John edwards dropped out of the race!

[archibaldcrane]

I'm not gonna vote for someone because a (white) southerner won't like what the other guy looks like. That's not what Democracy means to me. I'm voting for the guy who comes closest to my quarter of that grid (who isn't named Nader)

So, you didn't want to vote for John Edwards just because of his race/gender, you wanted to vote for John Edwards because he's closest to your ideas politically. That makes sense. Sucks he's out of the race.

[Charla]

That sentence had two clauses. I don't think Edwards would put his political ass on the line to stand up to Abramoff Jr. any more than any other 54-year-old career politician. Not to mention he already had two chances 4 years ago, and didn't impress me much back then either. If Obama wasn't running, I probably would have gotten behind Edwards a few months ago instead.

[wyrmtung]

I'm really stumped about the Obama appeal. From what I hear, people like him because he's got a nice sounding voice, the novelty of having a "black" man as president, and he's the anti-Clinton vote. If I look behind the curtain, all I see is an inexperienced politician who hasn't done anything significant in Congress. What makes him the best candidate to be leader of the free world?

Obama, then, would be more willing to sacrifice his own political leverage to get rid of that corruption. As I see corruption as the single greatest problem with the government today, that's a pretty big deal to me.

Does that not count for some reason? I'm not gonna vote for someone because a (white) southerner won't like what the other guy looks like. That's not what Democracy means to me. I'm voting for the guy who comes closest to my quarter of that grid (who isn't named Nader), and the guy who will put himself on the line to end the age of politicians that can be bought.

And I will vote the same way but I have been all over this country. I know that sexism, racism and prejudice exists in one form or another, even subconsciously. With the way the electoral college works, a presidency is won by swinging the traditionally red states to blue and vice versa. If you don't think this will play a big factor with the swing votes in each state then you are fooling yourself.

As for corruption, there is no way in hell he or any other president is going to "clean up" politics. That's like taking drugs and alcohol out of Hollywood. It ain't gonna happen. And I don't see how some +20 year politician is going to suddenly clean up his act because some young pup says so. How much respect is Obama going to have with Congress (even a Democratic Congress) when they all know he was a junior senator with only four years of experience in Congress? He never worked on any major bills and barely knows how to find the bathroom in his building. How is he going to run the country? Answer: He's not. He's going to be a puppet of people who know the ropes until he gets some on the job training. By the time he finally figures things out, his four years will be up.

You're not voting for Obama. You're voting for Obama's advisors.

[Charla]

"Knowing the ropes" in Congress is very different from what a President has to do to get stuff done. In that respect, not having an entrenched position in the current establishment may give one more freedom to change it, while 20-year political veteran would be unwilling or unable to overhaul the system that he's learned to manipulate.

I'll give you the respect thing though. That's one way that Hillary may have an edge over Obama: she can command respect with the force of her personality, and she can shrug off or simply endure the abuse and disrespect that a campaign to "clean things up" would entail. I just don't believe she's interested in undertaking that campaign. In the end, I have faith that his force of will and the media attention from being a new and charismatic President would be enough to 'move the world without a fulcrum' (to quote Kim Stanley Robinson). Sometimes you just have to believe in your leaders.

[evilbau]

How much respect is Obama going to have with Congress (even a Democratic Congress) when they all know he was a junior senator with only four years of experience in Congress? He never worked on any major bills and barely knows how to find the bathroom in his building. How is he going to run the country? Answer: He's not. He's going to be a puppet of people who know the ropes until he gets some on the job training. By the time he finally figures things out, his four years will be up.

I'm totally in agreement. Obama seems really smart and likable. Hes a very engaging speaker and has big ideas. I really respect him. However, I think hes too inexperienced to be president. Hes a first term senator who started campaigning in his second year in office. He only talks in rhetoric to further play up that hes an 'idea man.' He provides details when pressed, but it isn't the focus of his stump speeches, and definitely not his message. He does not know what it takes for the president to push an agenda through.

Hillary, as you mentioned, will have perhaps the best political mind in the Democratic Party in Bill. She was by him the whole way in his presidency and has maintained relationships with other world leaders. This is not a minor detail. She advised President Clinton during the 90s and saw for herself what it took to get things done from the Oval Office. She even tried to get major projects done (Universal Health Coverage) until it became obvious there was a backlash from the first lady trying to get something done. Bill as an advisor is an enormous asset.

As much as I like and respect Obama, I don't want him to beat Hillary, but I would not be unhappy if he did.

[Demosthenes11]

She advised President Clinton during the 90s and saw for herself what it took to get things done from the Oval Office

slurp slurp!

[wyrmtung]

How much respect is Obama going to have with Congress (even a Democratic Congress) when they all know he was a junior senator with only four years of experience in Congress? He never worked on any major bills and barely knows how to find the bathroom in his building. How is he going to run the country? Answer: He's not. He's going to be a puppet of people who know the ropes until he gets some on the job training. By the time he finally figures things out, his four years will be up.

I'm totally in agreement. Obama seems really smart and likable. Hes a very engaging speaker and has big ideas. I really respect him. However, I think hes too inexperienced to be president. Hes a first term senator who started campaigning in his second year in office. He only talks in rhetoric to further play up that hes an 'idea man.' He provides details when pressed, but it isn't the focus of his stump speeches, and definitely not his message. He does not know what it takes for the president to push an agenda through.

Hillary, as you mentioned, will have perhaps the best political mind in the Democratic Party in Bill. She was by him the whole way in his presidency and has maintained relationships with other world leaders. This is not a minor detail. She advised President Clinton during the 90s and saw for herself what it took to get things done from the Oval Office. She even tried to get major projects done (Universal Health Coverage) until it became obvious there was a backlash from the first lady trying to get something done. Bill as an advisor is an enormous asset.

As much as I like and respect Obama, I don't want him to beat Hillary, but I would not be unhappy if he did.

Back when Bill ran the country it was the *wink, wink* joke that Hillary really ran the country behind closed doors. Well, now we got the exact reverse so how could it fail? Obama is a nice idea but that's all it is. Please let's all be real and do the smart choice.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

What it comes down to about not liking Hillary and liking Obama is the fact that Hillary was a corporate lawyer for Wal-Mart, she has special interests at heart ( and belongs to their pockets ). She is a social conservative and a fiscal democrat. Look at her Senate voting record, and look at her financiers. She talks about national healthcare out of one side of her mouth, and takes Big Pharma money in the other pocket.

So seeing how she speaks in public, and what her actions are - there are alot of reasons to not like her. I can't believe this thread got through four pages without touching on things of this nature. She owes favors to lobbyists, she has political division in mind, and despite her "experience" she won't bring anything but the same bullshit to the White House that we've always known.

Now we look at Obama, who has been a public servant since he left college. I'm pretty sure taking into account him being bi-racial, traveling the world at a young age, and his ability to be candid about his youth and such is what makes him the more "likable" candidate.

While at the very early stages of the race I was supporting Kucinich, and paying attention to what Biden and Edwards were saying more than anyone it eventually came down to who was going to win against Hillary. Once Kucinich dropped out and publicly endorsed Obama ( Kucinich also told his supporters to join Obama's caucus for any vote he wasn't viable for in Iowa ), and once Edwards chances started dropping it became apparent that Obama would be the candidate to make to the White House for several reasons.

Politics isn't just about passion for a candidate, it's about putting the person closest to your values and with the best chance of winning against those you think are wrong for the country ( and in some cases the world ).

Obama and Hillary's ideas may "sound" the same, but they are not the same candidate separated only by color, sex, and likability. Pay closer attention to their respective histories concerning their public and private careers. There is a cavern of difference between the two, the problem is popular social media and commentary want you to think of the shock value, not the facts. Good thing we're keeping up the trend of thinking on our own.

[Maguspk]

She advised President Clinton during the 90s and saw for herself what it took to get things done from the Oval Office

slurp slurp!

You need to stop posting unless you're going to contribute. Berating posts with sexual innuendo is unnecessary and actually just weakens the viewpoint that hate on Hilary is valid. You are making your side look foolish whether you want to admit it or not.

@Deftscythe responding to the quote train. You mentioned that it's a question on personality. That was the first thing I mentioned in my first post in this thread. It's obvious. What the argument concerns is the hate on Hilary. The argument is that whether it be subconscious or intentional, alot of the negative trouble Hilary receives is due to her being a woman and her not adhering to a preconceived gender role.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

By the way

http://politicalcompass.org/facebook...7.50&soc=-7.23


for perspective.


And I'd actually like to see results of said running politicians taking that "test" before placing them on that chart. That site seems to have its shit together, but I don't think every question can be pinpointed on every running candidates written and spoken words to place them on that chart on an estimated guess.

But then again I guess it could, seeing as a politician has to pander to the general public, but what Edwards had been saying about smashing corporate America and defending the poor as well as basic human rights I don't think he's be at the lower corner of the right. He was pretty near Kucinich in values as far as I saw, minus a few key points ( like legalization of marijuana ).

[Sui]

I'm really stumped about the Obama appeal. From what I hear, people like him because he's got a nice sounding voice, the novelty of having a "black" man as president, and he's the anti-Clinton vote. If I look behind the curtain, all I see is an inexperienced politician who hasn't done anything significant in Congress. What makes him the best candidate to be leader of the free world?

People have pointed out that Obama and Clinton do not differ significantly on policy, and though I have a bit of a problem with that (nuclear power, for example, or economic stimulus plans, or dates for withdrawal from Iraq, or health care mandates, or...), it's close enough to the truth for this post. The difference is Obama's track record in doing things across political divides. For example, he recently co-sponsored (with Sen. Coburn, I think?) the formation of http://www.usaspending.gov/, which goes a long way to governmental transparency. In Illinois, he was responsible for the passage of a bill that required police to videotape interrogations. The kicker here is that the police were initially (and vehemently) opposed to the bill - but after Obama worked with them, they came out and actively endorsed it.

Of course, there are other things he has done that mark his good judgment and intelligence as well - for example, his opposition to the Iraq war before it ever started, his consistent refusal of cushy jobs (Supreme Court clerk, corporate lawyer) for community organizing or teaching, and so on. However, he was not in the US Senate when he did these things, so I guess that disqualifies it from your consideration.

Here I'm entirely ignoring the concept that experience with Washington's traditional politics is good in and of itself. (I personally think it is not.)

Hillary is more appealing to me because she has Bill which is huge for me. Clinton was the best president in my lifetime. Period. I would love to have someone in the White House who has Bill as her number one adviser. We get two presidents for the price of one.

How old are you? I would guess you've been around for W and Clinton (obviously), probably the first Bush, and then what? Some Reagan, maybe Jimmy Carter if you're a child of the 70s? You don't exactly have much competition on the Democratic side for "good presidents", and unless you're strongly conservative, only Reagan could be argued to be better. (Based on your distaste for McCain, I assume you're liberal, meaning Bill Clinton basically has no competition in your assessment.)

That leaves aside the whole issue of dynasties becoming influential in American politics.

Bill Clinton has been tarnishing his legacy recently, regardless - racially charged comments, for example, or the uranium-mining shady business the New York Times talked about today. Moreover, I feel that people credit economic prosperity and relative peace to Clinton when he does not deserve it - he did not create the tech boom, nor did he stop the growth of Islamic extremist terrorism. (By ignoring Bin Laden's growing influence, he probably made it worse.)

Either way, my worst fears about this election are coming true. The Democrats are not capitalizing on the anti-Bush voters. Voters across the country are going to have fundamental problems with a woman or a black man. For many voters, they won't care what the issues are or how well they think these two will run the country. They will only care that they are a woman and a black man.

I do not think that people who care more about the candidates' race or gender over their policy or image are usually Democratic. They would not, most likely, be voting for a Democrat, even someone as 'acceptable' as Edwards.

Polls have strongly indicated that 'anti-Bush voters', as you put it, break for Obama. He has captured the majority of the youth vote by an incredible margin (and when was the last time you saw some guy protesting Bush who was over 30?), and independents break far more strongly for Obama than they do for McCain.

On the other side we have McCain who is white, has a great political resume, and, oh yeah, he was a highly publicized POW. The blue hair voting demographic eats that shit up. Who cares that he's only a year or two away from wearing Depends. In fact, they probably love that too.

The Republican party is really, really not a fan of McCain - by this, I mean the 'old guard', if you will. Rush Limbaugh, for example, loathes the guy with a firey passion. The Republican party is not as unified as you seem to believe.

So the Democrats no longer have a free pass to get a person into the White House due to the dumbest president in USA history fucking up this country for the last eight years. Now it's going to be a close race. Now there is a chance we will elect the oldest president in history.

And guess what? If we elect McCain there is a chance we may not get McCain. He might have health issues in the middle of his term and we get some Dick Cheney wannabe running this country. As far as Republicans go, I wouldn't really mind if McCain won...eight years ago. Now I gotta worry about us not getting Hillary or Obama or McCain running this country.

I would like to think McCain is intelligent enough to pick someone better than Neo Dick Cheney. I admit that I have no solid proof for that, though.

Man, I really wish Al Gore would ride in on a white horse and stop this insanity.

What is it with the boners people have for Gore? I admire his dedication to climate change, and I think he's a pretty smart guy overall, but I feel that the stigma of 2000 carries too much weight for effective policy-making.

[evilbau]

I was curious so I tried it too, and it was about where I thought I'd be. For perspective:

http://www.soul-burn.com/images/evilbau%20position.png

[Beckwin]

Last time I took that quiz I scored in the 8.x range on both.

I also agree with this

People have pointed out that Obama and Clinton do not differ significantly on policy, and though I have a bit of a problem with that (nuclear power, for example, or economic stimulus plans, or dates for withdrawal from Iraq, or health care mandates, or...), it's close enough to the truth for this post. The difference is Obama's track record in doing things across political divides. For example, he recently co-sponsored (with Sen. Coburn, I think?) the formation of http://www.usaspending.gov/, which goes a long way to governmental transparency. In Illinois, he was responsible for the passage of a bill that required police to videotape interrogations. The kicker here is that the police were initially (and vehemently) opposed to the bill - but after Obama worked with them, they came out and actively endorsed it.

Of course, there are other things he has done that mark his good judgment and intelligence as well - for example, his opposition to the Iraq war before it ever started, his consistent refusal of cushy jobs (Supreme Court clerk, corporate lawyer) for community organizing or teaching, and so on. However, he was not in the US Senate when he did these things, so I guess that disqualifies it from your consideration.

Here I'm entirely ignoring the concept that experience with Washington's traditional politics is good in and of itself. (I personally think it is not.)

a lot.

And I don't see the reason to bash Hilary or Obama. I voted for Obama because of the above, and just personal preference- the guy can talk and seems genuine. I like an idealist. Also Hilary was kinda involved in the Lieberman videogame bashing of a few years back, and while that's admittedly minor in the grand scheme of policy, it still sticks out in a bad way between two candidate who otherwise are fairly similar in policy.

I will agree that a lot of the Hilary bashing has to do with her gender, but there is undeniably a level of skepticism concerning her because of her former first lady status and her choice of residence for Senator purposes- in spite of the fact that she's intelligent and has shown she can handle herself as a politician. But when most people say they don't like her because she's a "bitch", that's sexism, plain and simple. A man with her attitude/personality would likely be respected as a hard-nosed no-bullshit policy maker and leader.

The whole "pandertron" buzzword dropping is kinda old and not very informed. All the major Dem candidates have similar policies (throw Gore in there as well). How much you want to believe each candidate seems to determine who is pandering and who is genuine, and that's pretty subjective, considering all of them have pretty positive backgrounds to justify their policy- Hilary pushed for major healthcare reforms as first lady and has a reputation for her political smarts, Obama's healthcare work in Illinois and his bipartisan efforts as a senator are commendable, Edwards clearly gives a shit about the middle class, and Gore invented the internet/will save the world/etc (seriously though, Gore is a smart man and his environmental work is commendable regardless of whether you believe it all or not). There are a lot of strong potential leaders and difference makers in the Democratic party right now.

The big question is: Are they gonna be able to work together and actually make some important changes?

What I'm hoping for (even though it probably won't happen exactly like this) is an Obama presidency, Edwards as AG, Gore as Environmental or Energy Secretary, Hilary maybe as VP or maybe Secretary of State (a Clinton back on the international scene wouldn't be a bad thing). I'd kinda like to see the superstars in the cabinet for a change; would help with the whole idea of transparency (especially after the current presidency, where cabinet members were dropped and replaced in cover-ups).

[evilbau]

Super Tuesday BUMP!

I still support Hillary but Larry Lessig, who I respect, made this video in support of Obama. He is right in his charges, but I find his view a little idealistic, and does not reflect the political reality of the election. Edwards and Obama have similarly mislead people about Hillary's positions and statements. Its gonna be an exciting day.

As the link indicates, its 20 minutes.
http://lessig.org/blog/2008/02/20_minut ... _am_4.html