I'm not Cashless btw, but your Hillary stan-dom isn't serving your interests well. There's probably people around here who are genuinely undecided but your hardcore partisanship to Hillary is off-putting. You might consider a more nuanced route.
i like obama and edwards. if either wins, time permitting, i would campaign for them just like i volunteered for Kerry despite the fact that I was a Dean supporter.
if there weren't all these hillary bashing threads i'd be defending obama even though i think hillary will make a better prez. however, i've seen very few arguments that were pro obama and anti hillary that made any sense, or were actually based on policy differences. to me, a lot of what is said here mirrors the same bullshit they are peddling on fox news, limbaugh, the gop blogs,etc.
The bottom line is that the policies do not matter.
Letting alone that the policies barely differ from candidate to candidate... no president is going to get fuck-all done in the next four years, which will largely be spent patching up the previous administration's damage and bringing Americans to some hard conclusions about where we're headed and what we need to do. So people want a president that's not going to significantly divide the country further or play some partisan political nonsense - just someone who's going to level with the American public and I don't see that in Clinton. When I think about what is required to get Americans to really sacrifice - and we will all need to if we want to see our country improve - the only person I think is capable of getting that response is Obama.
The bottom line is that the policies do not matter.
Letting alone that the policies barely differ from candidate to candidate... no president is going to get fuck-all done in the next four years, which will largely be spent patching up the previous administration's damage and bringing Americans to some hard conclusions about where we're headed and what we need to do. So people want a president that's not going to significantly divide the country further or play some partisan political nonsense - just someone who's going to level with the American public and I don't see that in Clinton. When I think about what is required to get Americans to really sacrifice - and we will all need to if we want to see our country improve - the only person I think is capable of getting that response is Obama.
Letting alone that the policies barely differ from candidate to candidate... no president is going to get fuck-all done in the next four years, which will largely be spent patching up the previous administration's damage and bringing Americans to some hard conclusions about where we're headed and what we need to do.
Letting alone that the policies barely differ from candidate to candidate... no president is going to get fuck-all done in the next four years, which will largely be spent patching up the previous administration's damage and bringing Americans to some hard conclusions about where we're headed and what we need to do.
they certainly differ from dem candidate to gop candidate, but i'm not sure if that's what you meant. i don't have such a bleak outlook on the first four years of an obama,edwards or hillary presidency. while economic issues might take years to resolve there is plenty of policy changes, like universal healthcare, that will have an immediate effect. also, from a legal/civil rights standpoint, if dems have the house and senate, the presidency, and we can get some gop supreme court members to kick the bucket, you will see some DRAMATIC changes.
Letting alone that the policies barely differ from candidate to candidate... no president is going to get fuck-all done in the next four years, which will largely be spent patching up the previous administration's damage and bringing Americans to some hard conclusions about where we're headed and what we need to do.
You don't think Ron Paul offers vastly different policies from the rest?
, i've seen very few arguments that were pro obama and anti hillary that made any sense, or were actually based on policy differences.
Saying. I don't know if most Obama supporters I know could tell me what his policies even are. As a symbol though...the adulation is pretty striking.
Obama arguments 1) He attracts independent and republican voters, Hillary repels them. Thus he is more electable.
2) Hillary does not believe in listening to or working with grass roots organizers or activists. She prefers to work in secret to develop policies she then expects others to follow. By contrast Obama has worked as a community organizer and worked to build consensus.
3) Hillary ignored the BEST intelligence on Iraq. Obama responded not only to the BEST intelligence, but also realized that America did not support the war and knew better than to try to go to war with the backing of the American people.
4) If Hillary were to investigate any of the abuses of the current administration (War profiteering, torture, selling off of government assets to campaign contributors, kickbacks from contractors to the VP and others, spying on citizens...) it would be seen as political payback for Whitewater. When Obama does the same it will be seen as restoring Americas dignity.
The only reason to support Hillary over Obama is she has lots of experience. Unfortunately that experience has not helped her to make good decisions, not in health care, not on Iraq, not on Iran, the Patriot Act...
4) If Hillary were to investigate any of the abuses of the current administration (War profiteering, torture, selling off of government assets to campaign contributors, kickbacks from contractors to the VP and others, spying on citizens...) it would be seen as political payback for Whitewater. When Obama does the same it will be seen as restoring Americas dignity.
That's a bullshit issue as far as I'm concerned. He was and is against the war. That was never debatable. However, in the atmosphere of this country -- when anyone says anything anti-war they are accused of "not supporting the troops" -- it's OK by me to vote to fund a war you weren't in favor of. What's the alternative? [/b]
Conviction? Morals? Standards?
My biggest problem with Hillary is pretty simple - her husband's already done the job and now she want's to give it a crack. If the population of the US was 6 people I could understand it, but in a country with 303+ million people, why the fuck do they keep pulling presidents from the same small circle? Like Einstein said - ‘The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a new result.’
4) If Hillary were to investigate any of the abuses of the current administration (War profiteering, torture, selling off of government assets to campaign contributors, kickbacks from contractors to the VP and others, spying on citizens...) it would be seen as political payback for Whitewater. When Obama does the same it will be seen as restoring Americas dignity.
BINGO.
payback to ken starr or the republican congress of the 90s? come'on now. as if, americans who care about abu ghraib, unlawful wiretaps, blackwater, etc., are going to second guess a congressional[/b] investigation because of some unproven sec scandal that is 20 years old, and for which the govt spent millions investigating BEFORE Starr was even appointed.
I'm kinda feeling John Edwards right now. Hope he doesn't get completely squeezed out.
Edwards has been very helpful to both Hilary & Obama's campaign. I suspect if he does not get over 20% in SC, he will definitely bow out after super Tuesday. But he's been good for the Dem party so far this campaign, specifically in taking the lead on some of the policy issues before the other two established their platforms.
4) If Hillary were to investigate any of the abuses of the current administration (War profiteering, torture, selling off of government assets to campaign contributors, kickbacks from contractors to the VP and others, spying on citizens...) it would be seen as political payback for Whitewater. When Obama does the same it will be seen as restoring Americas dignity.
BINGO.
payback to ken starr or the republican congress of the 90s? come'on now. as if, americans who care about abu ghraib, unlawful wiretaps, blackwater, etc., are going to second guess a congressional[/b] investigation because of some unproven sec scandal that is 20 years old, and for which the govt spent millions investigating BEFORE Starr was even appointed.
If you think Whitewater is forgotten just watch and see how fast there is a Special Prosecutor looking into the lost phone records.
Americans will most certainly second guess a congressional investigation championed by Hillary.
Many Americans voted for W., and would like to believe he is a good guy at heart.
In order to get to the bottom of it all, bring some of these folks to justice, and give the American people some closure we need someone that is not tarnished by the partisan warfare of the past 16 years. And Hillary ain't that.
I'm kinda feeling John Edwards right now. Hope he doesn't get completely squeezed out.
John Edwards gave his wife cancer by pumping her up on fertility drugs at age 50 in an attempt to replace his dead son with a new heir. He's a self-centered, egotistical snake-oil salesman.
I'm kinda feeling John Edwards right now. Hope he doesn't get completely squeezed out.
John Edwards gave his wife cancer by pumping her up on fertility drugs at age 50 in an attempt to replace his dead son with a new heir. He's a self-centered, egotistical snake-oil salesman.
Comments
i like obama and edwards. if either wins, time permitting, i would campaign for them just like i volunteered for Kerry despite the fact that I was a Dean supporter.
if there weren't all these hillary bashing threads i'd be defending obama even though i think hillary will make a better prez. however, i've seen very few arguments that were pro obama and anti hillary that made any sense, or were actually based on policy differences. to me, a lot of what is said here mirrors the same bullshit they are peddling on fox news, limbaugh, the gop blogs,etc.
Saying. I don't know if most Obama supporters I know could tell me what his policies even are. As a symbol though...the adulation is pretty striking.
I think that could be said for most supporters of any candidate. People support Clinton/Bush for name recognition mostly.
Letting alone that the policies barely differ from candidate to candidate... no president is going to get fuck-all done in the next four years, which will largely be spent patching up the previous administration's damage and bringing Americans to some hard conclusions about where we're headed and what we need to do. So people want a president that's not going to significantly divide the country further or play some partisan political nonsense - just someone who's going to level with the American public and I don't see that in Clinton. When I think about what is required to get Americans to really sacrifice - and we will all need to if we want to see our country improve - the only person I think is capable of getting that response is Obama.
they certainly differ from dem candidate to gop candidate, but i'm not sure if that's what you meant. i don't have such a bleak outlook on the first four years of an obama,edwards or hillary presidency. while economic issues might take years to resolve there is plenty of policy changes, like universal healthcare, that will have an immediate effect. also, from a legal/civil rights standpoint, if dems have the house and senate, the presidency, and we can get some gop supreme court members to kick the bucket, you will see some DRAMATIC changes.
You don't think Ron Paul offers vastly different policies from the rest?
2. All due respect Rob but I think Paul's a nutjob and would consider relocating to another country were he elected.
easier said than done
also if you weren't prompted by the re election of shrub i don't know how paul would/could affect that stance
Obama arguments
1) He attracts independent and republican voters, Hillary repels them. Thus he is more electable.
2) Hillary does not believe in listening to or working with grass roots organizers or activists. She prefers to work in secret to develop policies she then expects others to follow. By contrast Obama has worked as a community organizer and worked to build consensus.
3) Hillary ignored the BEST intelligence on Iraq. Obama responded not only to the BEST intelligence, but also realized that America did not support the war and knew better than to try to go to war with the backing of the American people.
4) If Hillary were to investigate any of the abuses of the current administration (War profiteering, torture, selling off of government assets to campaign contributors, kickbacks from contractors to the VP and others, spying on citizens...) it would be seen as political payback for Whitewater. When Obama does the same it will be seen as restoring Americas dignity.
The only reason to support Hillary over Obama is she has lots of experience. Unfortunately that experience has not helped her to make good decisions, not in health care, not on Iraq, not on Iran, the Patriot Act...
BINGO.
I can kinda understand where a sickfuck hawk could be preferable over any libertarian.
Selling out to corporate interests > Letting corporations do what the hell they please
Conviction? Morals? Standards?
My biggest problem with Hillary is pretty simple - her husband's already done the job and now she want's to give it a crack. If the population of the US was 6 people I could understand it, but in a country with 303+ million people, why the fuck do they keep pulling presidents from the same small circle? Like Einstein said - ‘The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a new result.’
payback to ken starr or the republican congress of the 90s? come'on now. as if, americans who care about abu ghraib, unlawful wiretaps, blackwater, etc., are going to second guess a congressional[/b] investigation because of some unproven sec scandal that is 20 years old, and for which the govt spent millions investigating BEFORE Starr was even appointed.
ok, go reread the laserwolf authored whitewater theory, and if that makes any sense to you, please drop some science on why it does.
or just go back to obama cheerleading and making broad generalizations/predictions/presumptions that have no basis in fact.
Edwards has been very helpful to both Hilary & Obama's campaign. I suspect if he does not get over 20% in SC, he will definitely bow out after super Tuesday. But he's been good for the Dem party so far this campaign, specifically in taking the lead on some of the policy issues before the other two established their platforms.
If you think Whitewater is forgotten just watch and see how fast there is a Special Prosecutor looking into the lost phone records.
Many Americans voted for W., and would like to believe he is a good guy at heart.
In order to get to the bottom of it all, bring some of these folks to justice, and give the American people some closure we need someone that is not tarnished by the partisan warfare of the past 16 years. And Hillary ain't that.
Here's the deal. If change is really wanted. IMO, Hillary isn't it. What's next? Jeb will run and then after him, Chelsea is up???
Change is someone new.
Change is a stupid meaningless slogan.
Agreed.
John Edwards gave his wife cancer by pumping her up on fertility drugs at age 50 in an attempt to replace his dead son with a new heir. He's a self-centered, egotistical snake-oil salesman.
Wow
Wow. Z-ro is the new PB&J