Originally posted by DJ Eco
Very well said, even if you are slightly disagreeing with me :) And I also agree with Stassi, sad but true haha...
At the end of the day, for someone to believe or suggest "Oh, I should be President, I can do it"... They have to be extremely big-headed and totally egotistical... I don't think Obama or Hillary are the exception... If we wanted to vote for the guy who wanted to least do it for his ego, and most because he wants to make a difference, then we would have voted for Kucinich... But no, the media, and Iowa decided early on he was a joke; he believes in UFOs; he believes in peace and is against war.... I'd blame the division and partisanship more on the media than any of the candidates themselves... Hill and Obama supporters are at each others' throats, it's crazy...
Fantastic point -- anyone who wants to be president (or a bill gates or a donald trump or a...) is most certainly an egomaniac of huge proportions. Fundamentally flawed motherf%&kers, all of em. So absolutely, who's the one who's the least f'd up? That's my criteria.
And yes, if i were REALLY voting for the person who matched me on the issues, it would be Kucinich or Richardson, but yeah, i need someone who's electable, and if it can be someone who's dreamy on top of it, well OK then.
Groundhog Boy
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Eco Hitler was an inspiring speaker. Stalin was an inspiring speaker. Mussolini, most of all, was a good speaker. A good speaker is a good speaker. He is not necessarily a good leader
Um, they were highly effective leaders, to a fault. Morally they were not, but to say that they weren't good leaders is incorrect.
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Eco He simply DOESN'T have foreign policy experience and you can't just go all the way to the White House saying "Oh yeah, I'll meet with hostile regimes." It's just not that easy, and when he says such things, he's showing how over-idealogical he is.
As opposed to Hillary's foreign policy experience? :conf: Her campaign exposed that one to Slate's questioner on Friday, when asked what is a foreign policy decision that she's made like in her 3 AM commercial, there was no response for awhile and eventually Mark Penn sputtered out something about a 1995 speech in Beijing on women's rights. OK, way to make a stand... - (http://www.slate.com/id/2185492/)
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Eco
Obama saying he's going to reach across the aisle, is just doing the same thing as his counterpart's husband (Bill) did during his term.... I don't get it, where's the change?
First, Hillary Clinton in 2008+ =/= Bill Clinton's Presidency 1992-2000. You make it sounds like they're clones. For one recent topic to illustrate, just look at her position on NAFTA, where she now says that she had reservations and privately didn't support it. Obviously Bill did. They're not the same people and the nostalgia that many Hillary supporters, like my mom, have for the 90s doesn't change that.
As far as Bill Clinton reaching across the aisle, I'd make the argument that the two parties aren't very far apart and getting them to agree, especially when one of the major principles of conservatism, fiscal responsibility, isn't followed, shouldn't be that hard. What's made it difficult is the outright hate that the parties have for each other, regardless of the degree of policy difference.
Oh, and on the comment about debate performances - I think he's schooled her on the last two big ones. Her pathetic performance last Tuesday was outstanding.
And here's an even MORE technical rundown, the complete voting records for McCain, Clinton and Obama since 1999 (bitch, who has time for this ?): Complete voting records
Groundhog Boy
quote:
Originally posted by zachias31
If anyone's interested in voting records, here's a post by a guy that I found pretty interesting: Voting differences - Clinton v Obama
And here's an even MORE technical rundown, the complete voting records for McCain, Clinton and Obama since 1999 (bitch, who has time for this ?): Complete voting records
LOL, I knew which story it was before I even clicked the link. It's kind of funny/sad how much recycling and repetition happens in politics
BTW - About the Canada/NAFTA thing -
quote:
UPDATE 1-Canada defends Obama over NAFTA flap
03.03.08, 7:00 PM ET
(Adds comments from candidates, embassy statement)
By David Ljunggren
OTTAWA(Reuters) - Canada defended Democratic front-runner Barack Obama Monday over accusations from rival Hillary Clinton that he is secretly at ease with a hemispheric trade accord which he publicly blames for losing U.S. jobs.
Clinton's criticism, on the eve of make-or-break presidential nomination contests for her in Ohio and Texas, stemmed from a report by Canadian television station CTV that an Obama economic adviser told Canadian officials the candidate was not seriously considering disrupting the trade accord.
But the Canadian Embassy in Washington released a statement essentially backing up the Obama camp's version of the meeting between adviser Austan Goolsbee and officials at the Canadian consulate in Chicago.
"There was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA," the embassy statement said. "We deeply regret any inference that may have been drawn to that effect."
The consulate's written report of the meeting had left the suggestion that Obama's words on NAFTA were designed for a political audience and should not be taken too seriously, prompting an angry denial from the Obama campaign.
Clinton, a New York senator, has made an issue of what she says is Obama's support for the North American Free Trade Agreement, which her husband, former President Bill Clinton, signed in 1994 but which is now under heavy election-year criticism from her and Obama.
On Monday, Clinton challenged Obama's credibility on the trade issue ahead of the nomination contest in Ohio, where concern over the NAFTA trade agreement has become a key issue.
"It raises questions about Senator Obama coming to Ohio and giving speeches about NAFTA and having his chief economic adviser tell the Canadian government that it was just political rhetoric," she said at an early morning news conference in Ohio.
Both candidates fighting for the Democratic nomination to face the Republicans' choice in the November election have threatened to pull the United States out of NAFTA unless it is renegotiated.
They said the accord has hurt the manufacturing base in such states as economically hard-hit Ohio, which along with Texas votes on Tuesday.
CANADA PM DENIES INTERFERENCE
Some U.S. Democrats accused Canada's right-leaning Conservative government of trying to interfere in the U.S. presidential election.
That charge led Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to take the unusual step of denying that Canada was trying to stir up trouble in the election process of its powerful southern neighbor.
"I certainly deny any allegation that this government has attempted to interfere in the American election," he told the country's parliament.
"The American people will make the decision as to their next president and I am confident that whoever that person is ... (they) will continue the strong alliance, friendship and partnership that we enjoy with the United States."
Canada sends 75 percent of its exports to the United States and would be badly hurt if Washington pulled out of NAFTA.
The U.S. Economic Policy Institute, a pro-labor think tank, has blamed NAFTA for more than 1 million U.S. job losses, most of them in manufacturing, since 1994. However, others put the tally much lower than that.
Obama, an Illinois senator, acknowledged that a meeting did take place between Goolsbee and the Canadian consulate officials but added, "He said exactly what I've been saying on the campaign trail."
In San Antonio, Texas, Obama said, "This notion that Senator Clinton is peddling that somehow there's contradictions or winks and nods has been disputed by all parties involved." (Additional reporting by Caren Bohan and Ellen Wulfhorst; Writing by Steve Holland; Editing by Stuart Grudgings)
Copyright 2008 Reuters, Click for Restriction
apart from being far more progressive than hillary on most issues of social justice and civil liberties, i appreciate the fact that obama is still at the stage in his political development where he speaks candidly and off the cuff rather than regurgitating centrist pieties. his speech may indeed be overpeppered with "change-isms," but after most interviews one is left with a sense of a clearly articulated position.
hillary, who thinks small and acts smaller, is simply incapable of staking a broadly progressive position and holding it consistently. in the clinton years, this was called "triangulation" and "playing to the center," a position of moral and intellectual bankruptcy. this also led to a boatload of regressive public policies, many of which paved the way for bush's stampede.
the saddest part about hillary is neither her chameleon shifts nor her shrill and naked careerism -- which are off-putting enough -- but rather the fact that she's the only candidate in recent memory running a campaign against hope and positivity (frank rich had a great column about this two sundays ago). her message, at its most basic level, is "the world is a crappy place where everyone is out to get you and i'm so used to treading in its i should have your vote." it's pathetic and it panders to the sort of base impulses republicans have been using since the mid-'60s.
obama is certainly not without his faults, and while his initial support of joe leiberman against ned lamont, his association with homophobic pastors or his campaign chair's shady connection with subprime mortgage lenders (more on this will surface this week) leave questions about his regressive reflexes, when confronted with these issues he acknowledges mistakes and nips the problem at its root.
hillary, like bill -- and like bush -- simply can't ever bring herself to acknowledge she ed up; it's always a conspiracy, a media gangup, or sexism that's out to derail what's rightfully hers.
this is the fourth presidential election in which i'm voting and if O's the candidate he'll be the first democrat to get my vote; if we count local elections, he'll be the first democrat to get my vote where i don't have to hold my nose as i pull the lever.
DJ Eco
quote:
Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
Um, they were highly effective leaders, to a fault. Morally they were not, but to say that they weren't good leaders is incorrect.
Leaders..... in the right direction... Let me add that in there lol...
quote:
Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
First, Hillary Clinton in 2008+ =/= Bill Clinton's Presidency 1992-2000. You make it sounds like they're clones. For one recent topic to illustrate, just look at her position on NAFTA, where she now says that she had reservations and privately didn't support it. Obviously Bill did. They're not the same people and the nostalgia that many Hillary supporters, like my mom, have for the 90s doesn't change that.
Well, if the nostalgia isn't grounds to refer back to, then neither should the so-called negatives either... You mentioned Clinton's administration and how he separated the parties, and I simply rebutted that, no need to all of a sudden take that back as if you yourself didn't bring up her husband's administration.
quote:
Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
Oh, and on the comment about debate performances - I think he's schooled her on the last two big ones. Her pathetic performance last Tuesday was outstanding.
Then, we disagree on that... Many people thought Bush won thte debates against Gore, everyone has different standards. Hillary getting asked tough questions, and Obama saying "I agree with most of what she said but..." doesn't constitute a fair debate to me... As exaggerated as the SNL skit on the debates was, SNL didn't pull the pro-Obama perception of the debates out of thin-air. I'm the first one to be irked by feminists, but I thought it was ridiculous to be asked "diamonds or pearls?" in a debate several months ago, as well as the question to Kucinich about UFOs... They chose who they wanted to help, who they saw was fit for supporting, who "LOOKS GOOD" on TV, from day one.
Groundhog Boy
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Eco
Well, if the nostalgia isn't grounds to refer back to, then neither should the so-called negatives either... You mentioned Clinton's administration and how he separated the parties, and I simply rebutted that, no need to all of a sudden take that back as if you yourself didn't bring up her husband's administration.
I only mentioned it to comment on her claims of fighting Republicans. I don't think I criticized his administration.
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Eco Then, we disagree on that... Many people thought Bush won thte debates against Gore, everyone has different standards. Hillary getting asked tough questions, and Obama saying "I agree with most of what she said but..." doesn't constitute a fair debate to me... As exaggerated as the SNL skit on the debates was, SNL didn't pull the pro-Obama perception of the debates out of thin-air. I'm the first one to be irked by feminists, but I thought it was ridiculous to be asked "diamonds or pearls?" in a debate several months ago, as well as the question to Kucinich about UFOs... They chose who they wanted to help, who they saw was fit for supporting, who "LOOKS GOOD" on TV, from day one.
Yeah, the unfair media & moderators caused that denounce/reject travesty that should have spawned thesaurus donations to the Clinton campaign. And that "diamonds/pearls" question was a good one for her when you looked at response. It worked with women the same way that her crying in New Hampshire did (positively).
Also, she's received, by far, the most coverage this campaign. Up until Iowa, they were touting her as the clear frontrunner and inevitable nominee. If anything, they've just tried to correct 10 months of unbalanced coverage over the last 2 months. Plus, what positives are there to say about a campaign that severely miscalculated their odds and didn't even entertain what they'd do if they were behind in March.
DJ Eco
quote:
Originally posted by Konijn
hillary, like bill -- and like bush -- simply can't ever bring herself to acknowledge she ed up; it's always a conspiracy, a media gangup, or sexism that's out to derail what's rightfully hers.
I somewhat agree and at least respect your intelligent and informed remarks and I'll repeat once again that I wish it wasn't between Hillary or Obama, neither of them were my choice from the beginning... But, I just think there's a crazy double standard... The anti-Hillary bias is clear to anyone who sees well... MSNBC says she's "pimping out Chelsea" to campaign for her, and god forbid she complains about it, she's seen as the bad person for complaining!! She's seen as the crybaby.... Let's see MSNBC say Barack's "slaving out his wife", this country would be up in arms in outrage... Not only that, but the race-baiting is clear as day... Any word that comes out of the Clintons' mouth is seen as racist... Who's the victim now... However, once again, this goes back to the media, and not so much the candidates themselves... It's insane how the media has a chokehold on the campaigns nowadays, it's really sad. But don't call us crazy conspiracy theorists when we're just pointing out the obvious.... There are the crazies who think the Obama campaign is cooking this all up, but I'm not on there, I'm just saying it's ridiculous how the media picks who it wants, and s on the others... Howard Dean in 2004 is the perfect example... Bring him up cos he's exciting and then take him down the first chance you get.
DJ Eco
quote:
Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
Also, she's received, by far, the most coverage this campaign. Up until Iowa, they were touting her as the clear frontrunner and inevitable nominee. If anything, they've just tried to correct 10 months of unbalanced coverage over the last 2 months. Plus, what positives are there to say about a campaign that severely miscalculated their odds and didn't even entertain what they'd do if they were behind in March.
I think the whole idea of a "campaign" is bull to begin with, so that's my opinion haha... The idea that a candidate has to go strategically state-to-state, with Iowa in January, and other states all the way in June, I can't help but think that the best candidates are not making it too far... If there was a one-day primary all over the country, guys like Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, etc., would have fared much better than who we have now, the whole way this works is ridiculous... And we're trying to spread democracy overseas?
Burak14
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Eco
Idealistic isn't a good thing nowadays, we need someone who's realistic. We're in a ty situation right now, we shouldn't give the amateur a turn at bat to fix it, but someone who has the right people and contacts to get us out. Give the amateur a run in 4 years from now, when, MAYBE, he's ready.
That doesn't even make sense in light of everything I've just said. He has no record to run on, and the promises he IS making, as seen in the first video, they're just campaign rhetoric, or so says his own high-ranking member of his campaign... ownmycown's reply is justified and I respect it, but saying that with Obama we know what we're getting, that's the exact opposite view than I think anyone has ever said about him.
And who has the right contacts?
Hillary? she's in bed with the same corporations she's supposed to be protecting us from, her experience. 8 years as a glorified ambassador and cheerleader for the Clinton administration. She spoke up for women and human rights in China yet where was she when the Rwanda genocide was going down? Where was her support for those women and people who were slaughtered wholesale for 3 months straight?
McCain? How can McCain still be in the race when he wasn't born in the US? Oh wait, he's been a citizen for nearly 130 years. He's basically going to forward the bush administration agenda, essentially saying that we should dig our way out of the hole we're in.
Rumsfeild and Cheney been in DC since the 70's and look how that turned out. We need someone with sound judgment. Obama has it. We already voted a known head into office for 8 years and he's gone ape with this country so far. Obama can go either way. I guess that's where experience isn't necessarily a good thing.
p.s.
priceless
DJ Eco
quote:
Originally posted by Burak14
Hillary? she's in bed with the same corporations she's supposed to be protecting us from, her experience.
They all are, my friend... You'd be surprised to see where both their money is coming from, it's naive to think he's ACTUALLY completely small-doner funded... Edwards was strictly separated from the corporations (truly), and we saw that he couldn't campaign without that money... Both Hillary and Obama are in bed, don't think for a minute any politician at this level isn't.
quote:
Originally posted by Burak14 She spoke up for women and human rights in China yet where was she when the Rwanda genocide was going down? Where was her support for those women and people who were slaughtered wholesale for 3 months straight?
Well, you can't be everywhere, can you? Despite kids wearing Save Darfur pins or the several or so rallies in New York, you can't really lead a "Save Darfur" movement, on a huge level, to a government that doesn't want to hear it, nor have the resources to follow through... She can't make a statement on every world crisis that goes on. She was a New York senator and did a good job, but she wasn't ambassador to the world.
quote:
Originally posted by Burak14
We need someone with sound judgment. Obama has it.
That's my point though... When a huge huge huge fraction of his votes in the Senate are neither NO nor YES, but "PRESENT" (the cop-out), we really don't know what judgment he has. In one debate, he told Edwards that he made a wrong decision about one vote that they were all involved in and Edwards said, "Yes, I was wrong... but I made a stand... I didn't vote 'present' like you, staying away from a 'no' or 'yes' for personal gain".... To think that there's a politician out there (on the potential presidential level) who doesn't structure his/her entire career for personal gain, and eventual shoe-iness to the White House, once again, very naive... They're both made moves as Senators strictly for furthering their career, it's not a one-way street, once again.
chimera66
this was intesting to read
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Eco
Stalin was an inspiring speaker.
uncle joe was no great speaker, you have him confused with lenin
