Is this how HILLARY intends to unite the country?

[deleted213967]

Obama HAS a track record though. He's in the Illinois senate for 12 years before he ran for US Senator Clinton was JUST a Senator in 2000. Obama was in the Illinois Senate in 1996.

No offense but the friendly neighborhood legislature (even if it had been Kalifornia's) does not exactly carry the same weight as the mighty US Senate, hence the public's focus on the 3 candidates' stints there.

He has a LONGER political career than her. He didn't just pop out of the sky in 2004 when speaking for Senator Kerry. He's backed up things he has said, which is MORE than I can say for Hillary in New York. They HATE her.

Man, you can't have your cake "She was a bitchy housewife all along and gained no experience while baking fudgecake at the White House and the Governor's Mansion in Arkansas"

...and eat it too "She was the co-governor and the co-president ergo she is responsible for AIDS, the falling dollar, all TX executions, and Global Warming".

Please at least have the intellectual integrity to stick to one line of reasoning.

Hillary has no plans though...I guess this is what makes it hard for me to buy into the arguments that people have for Clinton. Everything is just against her.


So what was Barack Obama himself referring to in the televized debates when he stressed the similarities between the 2 plans, and the fact that his strength resided in his ability to sell the plan, not in the differences between his plan and hers?

...

 

[Industrialsize]

Which stances(s) are you specifically referring to? Would you mind elaborating?

I elaborated some issues I prefer Obama over Clinton on.......It's your turn to discuss and state some of the issues you prefer Clinton over Obama on...I love it when we dicuss issues and not name call

 

[Trinity]

Don't you mean caucuses clearly do not work for Hillary?

No caucuses clearly do not work for VOTERS. I was just watching one on CNN in Wyoming and it was confusing and unorganized. Though Texas appeared to be worse.

Bill Clinton did not carry many caucuses in both his bids for the White House but he still won the Presidency. (Though that's no excuse for Hillary's campaign not to focus on the caucuses...if they had gone in with that strategy from the beginning I doubt we'd be debating a hundred delegate difference)

 

[Skull Mason]

OMG...12 years in office compared to 8...how unknown can you be?

And let's not be coy. That description couldn't fit anyone but Obama. That's like saying that John Edwards was a terrorist running in 2004. John Edwards was in the same position at the time, the man with the Golden Tongue. Of course his youth and lack of military experience cost him his presidency at the time (IMO). But your presumption is unfair and it just buys into the prejudice of his middle name...the same thing that opponents of Obama want you to think. To tear down his character.

Didn't obama run against an empty campaign to get in the senate to begin with?

I'm not trying to be coy. John Edwards was a bum and never had a chance in 2004 or this time around. I do not think obama is a fucking terrorist, but my point is still the same. I don't trust/know the dude yet, and he is about to be our president. He ran against an empty campaign, made a good speech in 2004, and is about to be our president. Just seems a little odd to me. I am not tearing down the man's character; as I do not yet know his character.

 

[deleted213967]

No caucuses clearly do not work for VOTERS. I was just watching one on CNN in Wyoming and it was confusing and unorganized. Though Texas appeared to be worse.

Bill Clinton did not carry many caucuses in both his bids for the White House but he still won the Presidency. (Though that's no excuse for Hillary's campaign not to focus on the caucuses...if they had gone in with that strategy from the beginning I doubt we'd be debating a hundred delegate difference)

In states that held both caucuses and primaries, statistical analysis (yes, in the academic sense) is crystal clear: caucus-goers are NOT an independent sample of the voting population.

I cannot believe that in 2008, we don't have reliable technology to get all the votes out...

 

[Trinity]

That makes the assumption she "won" Texas.......Texas had a primary AND a Caucus.......she won the Primary by 4%.....he won the caucus by 12%.......I'm not sure we know who "won" texas.you also left off the "pundits" own words:
In our math, we included Texas in Hillary's column. But it's not a bad point--if Texas was a caucus state, Obama won it.

Our overall point, however, was that it's close no matter what. The issue with Texas only illustrates that point--it was close; whichever candidate won it, would be in the lead in a winner take all format.
X Curmudgeon

Number 1) I didn't leave off any comments. I took an excerpt from the blog article and left the link so you can read it for yourself. You want to discuss the comments to the blog so let's discuss them.

Number 2) The Texas Primary was worth 2/3's and the Texas Caucus 1/3 so the Primary was worth more. Fox, CNN, and every media outlet has reported and continues to report Clinton won Texas because she won the Primary. But I get your point about delegates.

Number 3) The whole point was "Winner Take All." You said it was false. It wasn't. We weren't talking about if Texas was a Caucus...and the Caucus is worth less.

Lastly, it is close. You can make numbers and statistics support much anything you want really. What we can't dispute is...It's close.

 

[Industrialsize]

I think that caucuses were and outgrowth of the original type of government still present in many New England towns, including the one in which I live. We don't have a mayor or chief executive. We have Government by "Town Meeting". We have an elected board of Selectman who are the "policy" setters of the town and set the goals for the Town. In turn they have a Hired Town manager whose job is to realize these goal. But the Legislative Body of the Town id "Town Meeting". All laws, ordinances, property tax issues, budgets for the municpal departments MUST be first approved by Town Meeting. What is Town Meeting. Once a year the town gathers at once in the auditorium of town hall over the period of between 3- 5 nights and approves by a show of hands all the budgets for the town, by-law changes etc. I.E if the Police feel they need a new cruiser, they have to jutify their need in front of the Town and then it is up to the town ypo vote ye or no. The meeting is run by an elected moderator who has no agenda and is there to make sure everyone who wants to be is heard and maintain order. Discussions can get quite heated. Plus any citizen can place an "article" before town meeting by presenting a petition signed by 10 registered voters. Citizens have presented articles and had them passed to do such things as draft resolutions to impeach the president to declare the town a nuclear free zone. Granted, town meeting is made easy for us becaue there are only 2500 citizens in my town, But i've never felt like i was participtaing in anything more democratic than when i attend town Meeting and have to argue my position in front of my neighbors and then vote by a show of hands...Democracy inaction....I know, a bit off topic.......but I think interesting

 

[Industrialsize]

Number 1) I didn't leave off any comments. I took an excerpt from the blog article and left the link so you can read it for yourself. You want to discuss the comments to the blog so let's discuss them.

Number 2) The Texas Primary was worth 2/3's and the Texas Caucus 1/3 so the Primary was worth more. Fox, CNN, and every media outlet has reported and continues to report Clinton won Texas because she won the Primary. But I get your point about delegates.

Number 3) The whole point was "Winner Take All." You said it was false. It wasn't. We weren't talking about if Texas was a Caucus...and the Caucus is worth less.

Lastly, it is close. You can make numbers and statistics support much anything you want really. What we can't dispute is...It's close.

I agree with you.It is razor close....what I was disputing is that the poster said that if the DNC primaries were a winner takes all that Clinton would be the presumptive nominee and that's not the case. it would still be close with Clinton probably enjoying a slight lead. And just because Cnn and Fox say something doesn't make it true. NPR and other media outlets are beginning to change now that the results of the texas caucus is in and the delegate counts firmed up and are now reporting Texas as a win for Obama.

BUT..I'm still waiting for someone to discuss some issues with me

 

[playainda336]

Man, you can't have your cake "She was a bitchy housewife all along and gained no experience while baking fudgecake at the White House and the Governor's Mansion in Arkansas"

...and eat it too "She was the co-governor and the co-president ergo she is responsible for AIDS, the falling dollar, all TX executions, and Global Warming".

Please at least have the intellectual integrity to stick to one line of reasoning.

What are you talking about. I never said she held any responsibility in the White House and what happened during Bill's presidency. I said that I am tired of her ATTEMPTING to take responsibility for it.

Get your facts together.

No cake and eating in this scenario. My preference is that Hillary not bring up Bill presidency at all in this potential candidacy. That is my "line of reasoning".

And please. Don't put words in my mouth to suit your argument. That's not a picture of argumentative integrity.

So what was Barack Obama himself referring to in the televized debates when he stressed the similarities between the 2 plans, and the fact that his strength resided in his ability to sell the plan, not in the differences between his plan and hers?

They have similar motives. WAY different plans. Hillary's plans seem more fantasy based than practical application is all.

Well another pundit sees it differently:

At the time, Obama would've had a small lead in delegates under the winner-take-all formulation.​

What about now? It would still be close, but Hillary would have a distinct advantage, mainly based on winning Texas.​

X Curmudgeon: What If The Democrats Used Winner Take All?

I wonder if they're counting Michigan and Florida, like many do?

 

[deleted213967]

Didn't obama run against an empty campaign to get in the senate to begin with?

I'm not trying to be coy. John Edwards was a bum and never had a chance in 2004 or this time around. I do not think obama is a fucking terrorist, but my point is still the same. I don't trust/know the dude yet, and he is about to be our president. He ran against an empty campaign, made a good speech in 2004, and is about to be our president. Just seems a little odd to me. I am not tearing down the man's character; as I do not yet know his character.

I was indeed very intrigued by the man when he came out of nowhere. His message of transcending partisan politics after decades of gridlock was compelling...

But I am still waiting for the evidence. I am judging him by the higher standards HE set for himself. So far, his platform still reeks too much of petty populism. He has yet to formulate 1 idea that is courageous and novel.

Many of the problems our nation is facing today can only be resolved by us, not our government (e.g. energy-dependence, obesity and poor health habits, dismal saving rate, lack of competitiveness, ...). Cajoling voters is not a leadership trait. I want a coach with plenty of tough love, not a demagogue.

 

[Industrialsize]

I was indeed very intrigued by the man when he came out of nowhere. His message of transcending partisan politics after decades of gridlock was compelling...

But I am still waiting for the evidence. I am judging him by the higher standards HE set for himself. So far, his platform still reeks too much of petty populism. He has yet to formulate 1 idea that is courageous and novel.

Many of the problems our nation is facing today can only be resolved by us, not our government (e.g. energy-dependence, obesity and poor health habits, dismal saving rate, lack of competitiveness, ...). Cajoling voters is not a leadership trait. I want a coach with plenty of tough love, not a demagogue.

I really would like to discuss issues.....you called me out and asked me to share some with you....you claim Obama has yet to formulate an idea that is courageous or novel.....I quickly listed 3 issues and explained why I preferred obama's stand. It's your turn, what issues do you prefer the stands of Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama? It's a simple question

 

[deleted213967]

I really would like to discuss issues.....you called me out and asked me to share some with you....you claim Obama has yet to formulate an idea that is courageous or novel.....I quickly listed 3 issues and explained why I preferred obama's stand. It's your turn, what issues do you prefer the stands of Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama? It's a simple question

Where did I call you names? I think of myself as one of the more reserved contributors to these threads.

FIrst, I am not an unconditional supporter of anyone. I am no brainwash material and could find good in...yup...even Huckabee...

Quite frankly, I agree with many many mainstream analysts that there are very few policy profile differences between Hillary and Barack.

- I have nothing much to contribute on the gay marriage issue. I am a "live and let live" dude and I would easily compromise on a federal statute for civil unions. As you know, there hasn't been a stampede of marriage license applications in places that allow same-sex marriage. I surmise that both Obama and Hillary are personally not opposed to same-sex marriage but are politically opposed to it. As I've stated elsewhere, they deserve no medals for that stance.

The same probably holds true for gun control and the death penalty. As true liberals, Hillary and Obama are probably longing for the day the death penalty will have been abolished for ever, but they know better than make an unpopular pronouncement against capital punishment. I do applaud Obama's failed effort at banning hand-guns and his contributions to ending drug sentencing disparities.

In that respect, I do think that McCain has more political guts than Obama and Clinton combined.

As for health care, I think that both candidates eschew the dicier question of prevention and the dismal health habits of the American public, which account for a staggering percentage of our runaway health care spendings. Again, lack of political courage and leadership.

On foreign policy, I feel a tad more comfortable with Hillary and the network of advisers and expertise the Clintons would bring to the White House. I don't mind Obama's throwing a bone at Cuban people but foreign dictators don't think the way unconditional Obama supporters do here and I believe Clinton knows how to use our economic weapons to our advantage much better than Bush.

 

[Industrialsize]

Where did I call you names? I think of myself as one of the more reserved contributors to these threads.

FIrst, I am not an unconditional supporter of anyone. I am no brainwash material and could find good in...yup...even Huckabee...

Quite frankly, I agree with many many mainstream analysts that there are very few policy profile differences between Hillary and Barack.

- I have nothing much to contribute on the gay marriage issue. I am a "live and let live" dude and I would easily compromise on a federal statute for civil unions. As you know, there hasn't been a stampede of marriage license applications in places that allow same-sex marriage. I surmise that both Obama and Hillary are personally not opposed to same-sex marriage but are politically opposed to it. As I've stated elsewhere, they deserve no medals for that stance.

The same probably holds true for gun control and the death penalty. As true liberals, Hillary and Obama are probably longing for the day the death penalty will have been abolished for ever, but they know better than make an unpopular pronouncement against capital punishment. I do applaud Obama's failed effort at banning hand-guns and his contributions to ending drug sentencing disparities.

In that respect, I do think that McCain has more political guts than Obama and Clinton combined.

As for health care, I think that both candidates eschew the dicier question of prevention and the dismal health habits of the American public, which accounts for a staggering percentage of our runaway health care spending. Again, lack of political courage and leadership.

On foreign policy, I feel a tad more comfortable with Hillary and the network of advisers and expertise the Clintons would bring to the White House. I don't mind Obama's throwing a bone at Cuban people but foreign dictators don't think the way unconditional Obama supporters do here and I believe Clinton knows how to use our economic weapons to our advantage much better than Bush.

I Know you didnt call me a name.i meant you chllenged me to state some issues on which I faovred Obama's views to Clintons.

Actually there was quite the stampede for marriage licenses in Massachusetts when it became legal......Now I'd imagine gay people in massachusetts are getting married at the same rate as straight people proportionally

Actually Barack(and I assume Hillary as well) discusses prevention in his health care plan,from his healthcare plan:
Too little is spent on prevention and public health: The nation faces epidemics of obesity and chronic diseases as well as new threats of pandemic flu and bioterrorism. Yet despite all of this less than 4 cents of every health care dollar is spent on prevention and public health.


As far as the Cuban Embargo.....we can all see how well that is going for the past 50 years in trying to get rid of castro.... BTW who are these "advisors" you trust that the Clintons(did you mean Clinton..or are they both running..) have surrounded themselves with???


I guess the larger point I'm trying to make is that I find it a tad insulting, the number of posts here who call Obama voters, uninformed, voting on emotion, are not realistic..etc...you get my drift. Some of us have done our homework and are remarkably informed and are ready to discuss the "issues" with any Clinton supporter in a civil manner without name calling......I'm having trouble finding one

 

[HazelGod]

At least with hillary, we know what we are getting.

Yes, true...and blessedly, most people seem to be saying, "No thanks."

This is because she's fallen into the slime ball factor.
In my view, she's lost a lot of ground for pettiness. In my view, she's lost me.

I used to really respect Senator Clinton.......what happened to the Hillary I admired?

showed her true colours

She lowered the mask.

Dick Morris references this repeatedly in Rewriting History...Hillary's self-admitted favorite aspect of campaigning is the negative attack strategy. She often refers to this as the "fun" part of the process.

From an Obama campaign memo:

"The Clinton campaign has publicly admitted that the only way they can still win this election is by tearing Barack Obama down. They have called their attacks the “kitchen sink strategy,” and Senator Clinton herself has referred to it as “the fun part” of the campaign. The result has been a constant barrage of attacks about Senator Obama’s record that they know full well aren’t true. And yet they repeat them, over and over again, day after day, in an attempt to deceive the American people just so that they can win this election.
This may be fun for the Clinton campaign, but this is exactly why people don’t trust their leaders anymore. This is exactly why so many people are so cynical about the political process. And it’s exactly what Barack Obama is running to change."

 

[Skull Mason]

I guess the larger point I'm trying to make is that I find it a tad insulting, the number of posts here who call Obama voters, uninformed, voting on emotion, are not realistic..etc...you get my drift. Some of us have done our homework and are remarkably informed and are ready to discuss the "issues" with any Clinton supporter in a civil manner without name calling......I'm having trouble finding one

I wasn't referring to people like you, who do seem to pay attention and look at the issues. I don't have the political savvy to challenge anyone on any particular issue; I myself am more of a behavioral psychologist. I've always been that way, and majored in the department in college. I look at why people act and think a certain way; why they make particular decisions.

I am part of that younger generation who are flocking to the polls as a result of barrack obama. It is typically this group of people I am referring to when I say people are voting for him on emotion etc. These are my friends. These are people I went to high school with. These are people in their 20s entering the workforce. They all declare much love for obama, and encourage everyone to vote for him; but they simply can not give any valid reason besides "change". These are women wooed by his charisma. I am sure there are people for every candidate who vote for them "just cause", but it seems to me like there are a ridiculous amount of those people voting for obama.

Is it ok to vote for a president because he is black and you are too?

Is it ok to vote for a president because she is a white woman and you are too?

Are those good enough reasons? Because there are a great number of people in this country voting because of those reasons, and those reasons alone.

 

[Industrialsize]

I wasn't referring to people like you, who do seem to pay attention and look at the issues. I don't have the political savvy to challenge anyone on any particular issue; I myself am more of a behavioral psychologist. I've always been that way, and majored in the department in college. I look at why people act and think a certain way; why they make particular decisions.

I am part of that younger generation who are flocking to the polls as a result of barrack obama. It is typically this group of people I am referring to when I say people are voting for him on emotion etc. These are my friends. These are people I went to high school with. These are people in their 20s entering the workforce. They all declare much love for obama, and encourage everyone to vote for him; but they simply can not give any valid reason besides "change". These are women wooed by his charisma. I am sure there are people for every candidate who vote for them "just cause", but it seems to me like there are a ridiculous amount of those people voting for obama.

Is it ok to vote for a president because he is black and you are too?

Is it ok to vote for a president because she is a white woman and you are too?

Are those good enough reasons? Because there are a great.tho number of people in this country voting because of those reasons, and those reasons alone.

Agreed.....No it is not enough to vote for someone because you are black and he is too or you are a woman and she is too.in my humble opinion....I wish more people took the time to inform themselves and vote "smart".....but alas.....this is a democracy and people can vote anyway they want(and thanks for noticing that I'm not simply an Obama accolyte who drank the kool aid and faints at his rallies.... tho he has made me cry)

 

[Skull Mason]

Shit, he has given me goosebumps while listening to his speeches before, but I don't let that sway my feelings regarding the situation. I start getting really into it, then I see the people holding those signs behind him jumping up and down and doing the whole late night religious tv concert things and I snap back.

 

[deleted213967]

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=1789

Likewise, Hillary's plan is (predictably) keen on prevention. Admittedly, Obama's own slim figure is more in line with the prevention message, but he is well over a decade younger.

I do feel overall that her evident knack for details and her in-depth knowledge of the dossiers at hand make her appear more like a worker bee.

 

[Quite Irate]

Politicians, being political. Imagine that.

 

[deleted213967]

Shit, he has given me goosebumps while listening to his speeches before, but I don't let that sway my feelings regarding the situation. I start getting really into it, then I see the people holding those signs behind him jumping up and down and doing the whole late night religious tv concert things and I snap back.

Speaking of younger generations, I expected so much more from him.

He so disappointed me during those early televised debates when, along with all the usual suspects who were still in the race, he wouldn't favor the lowering of the legal drinking age to international standards, despite the fact that the moderator handed them all 1 big reason to do it.