Jump to content

CLINTON vs. OBAMA

Panamaniac

By Panamaniac
in The Coffee House

Clinton vs. Obama  

44 members have voted

  1. 1. Who will win the nomination?

    • Hillary Clinton
      22
    • Barack Obama
      22

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 199
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Charlotteman Burg

Charlotteman

Posted
Posted

re: Hillary Clinton. I fail to see how setting up residence in New York State, and running for the US Senate is opportunistic. Any American citizen is free to move to any of the 50 states they want.

Folks in New York State are generally an educated bunch of people. If Hillary was using the state as an opportunistic ploy, I believe New Yorkers would have seen through it in a heartbeat---- and she would never been elected to the US Senate in the first place. It's insulting to New Yorkers to insinuate they are so idiotic as to vote in someone who was attempting to do such things.

I'm not really a Hillary Clinton fan...mainly because she is NOT a liberal! She is a centrist for sure. I will vote for Sen. Clinton if she receives the nomination, but I would never campaign for her.

I will vote for whomever wins the Dem nomination, simply because the alternative is just so awful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charlotteman Burg

Charlotteman

Posted
Posted
there are 3 democratic front runners that i can see... clinton, obama, and edwards. and all of them, while concentrating on different issues right now, are basically the same. none are true liberals (the only one that i know of is kucinich). clinton voted in favor of the war. now tell me... aside from the fact that she's a woman, what sets her apart from obama and edwards (and dodd, though he has no chance at winning).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lowerdeck Burg

Lowerdeck

Posted
Posted

The problem with this upcoming election is ... the media is only telling you who is the front runners because they say they are the front runners. And therefore get thrown the most money. Or whoever gets thrown the most money is what the media says is the front runners. It's an odd and complex situation. But seriously, why are the only candidates we get to choose from happen to be Clinton, Obama, Romney, and Guiliani.

As the weeks and months progress, I can see Mitt Romney winning the Presidency. Four more years of craptastic government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gusterfell Burg

Gusterfell

Posted
Posted
Bingo.

I listened to one of the talk radio shows the other evening and he took calls from a bunch of people who planned to vote for her. He asked each caller to list even one major accomplishment in her tenure as Senator and they couldn't even name one. Not one caller could name one accomplishment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ironchapman City

ironchapman

Posted
Posted
I'm guessing this was Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, or someone of that ilk. Did he aslo ask his callers to name one accomplishment of the Bush administration? A senator is one person within a body of a hundred. Senators work mainly within that body, not as individuals, so it is unrealistic to expect individual senators to have a list of "major accomplishments" for their supporters to rattle off. This is especially true for senators who have spent most of their tenure as a member of the minority party, which the majority went to great lengths to render powerless.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
monsoon Gigalopolis

monsoon

Posted
Posted

Indeed Ironchapman. Neither Clinton nor Obama have shown any major accomplishments while in office though I do have to admit that I don't know much about Obama's accomplishments while in state government.

On the Democratic side, the candidate that comes closest to what I think we need as president is John Edwards, but I do blame him for jumping on the war bandwagon because it was the politically popular thing to do instead of the right thing to do. With the exception of Ron Paul, the GOP bunch are absolutely scary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
runawayjim Metropolis

runawayjim

Posted
Posted
Other than her gender, here are the superficial aspects to her appeal which sets her apart from the others:

1- She's the spouse of a former president whose stewardship lead to 8 years of economic prosperity ("It's the economy, stupid")

2- She was the spouse behind the president (to keep it gender-neutral, I refuse to say "the woman behind the man").

3- As "First Gentleman" her husband would be the only former president to ever hold that position.

4- Hers is the most favorable name recognition in Washington since, well, Clinton!

Of course, none of the above makes her more qualified than the other candidates, it (they) merely sets her apart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
runawayjim Metropolis

runawayjim

Posted
Posted
If I may quote myself (see top of post), I never said she was more qualified. And yes, you got it right, her husband does set her apart. He not only sets her apart, he is the very edge that will get her the nomination and ultimately the presidency. If you remove Bill Clinton from the equation, we're not even having this conversation. Not to take anything away from Hillary, but without "Bubba" she would not be poised to become the first female "Leader of the Free World."

And as for that "monarchy" crack, nobody called it a monarchy when "Dubbya" became the 2nd President Bush; no one's gonna call it a monarchy when (not if) HRC becomes the 2nd. President Clinton. However, it might be called a "dynasty" as it already has in reference to the Bushes hold on the White House. This time, it's Clintons' turn. The difference? It will be the same First Family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Panamaniac Unincorporated Area

Panamaniac

Posted
  • Author
Posted
so if she's no more qualified, you think that the majority of people will vote for her solely because of her husband? if that's the case, then you've got another thing coming. i don't think she'll get elected president, even if she wins the primary, simply because she's a woman. her husband has nothing to do with anything.

she's less qualified, if you ask me, than someone like john edwards who has been around longer. she's not going to change the status quo except put a democrat in the white house. there are 2 candidates who will bring real change... ron paul or dennis kucinich.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
runawayjim Metropolis

runawayjim

Posted
Posted
It's fascinating how you "flip flop" (to use a popular political term) and subliminally admit Hillary's ultimate victory: One the one hand, you don't think she'll get elected president; and on the other, she'll succeed only in putting a democrat in the White House...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ironchapman City

ironchapman

Posted
Posted
It's fascinating how you "flip flop" (to use a popular political term) and subliminally admit Hillary's ultimate victory: One the one hand, you don't think she'll get elected president; and on the other, she'll succeed only in putting a democrat in the White House...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ironchapman City

ironchapman

Posted
Posted
:offtopic: If you just baited me into an attempt to prove your point, you succeeded admirably. That said, although I started this thread, I'm hardly obsessed with it, let alone one of the most frequent posters. Truth to tell, there are several forumers, mostly mods. and admins. who are more prolific than I. Recently, I've been involved in a continuing dialogue with runawayjim, but if you check the thread history, you'll see I'm in the minority (in more ways than one).

I've posted in only two other picture forums in Urban Planet. I'm a member of several other internet forums of varied topics, so I've spread myself rather thinly. I could go on, but I don't want to continue off topic. Or perpetuate your misperception... :offtopic:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Gusterfell Burg

Gusterfell

Posted
Posted

^Is anyone really surprised that the Republicans' puppet government in Iraq is criticising American Democrats? Where is al-Maliki's criticism for the Republican profiteers who are calling all the shots in his country? They are the ones who are truly treating Iraq as American territory. Clinton and Levin have said that al-Maliki is an ineffective leader and should be replaced. So have a number of prominent Republicans,so why does he single out the Dems?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.