Hillary
PRO:
First woman president.
Battle-hardened.
Has the best people.
Bill back in the WH.
CON
Wrong about the war.
Bill back in the WH.
Won’t help much down ticket.
Her people kinda suck, too.
FAVORITE unPC JAB
“Iron my shirt” -Moron with sign.
Barack
PRO
First black president (not counting Morgan Freeman).
Brings new voters into the party.
Right about the war.
Will help down ticket.
CON
Health care plan sucks.
Totally loves nuclear power.
Propensity to cave to GOP.
Has never won a seriously contested election.
FAVORITE unPC JAB
“Is he black enough?” -Stupid news commentator.
> Propensity to cave to GOP.
That is the problem.
Plus all the unspoken sexism towards any strong woman, particularly Hillary. Okay, I get it, Obama is a charming young attractive guy, and that’s what makes us feel good, like we know what will happen.
Which “seriously contested election” did Hillary win?
Didn’t Hillary “cave” when she voted yes for war with Iraq? Or was that a seriously principled decision she made that she now disavows?
Also, who voted yes to the bill that OK’d cluster bombing civilian populations? I guess that is not an important enough issue to make your short list, eh will?
I am not sure that ‘caving to the GOP’ shouldn’t go under Clinton’s resume as anywhere else. She has a battle-hardened record of triangulating. What the hell were her votes for the Iraq war and legitimating a war with Iran if not caving to the GOP.
I am nervous about Obama’s habit of using right-wing talking points on Social Security and other issues as anyone, but if I will take poorly chosen rhetoric and projected disappointment over a proven record of it anytime.
Hillary
PRO:
First woman president. Why is this an issue? She would also be the child of privlige.
Has the best people. BUT then you say , “Her people kinda suck, too”
CON
Wrong about the war.
Bill back in the WH.
Won’t help much down ticket.
Barack
PRO
First black president (not counting Morgan Freeman or Hubbie Bill). Also, I would give him soime creds for an impressive muticultural backgtround and Michelle is the froirst gen, from real poverty, US atyle.
CON
Health care plan sucks. read the effin plans. The only major difference is that BHO makes a more serious effort at con trolling costs and does not equire folks over 26 to have insurance.
Has never won a seriously contested election. true, neither has she.
Beat me to it Mike….
Will:
who caved on the biggest GOP issue – the war in Iraq?
who caved on earmarks?
who caved on clusterbombs?
What exactly has Obama caved on?
How exactly is Hillary’s health care plan better? She can’t even explain how mandatory health care will work – except to say that maybe wages will be garnished. That will go over well in the general election…..
and then the biggest question: who is the most electable democrat?
Here is a hint – it is not Hillary.
See link:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talk.....lltracker/
My support of Clinton would increase by leaps and bounds if she kicked Mark Penn to the curb…. If Clinton thinks her votes on flag-burning and for the war will help her with conservatives she is just nuts. Haven’t we had enough of the DLC strategy to lose?
Aaron @1 “like we know what will happen.”
Huh? Care to explain?
@ 2
Eat me. Don’t like my list? Make your own.
@ 4
Rick Lazio is no Alan Keyes.
@ 6
Look, there’s no getting around the fact that Obama’s health care plan is not as good as Sen. Clinton’s. Not having mandates means the young and healthy will continue to skip buying health insurance, and will only buy it when they get sick… Which is our problem at current.
Here is my list:
Obama: Can win white house
HRC: Cannot win white house
What the hell is wrong with nuclear power?!
Silly busdrivermike – HRC can win the white house – latest CNN polls vs John McCain:
CNN Poll (CNN 02/01 – 02/03) with a sample of 974 shows Clinton with +3.0 on McCain with 50% Clinton, 47% McCain.
I’m tired of the concept of Triangulation, especially on economics and trade. Clinton and the Dems moved towards the Republicans and the the Republicans didn’t budge.
I’m hoping that with Obama, if there is compromise, the Repubs move toward the progressive pole as much as the Democrats move toward the consecrative pole. With Hillary, I don’t expect that to happen, just more of the same destructive triangulation-move to the repubs.
Clinton is also still the National Frontrunner in the latest polls vs Obama:
Latest Time poll on Clinton vs Obama:
Time 02/01 – 02/04 48 Clinton to 42 Obama = Clinton +6.0
Averaging out other polls that were taken in that same time perdod gives Clinton an overall lead of 3.8 over Obama.
On Healtcare.
I honestly do not know which plan is better. While I agree that universal is better, an alyses I have read of both plans say that her plan is defective in providing incentives for cost control.
I also suggest that any plan called “insurance” is a mistake. We already know that insurance for retirement, FICA, has become a regressive tax. It seems to me that any universal program should be paid from tax revenues not user fees. Look at the mess FICA makes!
@ 11
Well, not a lot, except for the fact that the waste is around for, like, 10k years.
Also, the water used to cool the reactors is drawn from our natural water supplies. That might otherwise be ok, but global warming might make the water resource in higher demand.
A nuke plant w/out water is a bad, bad thing.
Hey Blue John – what do you expect when you have a senate so lopsidedly divided in favor of the repulicans for most of her 8 years in office, WITH a republican president? Do you think the highest of democratic policies are going to be pushed through?
Or do you resign to do *something* in the interest of the American people by getting Republican bills to not be *SO* Republican and hurt the middle class and working class as much?
With just a slim majority in the Senate, they still don’t have a veto proof margin vs Bush, although the bills (like CHIPs that she overwhelmingly pushed for and Bush vetoed) have been much more progressive lately.
@12, 14 Whatever the polls say, I know from my own circle of aquaintences, we’re all much more likely to get out and vote *against* Hillary vs McCain, than we are to vote *for* McCain vs Obama…
Will @9 “Eat me”? Seriously, is that the best you have? You put out a list of ‘facts’ and your response to being challenged on it is to go get your own? I think you have been hanging around too many Republicans if that is your attitude towards a little fact-based dissent.
Who was it again that said: “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities….”?
@8: I’m suggesting that a lot of people are projecting positive feelings about Obama based not on what he’s said or what he’s done, but on an emotional reaction based more on our own needs. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but such folks might be due for a rude awakening when and if Obama gets to the Whitehouse, and the love fest with right leaning independents is over. We’ll be right back to the same gridlock, where progressives compromise, and Rs eat all they can.
The Rs will continue to do as little as possible. They basic premise they operate under is to tear down all government. Obama will not be successful in getting them to move to the center, Hillary has a better chance at change by being in a position and having the power to roll them.
Oh and by the way, all the OBM supporters chanting about how HRC can’t win the WH is not good. Talk about destructive negative campaigning! I hope you don’t sing the same tune if it comes down to HRC on the left side of the ticket.
Well, I guess you have your own perogatvie I-Burn. NPR’s poll from 01/29 – 01/31 with 1000 surveyed show McCain beating Obama 48% – 47%: that’s McCain +1.0
I am going to the Democratic caucus, first time, for Hillary. All my friends, ages from the late twenties through to sixty, are for Hillary. In fact none of my Democratic friends are for Obama. Doesn’t mean we would not vote for him, specially in 2016 after Hillary has cleaned all the bat shit crazy right wing Republican scum out of the Federal government.
@ 9
Hey doofus: To each their own. These are just thoughts. I’m actually undecided at the moment, so I jotted out some of the things I was thinking about. Sue me if it doesn’t fit his frame.
The first black president I can recall is James Earl Jones.
http://imdb.com/title/tt0068912/
@ 25
Uh, have you seen “Deep Impact”? It’s fuckin’ good. Morgan Freeman is the black president of our dreams.
@21: It is not that Hillary CAN’T win – it is just that she does worse than Obama against McCain, in particular.
Dustin – I gave the link for the latest polls – after Mitt dropped out and after super tuesday – and Hillary does worse against McCain in the two latest national polls head to head with McCain. In fact, she ties McCain in the Rasmussen poll and Obama wins and Obama has a stat. sig lead in the Time mag. national poll – the polls you cite are from before super tuesday when the opponent and the race was still unclear or head to head democratic (which is closing rapidly).
Anyone who thinks Hillary will “roll” the republicans is fantasizing – the right wing rhetoric will ramp up and she already blown health care once. We need to appeal to the people (and that includes independents and some republicans) to form a majority to enact legislation – Hilary’s tendency is to be cornered and lash out at the vast right wing….on and on….
– and I just don’t think she can get as much done as president with that history and attitude.
Obama has actually worked with republicans (check his record in the Ill. legislature) on some things –
Look McCain is against torture and Huckabee and Paul are against the war. I don’t agree with them on most things – but on individual issues there can be agreement. I don’t see Hillary finding some consensus on common issues – that is NOT caving but finding common ground.
All republicans are not evil – the current bush WH is a corrupt, lying bunch of fascists – but not all independents or republicans agree with them. Simplistic attitudes get us nowhere.
Interesting scenario in “The Man”:
The Prez and the Speaker of the House are killed in a bridge collapse.
The Vice Prez declines the Oval Office due to age and ill health.
The Senate Pro Tem gets the job.
We can dream that this could have happened to Bush, Hastert and Cheney and Obama was the pro tem.
I know – it’s just a dream!
@9: Robert Reich thinks Obama’s plan is just as good as Hillary’s and has a better funding mechanism. Hillary still doesn’t say how she will make it mandatory or pay for it – without that it is also not universal and still “fuzzy’.
Why should I trust Hillary on health care when she had her chance and blew it already – with the power of the president behind her.
What the hell is wrong with nuclear power?!
Very expensive and dangerous. Constructing big plants are giant skimming operations and corruption magnets. Boiling water with nuclear reactions wastes 2/3 of the energy and another 7 or 8 percent of what is usable is lost in transmission.
The safer way to go is distributed power physically located close to where it’s used. There’s a lot of ways to do that.
If you want more Republicanism and nuclear weapons proliferation choose nuclear power. If you want democracy and a booming economy choose a more benign mix of approaches with energy efficiency being the best buy first.
@27: “she already blown health care once”
WTF? You mean in the early nineties? Care to echo more R talking points?
Daily Kos (http://www.dailykos.com/storyo.....916/452668) links to a Time poll that shows Obama stacking up better against McCain than Hillary does:
I don’t like it that neither candidate polled over 50%.
“Has never won a seriously contested election.”
Except for Iowa, South Carolina, Connecticut, Missouri, Kansas, Georgia, etc. Against the Clintons, no less. The issue is not whether he has won a “Seriously contested election” but whether he has shown that he is capable of doing so, which he clearly is. So far, he has run one of the best campaigns… ever. So I think it is safe to say he can win a(nother) seriously contested election.
I don’t think McCain will stop torture if elected, and he certainly will do nothing to stop either the erosion of our civil liberties (in fact, he would prefer a militarized USA) or the power grabs of the unitary executive. He would be a disaster for America.
#9 Will says:
Damn those punks for making decisions about their own life. The democrats know better, listen and obey. Or get your shit garnished/siezed.
On Feb 10, 2005 Obama joined Lieberman and the entire Republican side of the Senate to vote yes on a bill that would curtail plaintiffs ability to file class action suits against corporations in State courts. Clinton joined the majority of Democrats in voting NO. I’m just saying, that no candidate will vote the way you might want 100% of the time.
#9 Will says:
Europe has embraced nuclear power- http://www.insc.anl.gov/pwrmaps/map/europe.php
Funny how democrats love to point to europe as being enlightened when they want to bash republicans. Yet ignore them when it fits their agenda. Priceless.
Rick Lazio is no Alan Keyes.
Remind me, did Hillary have a contested primary with someone who won a statewide election, and a multi-millionaire who self-financed? Because Obama did during HIS Senate run.
Now, if Hillary had kicked the crap out of Giuliani or Pataki, or even won a close race against them, THEN I would give agree with your reasoning, because that would be a tough contest. But I call this one a draw, because Obama got 50+ percent of the vote in a contested primary. That’s pretty impressive, as impressive as beating an upstate NY congressman when you’re married to the (popular at the time) President of the United States, which I just don’t score all that highly. Lazio was strictly JV on the Republican bench in New York. Yes, Alan Keynes was a joke- but realistically, Obama and Hillary had one semi-tough statewide election to win for their Senate seat, and both did so impressively.
Here’s one you might want to consider. Let’s make a list of some of the most well-regarded Presidents if you polled people:
Lincoln
Teddy Roosevelt
FDR
JFK
Reagan (yes, I know, but bear with me)
Clinton (hey, what the heck)
I’d say one thing they ALL have in common is they could give a hell of a speech (Clinton is probably the worst on that list, because he just Would. Not. Shut. The. Fuck. UP. sometimes. Seriously- his big applause line at the 1988 DNC Keynote? “In conclusion…” Sometimes, when giving a speech, less is more, as the Gettysburg Address demonstrates).
Now, seriously, go look at and LISTEN TO some Reagan/JFK/FDR speeches (the “listen to” is important, because public speaking is more than what’s written on a page), and then go look at an Obama or Hillary speech. Then do the old Sesame Street “one of these things is not like the other” game. It’s pretty obvious that Obama’s in their class- and Hillary, well, God love her, isn’t.
Hillary is like the OTHER JFK (John Forbes Kerry), Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis: smart, dedicated, a liberal from a Blue State, competent… and not a particularly inspiring speaker. The last guy who the D’s elected who ISN’T a particularly great speaker is Jimmy Carter- who got to run against Chevy Chase… and I think the history of game-changing Presidents makes it clear you HAVE to have one who can use the “bully pulpit” to change the game.
Anyway, this is why I am voting for Obama. I think if Hillary DOES get elected she’ll be a competent to good President, and is less of a risk than Obama (recall that JFK screwed the pooch on the Bay of Pigs)… but Obama has the best shot of being a GREAT president.
@30
big O to you!
I agree. Obama is a leader, Hillary is the kibd of person I wold hope he would recruit.
@11 The Price-Anderson Act.
The Price-Anderson Act is a dealbreaker. Until Congress repeals it — no nuclear power, no way, no how! This is non-negotiable.
First black president (not counting Morgan Freeman).
You’re forgetting Dennis Haysbert (President Palmer from 24)
Most Americans do not trust Hillary, and placing a person in power who does not have the trust of the people leads to nothing but trouble. Trust means more than all of the campaign promises, rhetoric, endorsements etc. combined.
Both “health care plans” are just campaign promises today and the final plan will look a whole lot more detailed and thought out than anything presently discussed. So basing your support on the “details” of either of today’s plans is just plain ignorant.
And ylb/will dissing Barack because he is pro-nuclear power really cracks me up. Who is basing their opinions on “a consensus of scientists” now, huh? I guess the consensus is only credible when they agree with you two. I recommend that you two read up on nuclear power before spouting off any more on this topic.
Also by the way will, (and slightly related to the nuclear power issue) I’d love to hear your twisted logic and opinions on the Maury Island gravel pit. Think about the “global warming” impact of all those 50,000 to 100,000 truck trips to Gold Bar that can be avoided by building the Maury Island pit.
And ylb/will dissing Barack because he is pro-nuclear power really cracks me up.
I’m for Obama silly. Do I agree with him on everything? Hardly.
#14 Hey Dustarado:
I like the new headline of Time’s new poll:
TIME Poll: Clinton More Beatable than Obama
Thursday, Feb. 07, 2008 By MICHAEL DUFFY/WASHINGTON
So, you were saying???????
About Nuclear power….
Dr James Ephraim Lovelock, CH, CBE, FRS (born 26 July 1919) is an independent scientist, author, researcher, environmentalist, and futurist who lives in Cornwall, in the south west of Great Britain. He is known for proposing the Gaia hypothesis, in which he postulates that the Earth functions as a kind of superorganism.
Lovelock invented the electron capture detector, which ultimately assisted in discoveries about the persistence of CFCs and their role in stratospheric ozone depletion
Lovelock has become concerned about the threat of global warming from the greenhouse effect. In 2004 he caused a media sensation when he broke with many fellow environmentalists by pronouncing that “only nuclear power can now halt global warming”. In his view, nuclear energy is the only realistic alternative to fossil fuels that has the capacity to both fulfill the large scale energy needs of mankind while also reducing greenhouse emissions. He is an open member of Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy.
Will- Your points in order:
The Clintons-
Battle-hardened.
The primary reason to vote for Obama. The Clintons ARE the battle. Remove them and their polarizing politic, remove a lot of the impetus to do the extraneous battle. This is the
very core of Obama’s message…change the politics so we can actually try to get something done. 70% + of the nation wants to end the war. 70% + thinks we need to do something about health care. 70% + believes the country is headed in the wrong direction. Remove the partisan backbiting and the Mitch McConnells and their raging hard right constituent become irrelevant.
Has the best people.
Ah…who would that be? And how are they *best*? Fairly irresponsible to just throw something like that out without some sort of backup.
Obama-
Health care plan sucks.
This is just not true and many have posted here a ton of evidence to the contrary. If you’re not going to read the comments section, why not tell us so we don’t go to the work of addressing your questions?
A refresher:
Both candidate plans are virtually identical, save mandates
http://www.health08.org/sideby.....&c=16
Mandates may look good on paper, don’t work in practice.
http://boston.bizjournals.com/.....ily17.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01.....tml?ref=us
Totally loves nuclear power.
From the candidates mouths…
Obama stance
Q: Would you be in favor of developing more nuclear power to reduce oil dependency?
A: I don’t think that we can take nuclear power off the table. What we have to make sure of is that we have the capacity to store waste properly and safely, and that we reduce whatever threats might come from terrorism. And if we can do that in a technologically sound way, then we should pursue it. If we can’t, we should not. But there is no magic bullet on energy. We’re going to have to look at all the various options.
Q: What about nuclear power as an alternative energy source?
A: I actually think that we should explore nuclear power as part of the energy mix. There are no silver bullets to this issue. We have to develop solar. I have proposed drastically increasing fuel efficiency standards on cars, an aggressive cap on the amount of greenhouse gases that can be emitted. But we’re going to have to try a series of different approaches.
http://www.issues2000.org/Inte....._+_Oil.htm
Clinton stance:
Q: Would you rule out expanding nuclear power?
A: No, but it would not be one of the options that I favor, unless, number one, the cost can get down for the construction and operation; number two, that we have a viable solution for the nuclear waste. I voted against Yucca Mountain. I’ve spoken out against Yucca Mountain. I think that recently the discovery–there’s an earthquake fault going under the proposed site at Yucca Mountain–certainly validates my opposition. So there are a lot of very difficult questions. But we’re going to have to look at the entire energy profile, in order to determine how we’re going to move away from our dependence upon carbon-based fuels. And I will look at everything, but there are some tough questions you’d have to answer with respect to nuclear.
Q: What about nuclear power as an alternative energy source?
A: I’m agnostic about nuclear power. Until we figure out what we’re going to do with the waste and the cost, it’s very hard to see nuclear as a part of our future. But that’s where American technology comes in. Let’s figure out what we’re going to do about the waste and the cost if we think nuclear should be a part of the solution.
http://www.issues2000.org/2008....._+_Oil.htm
Care to explain how those two are any different, except maybe Obama’s is more inclusive as he speaks to terrorism as well as energy? Because the fella is not willing to be bullied into taking it off the table means he’s a nuke groupie? Come on…you’re better than that.
Propensity to cave to GOP.
When? Where? How?
The Clintons haven’t?
Poor argument.
Has never won a seriously contested election.
As has been already stated, Hillary has?
On the other side of the coin, maybe he has never had a serious contender because he’s so unique to politics and is a better policy maker, better politician than others?
Is there any possibility that Obama is just that good?
**********
I think in your heart you are resisting the mania you perceive around Obama. Many are.
Here’s a good read about just that:
http://www.latimes.com/news/op.....234.column
Either that or you’re a Clinton supporter. Which is fine. Just say so though and stop with the undecided games.
This list sucks.
I admit to having great trepidation that Obama will actually take the nomination – and, maybe, thanks to Washingtonians! It reminds me too much of 1972, when the Democrats went wildly for McGovern – based on pure emotion – only to suffer a horrible defeat at the hands of Tricky Dick! So, in a vain attempt to inject some rational thought into this process, I will just make a couple of points.
First, I think that winning caucuses is a very poor representation of how the whole state will vote in November. I can’t think of a less democratic way of choosing delegates! One has to show up, in person, at a “meeting” to have their vote counted. Well, the people who are most disenfranchised by this are adults with kids. For example, today my wife will attend and vote at our local caucus. But I won’t, because one of us has to stay home with our young daughter! So, right there, 50% of our voting household is disenfranchised! Now, how many times is that going to be repeated today? And how about single mothers? For them, it’s even worse! The reason I bring this up, is that today everyone expects Obama to win big. However he wins, it will not be representative of the Democratic voters of Washington state. With a caucus system, the fact is that Obama supporters are going to be way over-represented! Think about it.
And then there is this. Where have most of Obama’s wins come from? That’s right – states that have used the caucus system! Has he actually won a primary in a state that has traditionally voted Democratic? I don’t think so. That should tell you something about his “electability”.
Finally, how do you think Obama’s “positions” on Iraq will be spun by the Republicans in the fall? He speaks against the war in 2002; in 2003 and 2004, he equivocates his position; once he’s elected to the Senate, he votes for every bill funding the war. Remember 2004 and Kerry being murdered over his “equivocation” – being branded a flip-flopper? How do you think the “war hero” McCain is going to deal with this “young”, “green” Senator and his “waffling”? Sure, we all know what Obama thinks, but there are enough people out there who don’t – and they are the ones who will be suckers for the Republican spin-doctors, like Rove.
Please, try to think this one through. Resist the temptation to get carried away on a tide of emotional charisma.
30:
You didn’t read my post on dispelling the myths on nuclear power in a previous thread, did you? In order to free ourselves from the shackles of the petroleum-based economy, we need to think big-picture. And that includes nuclear power! Get over that hippie-dippie no-nukes mentality and join the 21st century. Solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, they all can help, but excluding nuclear (which has worked just fine over the last half-century for the Navy) is just plain wrong. And with nuclear-fuel reprocessing, nuclear waste becomes a much, much smaller issue. And any problems with ‘corruption’ would probably be erased as soon as the Democratic administration takes charge in 2009.