingold running anyway? The country sure could use a nice Wisconsin boy in the whitehouse.
[QUOTE=Anomalous Reading]
What is WITH the Clinton’s??
Is she a damsel in distress? Is he just Rove with grey hair? What’s with the Clintons swift boating Obama?
[/QUOTE]
Trust me, what the Clintons are doing is nothing compared to what the GOP will do to the eventual Dem nominee, if the GOP was willing brutally slander McCain just to make sure Georgie boy got the nom then the Dems can expect to get even worse.
I am thinking, however, that a Clinton/Obama ticket would be perfect. Odds are, Hillary would be a two termer, and Obama certainly could. After 16 years of Dems in the White House, the GOP would either have reformed themselves to where they no longer put party before country, or they will have imploded and been replaced by two parties. One filled with sane conservatives and the other filled with the nutters, this would make it easier to marginalize the nutters, and we wouldn’t have to worry that we’ll get stuck with Bush 3.0.
[QUOTE=Squink]
Likewise and vice versa I’m sure.
Why the hell isn’t Feingold running anyway? The country sure could use a nice Wisconsin boy in the whitehouse.
[/QUOTE]
1st, he’s too short.
2nd, there are a lot of rumors related to “womanizing”.
3rd, maybe he’s too sane to throw himself into the blender.
[QUOTE=NightRabbit]
I agree completely! As a younger voter (mid-20s), and fairly progressive without being radical, I hate the way the baby boomer/senior citizen voting block tends to cast the vote against any sort of novelty. I know everyone has a right to vote, yadda yadda, but it’s getting tiresome to be politically stuck in a generational mindset that’s 20 years out of date.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe it’s because a lot more boomers and seniors actually go out and VOTE? I’m 25 and when I go to the polls (and I vote in all elections, not just presidential ones), I’m the youngest one by far. I remember two times where I saw one person my age or younger. Everyone else voting was in their 40s or above.
If you want the younger generation’s ideals and voices heard, get them out to the damn polls.
I voted for Bill Clinton twice and thought he was a pretty good president. Eight years of peace and prosperity and balanced budgets speak well for his leadership. But I will never say another good thing about him again and would not vote for his wife under any circumstance. . . Now he is completely trashing his reputation in his new role as hatchet man for his wife. The Clintons are running a filthy campaign against Obama, worthy of Karl Rove himself. I can only hope that enough people see the light before we’re stuck with this bitch as a nominee.
[/QUOTE]
I agree with every word of this part of your post. As far as I’m concerned, Bill and Hill can both go to hell. The fact that they’ve become the Democratic Karl Rove is beyond despicable.
But it really shouldn’t come as such a surprise to me, seeing as how it’s exactly the reason I could never consider supporting her from the beginning – I see her as no fucking different from the current crop of divisive, hate-mongering, lying jackasses we’re saddled with now, she just wears a different letter behind her name (D). We need actual change, and she will NOT bring it, just more shit/different party.
If she does manage to pull out the nom, this may be the first time in my voting life (and I’m “technically” a Baby Boomer, myself (born in 1961)) that I won’t be casting a vote for president at all, I’m that opposed to her.
Perhaps the way the Clintons are running their campaign will put to bed the meme that Hilary is invulnerable because all her sleaze is old news.
The question then becomes, will Hilary be as divisive and negative for Democrats and independents as she is for Republicans? Will she alienate Obama voters enough that they will not vote for her? Not “vote for someone else”, just not vote at all?
My guess is No. If she gets the nom and picks Obama as her VP, all will be forgiven and forgotten, at least in public. There are no second acts in American politics, and if Obama doesn’t get the nomination and turns down the VP slot, he will lose his luster as the outsider and white (snerk) knight to rescue us all from The Man. And that will be that for the former First Black President. So he will have to go for it now. Sort of like how Bush Sr. had to suck up the “voodoo economics” stuff.
Unless Hilary loses. He can then become the opposition, and position himself for a 2012 run. But one way or other, he loses his “outsider” creds. Whether he has anything more than that to run on, I doubt.
Of course, boo hoo - the Democrats are getting the Clinton treatment, and not even a Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy to blame it on.
[QUOTE=BlackKnight]
No, not everyone has a right to vote. We already base voting rights on age. I see no reason why we could not, in theory, remove the right to vote from people over, say, 60.
I’m not saying it would be a good idea, but it might be worth a try. Maybe allow anyone age 16 to 65, in order to be a bit more inclusive. After that? Well, you’ve had your shot. Go drink your Metamucil and be happy we don’t recreate Logan’s Run.
Sorry. I guess I’m just depressed that it looks more and more like the Democrats will select Hillary, who will almost certainly lose in the election. Granted, the Republicans seem splintered all to hell, so she might eke out a win. If she gets the nomination, I’m going to have to look hard at the Republican nominee and make some hard choices. Actually, fuck that - I’ll just write in Obama.
[/QUOTE]
At least 60 pluses are not too self involved to vote. I am over 60 and do not like Hillary. She is too involved in the capitalists who have bought the system. She is a conservative at heart and will not likely change things. NAFTA was a program of Bills. It has been a disaster. Perot was right about that.
Edwards makes the best points on the debates and I prefer him. (other than Kucinich) who has been marginalized out of the race.
I’m a baby boomer and my intention is to vote for Obama if he gets the Democratic nomination. I agree with the OP that he is inspiritational, and there are times when a nation needs inspiration. I appreciate Obama’s comprehension of Reagan in that regard. Whatever faults he may have had, he restored America’s confidence. And when an economy is based completely on confidence, confidence is crucial.
If Obama doesn’t take the nomination, I plan — for the first time in a long time — not to vote at all. The only difference between Hillary and Mitt is that one is an innie and the other an outie. They’re both authoritarian windbags in pursuit of wealth and power through politics.
