Jump to content

Election '08: Primaries

JDC

By JDC
in The Coffee House

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
vdogg Megalopolis

vdogg

Posted
Posted
Is it wrong to view it as insensitive and sexist? It's the reality of global politics. Some may think it's ok to cry, but does that make the leader of the #1 power in the world seem weak to other nations? IMO, overall, her "emotional episode" actually hurt her in the long run.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
runawayjim Metropolis

runawayjim

Posted
Posted
Bush's I and II, Ronald Reagan, and Secretary of Defense Gates have all teared up publicly. Even Mitt Romney has cried publicly and he's a current candidate. Nobody raised hell when any of that happened. A woman tears up and all of a sudden she's a weak leader. The double standard sickens me and yes I do believe it is a wrong and sexist view.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
vdogg Megalopolis

vdogg

Posted
Posted
the daily show did an interview with a black woman (color only matters because she's doubly discriminated against) who was saying that the president should be a man because women are too emotional and can't be level headed. i found that kind of amusing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
vdogg Megalopolis

vdogg

Posted
Posted

Well, John Kerry endorsed Obama yesterday. I'm not sure if this will help or hurt Obama honestly. On one hand, Kerry brings a lot to the table with enough political connections to help get out the vote. On the other hand, I fail to see how Obama can run as the anti-establishment candidate when someone who is so blatantly part of the "establishment" is backing him up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
torgo Town

torgo

Posted
Posted
Long answer, it's a lot more complicated than that. The people are not so simplistic they are jumping up and down mindlessly when a candidate utters the word. The Bush administration is littered with simplistic phrases that end up meaning nothing in the end. Obama, in his speeches is offering to bring back hope for the future, as opposed to fear of the future that is being presented by people like Guiliani, and the people are drinking it up. Whether Obama delivers on that is another matter but I assume the commentary was about the campaigning method and why people respond as they do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
runawayjim Metropolis

runawayjim

Posted
Posted
As far as I can tell, no one has had anything to say. Obama, Clinton, Romney, Huckabee, you name 'em, none of these idiots have said anything worth listening to so far. While I admit I haven't been watching this stuff 24-7, I have watched enough to know that none of these people can seem to move beyond empty sound-bites and catch phrases about "new directions" and "voting for change". Yawn.

Deciding which one of these clowns we should vote for is like trying to pick the best Super Bowl (erm.. "Big Game") halftime show. They are all really bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charlotteman Burg

Charlotteman

Posted
Posted

If a Democrat is able to carry the states John Kerry managed to win in 2004, PLUS New Mexico, then the Democrat wins. It makes all the sense in the world to put Richardson on the ticket as VP.

However, the Clintons and Richardson have had strained relations for some time. Not sure how Obama and Richardson get along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gusterfell Burg

Gusterfell

Posted
Posted

^True, the media should make it clear that in terms of delegate count the NH primary was irrelevant for the Democrats. However, winning the state will give Clinton a boost in future races, as happened with Obama after Iowa. Most voters look at races won or lost more than they look at delegate count.

Including superdelegates who have already pledged, Clinton actually has a significant lead over Obama in the delegate count. However, it is questionable whether her campaign could have recovered had she lost NH to Obama. Back-to-back losses in the first two contests would have sent a powerful negative message to voters in upcoming states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atlrvr Metropolitan Area

atlrvr

Posted
Posted
It's become very apparent with this withdraw from the race, and being really coy about whom he might support that Richardson is hedging his bets to become the VP running mate of Hillary or Obama. (should they be nominated) I would have said that he is working Hillary for the job, but so far he hasn't endorsed her.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JDC Burg

JDC

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I thought about that as well, at least that he sees himself as a better VP candidate, and I agree, though I cringe at the thought of having to wait 8 years for him to have a viable shot.....I also cringe at the thought of that person being Hillary.

If it was Obama/Richardson, I'd consider it, really depending on the Republican challenger. If it's Clinton/Richardson, it's definitely Republican, or some third party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atlrvr Metropolitan Area

atlrvr

Posted
Posted

I'd vote for Bloomberg in a second if he showed up on the ballot, but that's an interesting point tombarnes.....what if it was Clinton vs. Rep. X vs. Bloomberg.....that would be worst case for me, because I'd hate to cast a meaningless vote for Bloomberg that inadvertently helps Hillary.

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.