Clinton and Obama

[CyrusReij]

Originally Posted by Havelock

It's pretty good evidence for Morris's theory.

Redstate has a particularly nasty take on this strategy here.

That article is embarassing. It was a republican blog trying to justify their racism because democrats are racist too.... SO ITS OK GUYS, EVERYONE IS RACIST, WHITE POWER. God people kill me.

[Zhaun's_Shade]

I have little doubt this is campaign strategy, there is no way Hillary would let Bill run around like a jackass like he has been doing if she didn't want him to.

[Korioni]

Well, we already know that Hillary has a (rather poor) strategy of letting "underlings" spout rude shit off about her competition and then apologizing for it. It's an all-around bad strategy though... Either people see through it and realize that the rude, inappropriate comments are coming straight from her or she comes off as a person who can't even control her own campaigners.

Either she needs to save those cards for really big issues or faults(not petty shit like she's been doing) or not at all. With the comments she's been letting her party throw around, she's coming off badly in all directions.

[Cybsled]

The fact Obama scored the majority in every category except old people says alot.

ps: Young people outnumber Old People. VIVA LA REVOLUTION!!!!

[The Hiram Key]

Putting aside likes and dislikes of the two respective candidates (which is going to be impossible for some of you) and looking at the candidates based soley on their plans, their stances on issues, and their roadmaps for what they would do once they are in office, it's pretty clear (to any reasonably logical person) that one candidate has substance, and the other does not.

I watched Obama's "victory" speech last night, to the tune of 15 minutes and my god, is he a great speaker. He knows how to work the crowd, he knows when to shut up and let the crowd chant. He varies his voice, uses pationate body language, and speaks to our hearts, our desires, and offers us *hope* for the future, and *change*. Hell I almost teared up watching him speak, he is that fucking good.

Of course history is filled with strong public speakers, like this guy. And while I am not comparring the two, or trying to say one = the other, the circumstances share alot of similarities (and alot of differences of course).

The point is, for the most important job in the world, you probably want someone with a long, steady, proven track record. Someone who its clear where they stand on the issues, what actions they will take, what their plan is, and what they will do once in office.

I just do not get any of that from Obama, and I really wish I did.

On the flip side, evertime Hillary speaks I want to punch the TV / monitor. She cannot work a crowd, does not know when to STFU, is not a great public speaker, and in general is annoying. But she knows her shit, and has strong, in depth and in detail plans for what she wants to do. She was working on health care (and knew it was an issue) long before the rest of America woke up and saw the light. What they refer to this as, is "visonary".

I am pretty confident that I know what she would do if elected. And while I may or may not agree with all of those things, at least I know what they are. Obama is a huge unknown. Huge.

You can drop the "this person lies, that person tells the truth" because all politicians lie. They are gifted in the art of telling you exactly what you need to hear, right when you need to hear it. That is the name of the game for politicians.

I would be perfectly happy with a Obama as president, if he had more experience then 1 term in the senate, and if he had clear plans for the future, and his stances were well known, and he had a long track record we could look back on and judge him on.

I cannot, and will not (no matter how attractive he may be) vote for what is in essence a "complete unknown" for President. I know people believe that his "inexperience" is his biggest asset, that he hasn't been "tainted" by DC politics, but I think that is rediculous.

Maybe things will change in the weeks and months to come, and Obama will become a more fleshed out, well rounded candidate and actually have some concrete positions on issues, and plans for the future. It won't sway me though, as I have no track record to judge him on.

[Havelock]

Originally Posted by CyrusReij

That article is embarassing. It was a republican blog trying to justify their racism because democrats are racist too.... SO ITS OK GUYS, EVERYONE IS RACIST, WHITE POWER. God people kill me.

It's a cheap shot, sure, but no reasonable person could read it as trying to justify racism.

[Lleauaric~EW]

a bipartisan campaign strategist

lol.. no. Dick Morris - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia read that link for roffelz goodness

Dick Morris is a moron who is almost never right about anything.

His entire punditry existence is owed to the fact that he once worked for the Clinton's (running push polls) and will badmouth them on command. If the Clinton's go, so does Morris.

[Astrocreep]

On the flip side, evertime Hillary speaks I want to punch the TV / monitor. She cannot work a crowd, does not know when to STFU, is not a great public speaker, and in general is annoying. But she knows her shit, and has strong, in depth and in detail plans for what she wants to do. She was working on health care (and knew it was an issue) long before the rest of America woke up and saw the light. What they refer to this as, is "visonary".

Im not sure what you're saying here. do you think Hillary's allegiance to the Big Pharma lobby will make america great again? it might make all of us addicted to prescription medicine but i dont think an extra checkup or 2 a year will do anything for the economy or bring about world peace. her bill was rejected back in the 90s not because a bunch of republicons were hating on her. it was rejected because it was shit and every idea ive seen her come up with is crap too. Obama is not an unknown, i know he is a party line liberal and is very much a washington insider. But despite all that, he has a likable personality and is smart enough to know he will have to move closer to the center if he wins the election. America is not a leftwing nation so for his policies to succeed trhey have to be policies we like. im not worried about him being president. i can sleep well at night with him in office. Im more worried with mr and mrs crackhead becoming co-presidents again.

[chaos]

Did you just say that Obama and Hitler have similarities? Jesus fucking fuck. This is why we can't have nice things.

People care about Ted Kennedy's endorsement, or that of all of the Kennedys, because they are Dem party leaders.

I tend to agree with what was said earlier, it's getting to the point where I would literally vote for anyone over Clinton. Bush Jr for a thrid term is not so unappealing in the face of her.

[Soriak]

You know she's not that far left of Obama on policy questions, right?

[Ronne]

Originally Posted by The Hiram Key

this guy.

Thread over, rickshaw inbound.

[Warrik]

Originally Posted by The Hiram Key

like this guy.

Fuck man, that's a terrible comparison. Seriously, what is the comparison there, that Hitler was a good public speaker? So is Tony Robbins....

I mean seriously, Hitler? You had to know that just typing that and hitting submit would ruin all credibility you could have possibly had in this thread.

[I'm Rich Bitch]

This clip of JFK reminds me of Obama's SC speak last night. Just substitute "Catholic" for "Black":

Yahoo!

[The Hiram Key]

Originally Posted by Warrik

Fuck man, that's a terrible comparison. Seriously, what is the comparison there, that Hitler was a good public speaker? So is Tony Robbins....

I mean seriously, Hitler? You had to know that just typing that and hitting submit would ruin all credibility you could have possibly had in this thread.

I was very careful to be clear that I was not comparring the two, or saying one was equal to the other. I gave an example from history of another great public speaker, who with not alot of experience, or a very sound plan (research and see for yourself) came to power based in large part on his ability to control the masses (or appeal to the masses) via his oratory.

Of course I can pick any number of other, powerful public speakers from current times and back through history, but it gets pretty hard to find someone with such a powerful voice, such a shallow pool of experience, and such an unclear plan for the near and long term future.

As I said, they don't match up perfectly, but parts of the two seperate scenarios do. I don't think calling Hitler a great public speaker is some social injustice. He was, and I don't think anyone would dispute that. The same can be said of Obama, he is a phenomenal public speaker, the likes we haven't seen since Kennedy (even former president Clinton isnt on the same level as Obama or, as Kennedy).

I was just trying to point out that it's dangerous to elect someone with next to no track record, next to no experience, who doesn't have a clear plan, who hasn't spelled out very much if at all, soley on the basis of his ability to speak well in public.

Thats a very narrow interpretation granted, but its a valid one.

[The Hiram Key]

Originally Posted by Astrocreep

Im not sure what you're saying here. do you think Hillary's allegiance to the Big Pharma lobby will make america great again? it might make all of us addicted to prescription medicine but i dont think an extra checkup or 2 a year will do anything for the economy or bring about world peace. her bill was rejected back in the 90s not because a bunch of republicons were hating on her. it was rejected because it was shit and every idea ive seen her come up with is crap too. Obama is not an unknown, i know he is a party line liberal and is very much a washington insider. But despite all that, he has a likable personality and is smart enough to know he will have to move closer to the center if he wins the election. America is not a leftwing nation so for his policies to succeed trhey have to be policies we like. im not worried about him being president. i can sleep well at night with him in office. Im more worried with mr and mrs crackhead becoming co-presidents again.

See this is precisely the type of thinking that scares me. One term in the Senate, and with a sparse voting record (and thats being VERY kind) makes him a Washington insider and party line liberal ? I agree with you, that Obama is likable, heck I will even float you that he is more likable then Hillary. I will even go out on a limb and agree that its problematic, and undesirable for the country to swap leadership between two family dynasties.

Your comments on what went wrong with Health Care reform back in the 90's are very indicative of your lack of enlightenment and understanding over what transpired back then. What was proposed back then is what is being proposed now, universally covering all US citizens, where the candidates diverge is over how it should be done (all without question, only to those who opt for it, and so on).

While it was definately NOT the Republicans alone who defeated her assignment (yes, she was assigned the task of reforming health care) it was the American public, who at the time, didn't believe it was a priority. It was an idea, that was ahead of it's time, so it was a combination of factors that shut that plan down. Had the plan passed, where would we be today ? Probably not dealing with health care as a main issue as the ice cap melts, the sea level rises, and the near and far east melt down on the march to judgment day and so on.

Perhaps HRC is in bed with the Pharmacutical lobby, and I am sure every single polictician in existance is in bed with one lobby or another, one special interest group, a union, a newspaper a private citizen with deep pockets, a corporation and so on. That is the way that politics runs in this country. Are you going to tell me that Obama has accepted zero dollars, from any politically aligned organization ? Nothing ? He is 100% influenced only by the "people" ? Are you saying lobbyists are not people ? You DO realize that lobbyists are hired by PEOPLE who have a concern and want it addressed by our government right ? Those people who hire them, are real people, and their issues, are real as well.

It's very clear that you don't like "them" and that you would take anyone but "them" and would be much more comfortable with "him". That's fine and dandy, you are entilted and I don't fault it. It's alot more upfront to just say "I don't like them, and I like him instead" then of trying to pass of all this rhetoric that has been spewed at you, as fact.