|
|
#31
08-29-2007, 06:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Clinton-Obama
[ QUOTE ]
I was 5 years old when Bill Clinton took office, so this may just be youthful ignorance, but it seems to me like Hillary's main political accomplishment was to marry Bill. I doubt she would get elected to the senate without the limelight thrust upon her by Bill, one of the most likeable politicians of my admittidly short lifetime. I guess my question is this, why is everyone so gung-ho over Hillary? Just a longing for Bill, or does she have some skills I don't know about. It seems the primary criticism of Obama is his inexperience, yet Clinton hasn't spent much time there either and seeminly has a free pass. Does being first lady really prepare you to be President? [/ QUOTE ] This is a reasonable point that doesn't get made enough. Clinton has 'experience'? She has been a Senator for two whole years longer than Obama (during which time she showed such excellent judgment as voting for the Iraq war...) I don't necessarily think it matters, as barring something unforeseen, the Dem Primary is the election sort of like the NBA Western Conference finals. All the plausible GOP candidates suck (and I mean as candidates, my opinions of their politics aside) Romney is the one candidate who panders more transparently than HRC. McCain is ancient, and I don't think that there are many people who really buy that our solution to foreign policy problems is to invade more countries and blow more things up. Plus caving on torture and pandering to the Dobsonites goes a long way towards removing the moral high ground he ran on in 2000. Giulliani is uhmmm CRAZY, and I think having the FDNY savage him is probably fatal since his greatest claim is as the hero of 9/11, but the undisputed real heroes of 9/11 aren't having it. Sam Brownback is both crazy and not smart. Fred Thompson is not ready for prime time, which is ironic since he's on prime time. Who the hell is Mike Huckabee? And Ron Paul, while interesting, is the kind of guy for many that the more you learn about him, the less you actually like him. (E.G. he thinks that it was a mistake to fight the Civil War. GG black vote...) 
|
|
#33
08-29-2007, 06:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Clinton-Obama
I think a Clinton - Anyone ticket is the least likely to win. A lot of people have already decided that they hate Clinton, few people are in love with her (how many clinton bumper stickers do you see?), and most people seem to like her because the idea of having Bill as a first husband would be cool. I still think a Clinton ticket would have an easy 2:1 shot over any republican because they have such a bad rep now.
I really think Obama - Anyone stands the best chance @ winning. A fair number of people seem very passionate about him. He's black and he's new but I don't see those as major problems, probably benefits. If you aren't going to vote for a black president chances are very slim that you'll vote for any democrat. He's inexperienced - meh, who really cares. The pundits might but I don't think voters do. My born-again christian bush loving (at least until recently) mother-in-law loves obama. Read his book and everything. She's very pro-life and is still seriously considering voting for him. Hillary - not so much.
|
|
#34
08-29-2007, 06:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Clinton-Obama
[ QUOTE ]
My born-again christian bush loving (at least until recently) mother-in-law loves obama. Read his book and everything. She's very pro-life and is still seriously considering voting for him. Hillary - not so much. [/ QUOTE ] WTF is Obama's appeal to older Republican women? I've seen a couple interviews on TV with women who just LOVED him, but wouldn't consider voting for another Dem. Also, don't underestimate the reverse psychology effect. Many moderate whites would embrace the chance to vote for a moderate black as a way to prove to themselves that they aren't racist.
|
|
#35
08-29-2007, 07:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Clinton-Obama
Seth--
Could you elaborate on the Paul comment--"It was a mistake to fight the civil war." He seems like a really cool guy...I'd be interested in hearing about a potential bad side to him.
|
|
#36
08-29-2007, 08:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Clinton-Obama
Obama would get about 10x more middling votes from less conservative republicans. I voted for Kerry and that was the first D I ever voted for. Obama would have a shot at my vote, while I would never vote for Clinton. I would write myself in before I would do that. Or maybe vote for "None of the above".
|
|
#37
08-29-2007, 09:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Clinton-Obama
[ QUOTE ]
Seth-- Could you elaborate on the Paul comment--"It was a mistake to fight the civil war." He seems like a really cool guy...I'd be interested in hearing about a potential bad side to him. [/ QUOTE ] When he was on Bill Maher's show this spring they talked about it. His full response isn't quite as crazy as that (he thinks it would have been resolved economically, as it was in Britain and other former slave states, and that would have worked out better for everyone. Aside from presumably the people who would still have been slaves from 1865 to 1900 or whenever...I think most historians would disagree with him as a factual matter, but working from his premises, it's not the most ridiculous argument ever) but how many people are going to get past the initial "WTF?" reaction? And there's all kinds of stuff like that. Now, he will undoubtedly maintain a certain appeal to the Buchananite, isolationist wing of the American right, much like Chuck Hagel, as those are really the only visible conservative pols who AREN'T suggesting that the solution to all problems is more bombs and/or "manliness" - and this one aspect explains both of their popularity to liberals. But once you actually get in there and kick the tires, he's got some ideas that are pretty out there. I'd still probably vote for him over any other GoP candidate (and I might do that in the primary, to the extent that our primary matters) as I think that as a small-government libertarian type, the amount of actual harm he'd do is limited, but I'd still take every single dem with the possible exception of Biden over him. Also, if these last 7 years have taught us anything, it's that the "really cool guy, I'd like to have a beer with him" metric is a VERY bad method for choosing a president. (FWIW, I think that fact goes along way towards explaining HRC's popularity - she might not be likeable, but damnit she'll get [censored] done...)
|
|
#38
08-29-2007, 09:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Clinton-Obama
[ QUOTE ]
WTF is Obama's appeal to older Republican women? I've seen a couple interviews on TV with women who just LOVED him, but wouldn't consider voting for another Dem. [/ QUOTE ] He has a nice smile, duhhhhhh.
|
|
#40
08-29-2007, 09:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Clinton-Obama
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] she might not be likeable, but damnit she'll get [censored] done...) [/ QUOTE ] not trying to flame, but what has she got done? [/ QUOTE ] I'm not saying it's true, I'm saying it's the perception (as I wrote somewhere today, the notion that she has loads of 'experience' on Obama is something of a crock, which he dealt with VERY well on his recent Daily Show appearance, saying something along the lines of "what people really want when they talk about experience is that someone has demonstrated good judgment, which is something of a shot across the bow of every single other major candidate, since he was the only one who vocally opposed OIF in 2002. Of course he was just an Illinois state senator, so he could take that position without some of the meta-implications faced by Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, et al. But A) tough, this is NFL football; and B) I don't care, sometimes right is right for it's own sake you craven so and sos...) I knew I shouldn't have gotten involved in this thread, I get too worked up about such things.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
