| Author |
|
Thom Price
Byrne Robotics Member
L’Homme Diabolique
Joined: 29 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 7592
|
| Posted: 05 March 2008 at 5:18pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
Yes, I think that's my problem with stating that being someone's spouse qualifies as experience. My girlfriend is a lawyer. I don't think you want me defending you in court.
***
A bad analogy. No one is claiming Hillary has experience simply because she was married to the President, and lived in the White House. Even her most ardent detractors have to concede that she was hardly a Jackie Kennedy-esque First Lady, content with throwing dinner parties and redecorating.
If your only connection to your girlfriend's law practice is living with her, then clearing you have no claim to knowledge or experience. On the other hand, if you spent 8 years at her office and accompanying her to court I'd have to think you'd pick up more than your share of legal expertise. That's a degree of knowledge and experience, even if it clearly doesn't make you a lawyer.
The point still stands, as far as I'm concerned: for years the complaint about Hillary was that she was an (unauthorized) "Co-President," which clearly equates to experience. Suddenly, though, that experience is dismissed as if it never happend, which makes me wonder what the 8 years of complaining was about?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Jason Czeskleba
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 April 2004
Posts: 4638
|
| Posted: 05 March 2008 at 5:21pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Clinton does not have a chance in the general election. I'm discouraged that more Democrats have not realized this. She is too polarizing a figure. There is a solid 20-25% of the voters who absolutely hate her to the point that they would probably vote for Bin Laden over her. Having her as the candidate would make for a huge boon to grassroots Republican "get out the vote" drives.
Clinton is also unpopular with independents, the constituency who have decided the past few elections. Against a Huckabee or Romney she might have had more of a chance, but McCain is moderate/progressive on enough issues to draw the independent vote. She has also veen very shortsighted in her primary campaign... if she is able to convince voters that experience is the quality that matters most when she's running against Obama, how is she going to turn around and suddenly say "now experience doesn't matter" when she's facing the infinitely more experienced McCain? Her claims about "experience" will totally come back to bite her in the ass in a campaign against McCain.
One of McCain's biggest weaknesses is his staunch support for the Iraq War, a war most Americans now feel was a mistake. Clinton, being a war supporter herself, cannot really attack him on this point in the manner Obama could.
Also, it's very unlikely Clinton will be able to win a majority of pledged delegates. Which means the only way she will get the nomination is by either getting the superdelegates to overrule the popular vote, or by getting the Michigan and Florida delegates seated, or both. I think if she does either of these things, it's going to turn off a lot of Democratic voters who will switch to McCain or Nader or just stay home.
I hope Obama is able to rack up a few more wins and get a decisive number of pledged delegates. I think he has a decent chance against McCain, but a Clinton nomination will mean President McCain for sure (and worse, probably a Vice President Huckabee).
Edited by Jason Czeskleba on 05 March 2008 at 5:24pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jodi Moisan
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 February 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 6808
|
| Posted: 05 March 2008 at 5:30pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Erik:Clinton has a lot more haters out there and she motivates the
Republicans to get out and vote.
McCain is thought of as a traitor by many Republicans but they'll take him
over Clinton.
_________________
I couldn't agree more.
I take Obama, I saw the Bio on him, on the history channel and I was sold the mans the real deal! He inspires hope and change for a better future. An Obama/Hillary ticket, not likely, but a girl can dream.
I am wondering if McCain will take Liberman, that would be interesting.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Vinny Valenti
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 8533
|
| Posted: 05 March 2008 at 5:33pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
QUOTE:
| if she is able to convince voters that experience is the quality that
matters most when she's running against Obama, how is she going to turn
around and suddenly say "now experience doesn't matter" when she's
facing the infinitely more experienced McCain? Her claims about
"experience" will totally come back to bite her in the ass in a
campaign against McCain. |
|
|
Totally agreed. I'm amazed she doesn't realize this before it gets to that.
QUOTE:
| One of McCain's biggest weaknesses is his staunch support for the Iraq
War, a war most Americans now feel was a mistake. Clinton, being a war
supporter herself, cannot really attack him on this point in the manner
Obama could. |
|
|
True, though I feel as though Obama's stance shoulf not be taken as seriously as he wants it to be. It's easy to say he was against it while he was just a state Senator, when he didn't have to worry about political backlash. Would he have voted against it if he was in the US Senate at the time? He of course says yes, but hindsight is 20/20 - we didn't know then that Hussein didn't have WMDs, and he sure tried to make it look like he did. I feel like Obama shouldn't be tooting that horn too loudly, or else that may bite him in the ass as well.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Wilson Mui
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 27 June 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4584
|
| Posted: 05 March 2008 at 6:01pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Jason,
The fear that Clinton will energize the Republican base is exaggerated. While there will be some people who will always thinks that, a lot of time has passed and many realize the Clinton presidency weren't so bad, especially compared to what we have today.
In NY, Clinton was able to win over many skeptical Republicans upstate. She can do it again across the country.
Obama is mainly attracting the liberal wing of the party along with blacks. Moderates will likely flock to McCain.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Steve Bailey
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 98
|
| Posted: 05 March 2008 at 6:26pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Not sure who is going to win at this point, but I guess I'll vote McCain. I was hoping for a someone who supported the war effort and immigration enforcement. I'll have to settle for McCain because I don't trust Clinton, and Obama comes across as naive and inexperienced.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jason Fliegel
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 December 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 638
|
| Posted: 05 March 2008 at 6:31pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
True, though I feel as though Obama's stance [on Iraq] shoulf not be taken as seriously as he wants it to be. It's easy to say he was against it while he was just a state Senator, when he didn't have to worry about political backlash. Would he have voted against it if he was in the US Senate at the time? He of course says yes, but hindsight is 20/20 - we didn't know then that Hussein didn't have WMDs, and he sure tried to make it look like he did. I feel like Obama shouldn't be tooting that horn too loudly, or else that may bite him in the ass as well.
****
Senator Obama was gearing up for his Senate run at a time when the smart money was saying that if you oppose the Iraq War, you could kiss your political career goodbye. It's true that he didn't have to vote on the AUMF, but it's absolutely untrue to say that ntohing was on the line for him.
Senator Obama's problem with the Iraq War issue isn't that he's using hindsight. Assuming you think the AUMF was wrong (as, I think, the majority of voters do today), he most certainly made the right call at the time. His problem is a lot of voters made the wrong call, and he needs to walk the line of saying "Senators McCain and Clinton got it wrong" without saying "And you, the voters, got it wrong, too!"
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jason Fliegel
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 December 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 638
|
| Posted: 05 March 2008 at 6:35pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
I'm dismayed by the number of Obama supporters who are calling for Clinton to drop out of the race "for the good of the party." When Obama was behind in the delegate count, was he willing to drop out "for the good of the party?" As demonstrated in Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island, there are still a lot of people in this country who favor Clinton. Why should voters in subsequent states be denied their voice?
***
Senator Obama was never behind in the delegate count.
I do agree that everyone should have a chance to have their say. At the same time, the cold reality is that at this point, in the best case for Senator Clinton, Senator Obama still walks into the convention with a 100+ pledged delegate advantage.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Steven Myers
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 10 June 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5742
|
| Posted: 05 March 2008 at 7:10pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
I voted the other day. I voted for a local library issue (I love the library!) But I refuse to pick either a Dem or Rep ballot. It's a principle thing for me, no matter who I support. Primaries should be totally non-partisan. You should get a ballot with EVERYONE on it and vote for who you want. Then the two top vote getter have the run off in the fall. And remember, it isn't just about the presidential election. If I had picked D I coulda made a difference in the presidential race, but had to ignore a local candidate I like because he's an R. Not only does that suck, it's unAmerican! In fact, since the constitution was written without the purpose of having political parties, I think it's unconstitutional!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Jason Czeskleba
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 April 2004
Posts: 4638
|
| Posted: 05 March 2008 at 8:05pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
Wilson Mui wrote:
| Obama is mainly attracting the liberal wing of the party along with blacks. Moderates will likely flock to McCain. |
|
|
The exit polls of primary voters in several states have generally found that those identifying as independent tended to vote for Obama in much higher margins than for Clinton. I've also seen general polls that show Obama as being preferred by independents. Clinton is the one who primarily appeals to the traditional liberal Democratic constituency, the people who will vote for whoever the Democrats nominate. That constituency alone is not enough to win the election, and I've seen little evidence that she can move beyond it.
People want to dismiss Obama's charisma, but personality and charisma do matter in a close election especially. Generally, the Presidential candidate who would make the best game show host is the one who wins, and this has been true since JFK. Clinton and Obama do not differ substantially on most of their policy ideas. One of the reasons I support Obama is that I believe he would be much better able to sell the Democratic platform to independent voters than Clinton.
Edited by Jason Czeskleba on 05 March 2008 at 8:06pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Didier Yvon Paul Fayolle
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 25 January 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 5271
|
| Posted: 05 March 2008 at 11:06pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
If I was American, I will probably vote for Obama.
Don't like Hillary, don't like Mc Cain.
Edited by Didier Yvon Paul Fayolle on 05 March 2008 at 11:07pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Steve Bailey
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 98
|
| Posted: 05 March 2008 at 11:39pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
Well in America you don't have to be and American to vote.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Topic Closed)
