Skip to main content

Let the games begin.

In the red corner: John McCain, Mitt Romney and NYC's former antagonist Rudy Guiliani.

In the blue corner: John Edwards, Barack Obama and (now officially) Hillary Clinton.

Barack may have announced his candidacy first, but Hillary one-upped him by announcing her presidential run with a smart web release, replete with perfect hair, makeup and lighting.

My significant other claims Barack is anti-gay. I will have to research this. But at least he is not stained with the blood of Iraq war support. And he's high yella!

Is America ready for either?
Last edited {1}
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Obama doesn't have a chance. He's misque'd himself thinking a swell in the media means bedrock voter following. That's a sign of his real deficit, marked lack of experience as a US politician. If voters looked just for promise as a qualification he would win hands down. But this place is now so messed up we really need a very experienced politician with a lot of international policy experience. None seem to be at hand. And Rudiani? Nightmareland all over again.
Last edited by seven
Obama is not a fundamentalist. The Church he goes to is very liberal and advocated for transgenedered rights among other things. I went to their website. I'm an athiest and wish one didn't have to profess faith to be elected to office, but you do. Hillary is quite reigious and attends prayer meetings in the Senate so it's the same story over there.

Here are the issue differences I'm most concerned about.

Hillary supported the invasion of Iraq, and has been silent for most of the war while thousands have lost thier lives for a lie she supported.

Obama opposed the war from the beginning.

Hillary supports the Death Penalty. Obama opposes it.

On two massive issues of life and death Hillary has chosen death. I cannot support her for the nomination. If she is the nominee, I will support her. But I hope the Democratic Party will nominate a candidate with progressive convictions, and Hillary Clinton does not fit that description.

As for Obama, we'll see. I still don't know enough, but so far he looks better than she does.

My first choice, Senator Russ Feingold decided not to run.
Well at least Kerry isn't running, sparing us two years of his particular brand of foot-in-mouth. Yeeesh.

I never expect to like everything about a candidate. There's always something. It's true Obama has little foreign policy experience but he couldn't possibly do a worse job than our current president has done. And just because Obama and Hillary are the most well-known, "glamourous" candidates doesn't mean either is best. I'm inclined not to support Hillary at this juncture either, though I will watch her campaign with great interest. Over the next couple of days I'll be scoping the other candidates and see where they stand (except John Edwards, who I will not vote for -- he had his shot).
Hillary opposes same sex marriage as well. Obama did say that he might be wrong on this issue and was open to changing his position. Frankly, I don't think any Democratic candiate who supported gay marriage would stand a chance in a general election.The New Governor of New York supports it, but nationaly it's much tougher. And at the risk of heresy, I put global warming, the war in iraq, fighting poverty and pushing back religious extremism at much higher priority. There's no joy in getting married if we're all dead.

In any case Hillary and Obama are similar on that issue (although she might be worse since she supported the defense of marriage act) while Obama is better on almost everything else. And he can speak without putting me to sleep.
the more I think about it, the more angry Hillary makes me. Her positioning, her support of the war in Iraq and the death penalty and more and then expecting the base of the party to just blindly support her. She supported a policy that has killed 3,000 young Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqi's, for a pack of lies. At least Obama had the courage and forsight to oppos this disaster from the beginning.

I'm a little uncomfortable with Obama's "faith" talk as I see religion as a great danger to democracy, but he is affiliated with a very liberal church. Honestly, Al Gore would be my first choice. He's been right about everything so far and he's already been elected president.
So let me understand this. Our choices are the least of the worst. I don't like that choice. I guess I will be forced to vote for the least of the worst democrat. As long as a Christian faith based politician is in the running we have to settle for taking what we can get. I'm old, almost ancient, I've been voting longer than most of the folks on this board have been alive.
I marched in Washington in 1967, Nothing has changed in that regard. Irag is Vietnam all over again. I can tell you that to compromise is to fall victim to the politics of an individual who has a personal agenda for what they believe makes America great and as always the individual does not have me in mind. I'm tired of "settling". I say it's time for a real revolution. I say write in your vote for Miss Understood.
Hillary is not a progressive. To some degree I understand her positioning ... women are judged by a different standard, and it is my belief that for any woman to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate she must convince voters that she can effectively lead the military. That said, she certainly didn't need to rubberstamp Bush's War Under False Pretenses just to prove to midwesterners that she is not Gloria Steinhem. Her political aspirations are not worth human lives, period. And she betrayed the New York electorate that put her in office to begin with.

Ironically, her calculated support of the war may ultimately prove to be a p.r. blunder anyway. Critics of the Iraq invasion (once called "naive") have, over time, been proven correct about everything they asserted, while the war supporters have consistently been proven wrong. At this point her and Lieberman are pretty much the only "yes" voters who haven't recanted. Given how ruthlessly smart she is, I wouldn't be surprised if she springs a cleverly-worded mea culpa on us, one that expresses her sorrow and regret but still pins the blame on Bush. We'll see. A lot can happen in two years.
Last edited by Luxury Lex
Lex your observations of Hill are very perspicuous. I think she is a run of the mill politician who will if elected be guided by and put in to practice policies that mostly benefit the corporations who run the federal government.

There really needs to be a third party that represents the American people in a credible way.

Can any Republican or Democrat change a situation where the entire US military is just a standing private army used to protect and stuff the bank accounts of the corporatedemocracy? It is such a long road back from that situation it will take more than a few lifetimes .....unless....Miss Understood!
quote:
Originally posted by Lily of the Valley:
the more I think about it, the more angry Hillary makes me. Her positioning, her support of the war in Iraq and the death penalty and more and then expecting the base of the party to just blindly support her.



I usually avoid public discussion of politics, but I am a self-proclaimed and public ally-proven hypocrite, so I have to add my two cents on Hillary because I find her a bit irritating, and it frustrates me because I know that arch Republicans do too, and I don't like having similar feelings to right-wingers.

When Hillary, as First-lady, was working to change the dire health-care / insurance situation in this country; I was a big supporter of her. I was so excited that there was a Liberal voice taking Liberal action.

I think that the "evil-doers" Carl Rove and his minions Rush Limburger, Rupert Murdoch-FOX, Newt GingGRINCH, et. al. who all ganged up on Hillary and Health Care with ad hominum attacks on Hillary and their talking points against Universal Health Care which they chanted over and over all over the "so-called" Liberal Media (yeah, right; I wish)- to the point where they killed Universal Health Care, and all intelligent discussion concerning it for a least a generation - but they also got Hillary.

Their focused campaign to chant, chant, chant that LIBERAL = EVIL has brainwashed the populace. (To paraphrase George Orwell in 1984, "Oceania is at war with Eurasia and has always been at war with Eurasia.") They repeated in enough that it became the truth to lazy thinkers . . . and there are a lot of lazy thinkers out there. I don't think that Hillary believes it herself, but she certainly knows how many lazy thinkers there are out here and she panders to them by modulating her opinions to not offend the right and the right-leaning voting bloc.

It is like she has abandoned the left and the still-proud to be liberals like me.

Who here is proud to call them self a liberal, and willing to proudly take a stand? Hillary dropped the ball when she voted for the war. No do overs . . . is right. She was so afraid to be called liberal or left-wing - she wanted to be accepted by America with her sights on more power - as prsident - pure politics. It is embarrassing to watch her back-pedal now; and interesting to watch her in opposition to a person of color . . . I'm sure that somewhere in a cave somewhere Carl Rove is laughing an evil-villan evil laugh over this scenario as he is arranging Rudy's comb-over just so . . .

I want to vote for a candidate who is proud to be thoroughly pro-abortion (I despise that term "pro-choice" as it is still more pandering to the right wing; anyone remember coat-hanger abortions like I do?); who is 100% against the death-penalty because it is heinous and un-civilized; same goes for Universal Health Insurance - everyone covered - no question, no clauses, no brainer!!!

I am totally politically incorrect when it comes to the Gay Marriage issue- as I personally abhor the notion of marriage, but same-sex civil/legal rights should be equal to hetero civil/legal rights. I would like to see a candidate that will support equal treatment to gay unions (I just shudder at that term "gay marriage" as I smell rainbow wedding planners and worse . . . and rainbows do make me throw-up a little) – and I would love that candidate to answer those ditto-headers who ask "Does that mean that you would support equal treatment of someone who wants to marry their dog? Wit ht a plain and simple "Yes, if they want to marry their dog, I would support their union being given equal legal and civil rights as a heterosexual male-female union; though only publicity-seekers would marry their dog, and only a right-winged brain-dead-washed idiot would ask the question."

Oh, and I would love to hear someone out there say, "No, I don't support the troops. They went their willingly, and they are not supporting American freedom, they are supporting Halliburton's no-bid contracts to "rebuild" Iraq destruction caused by American invasion. So no, I do not support the troops, or "the war," or any other action that is result of George Bush's monomanical Ahab-like book-of-revelations-based, end-of-the-world-scenario, un-do my daddy's whimpishness, Barbara-Bush-pussy-whipping war. So they are not innocents, and NO they do not deserve my respect, compassiopn, sympathy or blind-support."

OK Daddy, how do I turn on the ignore user feature on this thing? Because I think I am going to have to use it soon . . . xxx Haps
Last edited by Hapi Phace
I don't know about Hillary or Obama. I'd like to see a black or a female or a gay in office. Don't care either way for Hillary, and if bobby thinks Obama is anti-gay, and a fundamentalist remember, people do change, how about RuPaul for president, Hell I'd vote for Miss Understood, How about Hattie? Sometimes it's so hard to tell when to vote for a third party candidate, It's like I always say: The third party of choice for me is the Drunken Idiots party. (cos everyone like to act like a drunken idiot whether Republican or Democrat!)
I'm reading Obama's book, The Audacity of Hope. Im barely into it but already he has stated so much of the obvious and Im becoming a fan. He is not anti-gay, as far as I can see. He supports gay unions but not gay marriage, which is fine with me. What will happen (and is already happening with the PM of Australia) is that they are going to pounce on his "lack of experience in foreign relations" and that is what's so funny considering our current leader. I also give him all the credit he deserves for not voting for the war. That alone will take him far in a campaign. It will be interesting to see how far the other side will go with him. Remember the Swift Vote , or whatever that group called itself against Kerry? Lets see what they come up with for Obama.
Last edited by Glamnerd
I'm surprised no one on this board has mentioned the fact that Obama is a SMOKER. His campaign has been very good about diverting "big-media" attention from this fact, but little by little it's been leaking...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070205smoker,1,1203687.story

It may sound silly, but his being a smoker is a massive vulnerability that leaves him open to smears. You thought the Swiftboaters were ruthless? A group of anti-tobacco widows could take Obama down so fast it'd make your head spin.

Come '08, NYC nightlife will have to face the most important choice it's ever faced on Election Day: SMOKER'S RIGHTS? or GAY MARRIAGE?

Hehe...
I just got in from a 6 hr drive from manhattan and I listened to Obama's audio book of The Audacity of Hope. I change my mind. He is a sincere and conscious human being. Most likely the most consious politician or for that matter humans I have had the pleasure of hearing speak. I am sold. My vote will go to Barack Obama and if you have any sense at all you will too. Lily please accept my sincere apologies regarding Obama, I had him confused with that other senator from Tennessee. If he and we are fortunate enough for Barack to win the world will be a better place.
Oh yeah, Harrold Ford? I think that's who you mean Bobby from Tennesssee? He is awful. I was getting confused. I knew Obama was Christian but from what I know, he goes to a very liberal church that has programs on Trans sexual rights. I peraonally feel that religion is insanity and I wish we could get beyond having to dignify it at all in political discourse. (Would we tolorate a politician who said he believed in Zeus?, That makes about as much sense as speaking of the Biblical God) That said, if they have to be Christians, I make a huge distinction between jack asses like Ford who take that psychotic book The Bible literally and Obama, who seems to take some of the more benign parts of that bizzarre text and use it to inform a world view that avocates social justice.

I'm glad you cleared that up Bobbby. lol Smile
Here's an article that really moved me with a combination of repulsion and grudging respect. From the beginning it's been clear that Hillary will run a much smarter campaign than Gore or Kerry did, starting with her clever web announcement. Now comes word that she will not apologize for her 2002 war vote and refuses to call it a mistake, even if it costs her votes.

I'm really torn by this. As a voter and war critic I'm completely DISGUSTED. The lives of 3,000+ troops are more important than her political aspirations. But from a communications standpoint I respect the decision strategically and understand it. If she were to repent her vote at this point I'd only call it campaign bullshit anyway.

quote:
February 18, 2007
Clinton Gives War Critics New Answer on '02 Vote
By PATRICK HEALY
The New York Times
One of the most important decisions that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton made about her bid for the presidency came late last year when she ended a debate in her camp over whether she should repudiate her 2002 vote authorizing military action in Iraq.

Several advisers, friends and donors said in interviews that they had urged her to call her vote a mistake in order to appease antiwar Democrats, who play a critical role in the nominating process. Yet Mrs. Clinton herself, backed by another faction, never wanted to apologize "” even if she viewed the war as a mistake "” arguing that an apology would be a gimmick.

In the end, she settled on language that was similar to Senator John Kerry's when he was the Democratic nominee in 2004: that if she had known in 2002 what she knows now about Iraqi weaponry, she would never have voted for the Senate resolution authorizing force.

Yet antiwar anger has festered, and yesterday morning Mrs. Clinton rolled out a new response to those demanding contrition: She said she was willing to lose support from voters rather than make an apology she did not believe in.

"If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from," Mrs. Clinton told an audience in Dover, N.H., in a veiled reference to two rivals for the nomination, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina.

Her decision not to apologize is regarded so seriously within her campaign that some advisers believe it will be remembered as a turning point in the race: either ultimately galvanizing voters against her (if she loses the nomination), or highlighting her resolve and her willingness to buck Democratic conventional wisdom (if she wins).

At the same time, the level of Democratic anger has surprised some of her allies and advisers, and her campaign is worried about how long it will last and how much damage it might cause her.

"Some of her many advisers think she should've uttered the three magic words "” ˜I was wrong' "” but she believes it's self-evident that the Senate Iraq resolution was based on false intelligence and never should've come to a vote," said Richard C. Holbrooke, the former United Nations ambassador and an adviser to Mrs. Clinton on foreign policy.

Navigating the antiwar anger, and toughing it out for 11 months until the primaries, is now perhaps Mrs. Clinton's biggest political challenge. Indeed, in many ways at this stage, Iraq has overtaken her and other candidates' campaigns, as was evident yesterday as she rearranged her schedule to appear briefly in New Hampshire before returning to the Senate for a debate on Mr. Bush's war strategy.

The campaign began a push yesterday to deal with its Iraq challenge. Besides her remarks in New Hampshire, Mrs. Clinton submitted a bill in the Senate to block sending more troops to Iraq, though she would not cut off financing. In a new video on her Web site, she called for starting to redeploy troops within 90 days "” or else, she threatened, Congress should revoke authorization for the war.

"She is in a box now on her Iraq vote, but she doesn't want to be in a different, even worse box "” the vacillating, flip-flopping Democratic candidate that went to defeat in 2000 and ˜04," said one adviser to Mrs. Clinton. "She wants to maintain a firmness, and I think a lot of people around her hope she maintains a firmness. That's what people will want in 2008."

Indeed, Mrs. Clinton believes that reversing course on her vote would invite the charge of flip-flopping that damaged Mr. Kerry or provoke the kind of accusations of political expediency that hung over Al Gore in 2000 and her and her husband, President Bill Clinton, in the 1990s, several advisers said. She has argued to associates in private discussions that Mr. Gore and Mr. Kerry lost, in part, because they could not convince enough Americans that they were resolute on national security, the associates said.

Mrs. Clinton's image as a strong leader, in turn, is critical to her hopes of becoming the nation's first female president. According to one adviser, her internal polling indicates that a high proportion of Democrats see her as strong and tough, both assets particularly valuable to a female candidate who is seeking to become commander in chief. Apologizing might hurt that image, this adviser said.

Mrs. Clinton's belief in executive power and authority is another factor weighing against an apology, advisers said. As a candidate, Mrs. Clinton likes to think and formulate ideas as if she were president "” her "responsibility gene," she has called it. In that vein, she believes that a president usually deserves the benefit of the doubt from Congress on matters of executive authority.

Yet some Democrats are surprised that the Clinton campaign, which is widely regarded as a ferocious political operation, has not lanced this issue. After all, they said, a majority of Democrats tell pollsters they are against the war, and many Americans want a firm deadline to leave Iraq. Mrs. Clinton has called for capping the troop level, but has opposed a deadline.

"For the life of me I don't understand why she can't say, ˜I made a mistake, I was misled, the country was misled, the intelligence was manipulated,' " said Robert M. Shrum, a senior adviser to Mr. Kerry in 2004. "I think there's this tremendous desire in her campaign not to get into a position where you're identified with traditional Democratic views. But this is now a party that is strongly antiwar, and is desperate for change on big issues like Iraq and health care."

Yet Mrs. Clinton's refusal to apologize yesterday in Dover drew support from some voters, and she also won strong applause for saying her priority now is to end the war.

Mrs. Clinton's advisers have been split for some time about whether she would be better off if she apologized for the vote. Mark Penn, her chief strategist, who was also Mr. Clinton's pollster, carries considerable influence within the campaign, and he agrees with her that she should keep the "mistake" onus on Mr. Bush and turn her attention to finding "the right end" to the war, as she says.

Foreign policy advisers say they have made similar arguments: look to the future, not the past, and stand by a vote that was based on military intelligence that was widely accepted at the time.

The campaign faction that was more comfortable with an apology included advisers with war-room instincts who wanted to deal proactively with the attacks that would come. Yet they were torn, too. They argued that she should talk about the future, yet also deal decisively with her 2002 vote "” either by saying it was wrong, or acknowledging that others saw it as wrong, or making a speech on Iraq.

The internal campaign debate concluded in December when Mrs. Clinton decided not to apologize or give a speech. Instead, she went on the "Today" show and, in a little-noticed remark, simply said she would not vote for the Senate Iraq resolution again.

By comparison, to the annoyance of Clinton advisers, Mr. Edwards has proved able to short-circuit questions about his own Senate vote for military action in 2002 by repeatedly calling it a mistake. He took a hard line against Iraq in 2002, then veered sharply in 2005 when he said he was wrong on the vote, and he has not suffered much politically.

A leading Republican candidate, Senator John McCain of Arizona, has defended the current war plan with language that could appeal to primary voters but perhaps hurt him in a general election. Mrs. Clinton is running, in part, a general-election strategy "” taking positions on Iraq that might appeal to independents and some Republicans.

Yet her motivation not to apologize goes deeper than that, advisers said.

Her approach to leadership and national security was forged during her eight years in the White House: She believes in executive authority and Congressional deference, her advisers say, and is careful about suggesting that Congress can overrule a commander in chief.

"She thinks she will be president and will have to negotiate on the nation's behalf with world leaders," said one Clinton adviser. "She thinks we're likely to still be in this mess in 2009, and coming onto the campaign trail and groveling and saying at every opportunity that you made a mistake doesn't actually help you solve the problem."

Ariel Sabar contributed reporting from Dover, N.H.
Last edited by Luxury Lex
I must say that Hillary's Hillcast video on her website is an extremely smart move. I just watched it. She addresses the nation in exactly the way all presidents have done since the dawn of radio and television (just not from the Oval Office). If she subliminally gets the nation accustomed to her addressing the issues and engaging voters and non-voters with this medium, she'll have immediate rebuttal to not only all of the others in the campaign (Rudiani) but also to every move Bush makes until the day he's out of office. She's already acting like a president. It's brilliant and she's really changing the way campaigns will be run from now on.

Barack's site features baracktv, which covers announcements and speeches; they do give me a clear picture of who he is and what he stands for. He's also smart and has A LOT of great potential; I like him, and hope he can be as pragmatic as he is idealistic. He does need to think ahead, though. The public is going to want immediate access to his views and responses to issues as they arise on the campaign trail. Unfortunately, they don't read. They watch TV and surf the internet, and they'll want access to him on their own time (or their employers' time). Hillary has anticipated this.
"There has been some resistance, but since the start of this year a sizable cadre of social conservatives have declared either their willingness to consider supporting the mayor, or their intention not to write him off. Since Giuliani emerged as a possible candidate, people have known he would have to deal with the base of his party, but everyone thought this would involve a supplicant bending of the knee and begging leave of the Republican voters he had dismayed. No one imagined that so much of that base would come looking for him, and then make it their business to hand him a strategy. But that is what they have done."

http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Article...000/013/370rvrau.asp
A seasonal fling, Darla. In all probability Obama probably won't last. Lots of seasoning but not enough meat for most voters. Not that he could possibly be any worse than the president we have now, natch.

McCain scares me most of all. While Guiliani is merely a garden variety Moussilini (and the bain of art museums everywhere), McCain always has that look in his eyes like he might have a psychotic meltdown at any second. One must wonder what all those years of being locked up in a P.O.W. camp did to his sanity.

In the end it probably will come down to Hillary vs. the drag queen. They are the only ones "man enough" to do the job.
"If we know anything about the Clintons it is this: They are incapable of taking the blame for any action"”personal, business, or political. Period. It is, has always has been, and will always be, someone else's fault." "”Rich Galen ++ "Nobody will out-mud the Clintons. You can't beat them tactically... They're too relentless, they're too well-organized... If they think [Barack Obama] is a real threat, they'll just grind him up." "”Newt Gingrich
"John McCain announced for president on David Letterman's show Wednesday. However, his formal announcement isn't until April. These days if you want to run for president you have to clear it with the comedians before you run it by the public." "”Argus Hamilton

"C'mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean." "”Ann Coulter, responding to the CPAC kerfuffle

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×