Obama and Clinton

C

Cancel7

Banned
All the debating about Obama and Clinton the past couple of days, and not just on there, but with every group I am associated with, has caused me to really think about things I haven’t thought about before.

First, on Obama vs Hillary. I think that Obama is just another DLC Democrat, who refuses to take attacking Iran off the table. And if you are going by solely issues, sorry, he is no change. He is, meet the new boss, same as the old boss. (everything I am saying , precludes the bush regime, the very worst of the worst, take them out of the picture for now, EVERYTHING looks good compared to them people).

But, we all recognize that indeed, he IS change. Even I got caught up in him. A black man becoming President! Wow! I read some of the things blacks were saying in interviews, on the streets, and I got tears in my eyes.

But what I don’t see recognized among men is that it’s the same thing for women if Hillary were elected! I know many leftist women. These are not NOW women. These are not Democrats. These are Kucinich women who are wondering if they can hold their noses to vote for Edwards for God sakes. And so many of them have written to me after reading something I wrote about what happened in the media over the past week, and how women reacted to it in New Hampshire, where they united and sent the Brushback Pitch of all time hurtling towards sexist media mavens. They have all told me they felt the same way.

They see. They see that sexism is still obnoxiously acceptable. They’ve all been abused or held back, or made uncomfortable sexually at one time or the other by powerful men. They no longer feel they have to take it.

That’s a movement too. That’s exciting for some of us too.

I fight not to get caught up in either of these movements, because I don’t think that either Hillary or Obama represent real change in the long run.

But too many men are recognizing only one movement, and dismissing the other one. I am telling you now, you keep doing that, you’re going to put Hillary in the white house.
 
People are going to think I'm nuts but the lilly white men in Iowa are not close to representative to the nation. So you maybe overstating his popularity. Lots of those guys can count the number of blacks in thier county on one hand, some need toes.
So it's not and inflamatory issue for them. I do agree with your presmise, Hillary will do the most for woman, Obama will do the most for blacks. Which group is held back the most. HMM 12% of the country is black and there's rampant racism. 50% is female and sexism is more than just alive and well it's just a tad more subtle. My guess is female's will mobilize and make the difference in the end.
 
Topspin said:
People are going to think I'm nuts but the lilly white men in Iowa are not close to representative to the nation. So you maybe overstating his popularity. Lots of those guys can count the number of blacks in thier county on one hand, some need toes.
So it's not and inflamatory issue for them. I do agree with your presmise, Hillary will do the most for woman, Obama will do the most for blacks. Which group is held back the most. HMM 12% of the country is black and there's rampant racism. 50% is female and sexism is more than just alive and well it's just a tad more subtle. My guess is female's will mobilize and make the difference in the end.
Click to expand...


I've never let the hillary hate bandwagon, overwhelm my logical faculties. On a policy level, I've never seen much difference between her and Obama.

I will give Obama props for his 2002 judgement on Iraq. And Hillary's vote and refusal to back off it, still pisses me off. But, Obama hasn't been any different than her in the senate. And, to tell the truth, I think her healthcare plan is far more progressive than Obama's. So, the only logical reasons I'd favor Obama, is that he had better (initial) judgment on the iraq war, and I think we might need to move away from the bush/clinton/bush/clinton dynasty.

But, when it comes down to it, I'd probably still vote for hillary in the general. I might be tempted to vote Green, but I cannot rationally say that she's a whole lot different than obama.

I'm practically crying like a little girl that edwards won't win. :mad:
 
Cypress said:
I've never let the hillary hate bandwagon, overwhelm my logical faculties. On a policy level, I've never seen much difference between her and Obama.

I will give Obama props for his 2002 judgement on Iraq. And Hillary's vote and refusal to back off it, still pisses me off. But, Obama hasn't been any different than her in the senate. And, to tell the truth, I think her healthcare plan is far more progressive than Obama's. So, the only logical reasons I'd favor Obama, is that he had better (initial) judgment on the iraq war, and I think we might need to move away from the bush/clinton/bush/clinton dynasty.

But, when it comes down to it, I'd probably still vote for hillary in the general. I might be tempted to vote Green, but I cannot rationally say that she's a whole lot different than obama.

I'm practically crying like a little girl that edwards won't win. :mad:
Click to expand...
Props for "I don't know" and later "There is little difference between me and Bush on Iraq"?

Props? Wow.
 
Damocles said:
Props for "I don't know" and later "There is little difference between me and Bush on Iraq"?

Props? Wow.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.

But, after 8 years of one of the worst presidents in history, yes I think both Obama and Clinton would be significant improvements. Even with all the problems I have with them.
 
Because at one point Obama said that he didn’t know how he would have voted on the Iraqi resolution if he was in the Senate at the time, which he wasn’t.

Damo is touching on something here that many of us have shied away from because I know for myself, I don’t want to denigrate the first realistic black candidate we’ve had, I’m very excited about it. (one of the large points of my post is that it has not escaped my notice that liberal men do not feel the same way about the first realistic woman candidate we’ve had).

The fact is Obama has not done one thing which would even imply he’s going to step for the big fights. He has avoided controversy as if it were the plague!

He ducked Jena
He ducked the moveon/Petraus vote
He ducked the Iran vote

Not once has he been there to take the shit. Guess what? Hillary has. And she’s taken the shit for it. Obama sees controversy he ducks. No one can find him. Pat Buchanon has been congratulating him on MSNBC for being smart enough to duck “that Jena nonsense”. Except to a lot of people, it’s not nonsense.

Like I said, I put the both of them about on par with each other.
 
Hillary's campaign dude was on the radio specifically stating that they were going to make sure people know about his statements to the effect that there was "little difference between him and Bush" on Iraq.
 
Darla, there are a lot of different definitions of "change." To me, what Obama represents in a change in tone, and you can see it in his campaign. When one of his campaign workers made some comment about Hillary that was non-issue related, he was genuinely angry. He has run, for the most part, a positive, classy campaign. Just bringing THAT to Washington represents enormous change.

Hillary is more experienced, and probably more qualified, but she IS the machine. The Clintons, along with Terry McAuliffe & others, were the architects of the current Democratic Party establishment. While other candidates have railed lobbyists, she has defended them. One thing that I worry quite a bit about under Hillary, as I have under Bush, is education, because she is absolutely in the pocket of teacher's unions.

Maybe I'm wrong about Obama, but I really don't think he has been corrupted by DC yet. He will be, but I don't think he has been yet. I think his commitment to changing the way things work in Washington, even to a small degree, is genuine.

I agree that a woman President would be a dramatic change in & of itself, as would a black President, and those are both positive changes, though they don't trickle down to any issues or actual legislation.

Side note, and kind of OT - hope you're not still mad at me. I respect your opinion on this. I was done with the Clintons & the party they created in 2000, and that is the main, and probably only reason, I am so outspoken against Hillary. And maybe I am a little naive about Barak, but it's rare that I have felt any hope at all about politics in the past 30 years or so, and he does give me a little bit of that, at least at the moment....
 
Onceler said:
Darla, there are a lot of different definitions of "change." To me, what Obama represents in a change in tone, and you can see it in his campaign. When one of his campaign workers made some comment about Hillary that was non-issue related, he was genuinely angry. He has run, for the most part, a positive, classy campaign. Just bringing THAT to Washington represents enormous change.

Hillary is more experienced, and probably more qualified, but she IS the machine. The Clintons, along with Terry McAuliffe & others, were the architects of the current Democratic Party establishment. While other candidates have railed lobbyists, she has defended them. One thing that I worry quite a bit about under Hillary, as I have under Bush, is education, because she is absolutely in the pocket of teacher's unions.

Maybe I'm wrong about Obama, but I really don't think he has been corrupted by DC yet. He will be, but I don't think he has been yet. I think his commitment to changing the way things work in Washington, even to a small degree, is genuine.

I agree that a woman President would be a dramatic change in & of itself, as would a black President, and those are both positive changes, though they don't trickle down to any issues or actual legislation.

Side note, and kind of OT - hope you're not still mad at me. I respect your opinion on this. I was done with the Clintons & the party they created in 2000, and that is the main, and probably only reason, I am so outspoken against Hillary. And maybe I am a little naive about Barak, but it's rare that I have felt any hope at all about politics in the past 30 years or so, and he does give me a little bit of that, at least at the moment....
Click to expand...

Nooo, I am not mad at you at all. I think I already addressed most of this on the dem vote thread, before I saw that you had written this, and I apologize for raining on your hopeful parade. I just don’t see it, but I don’t want to take that away from you. It’s not like I’ve never been wrong. I’ve just never been wrong when debating SuperFreak.
 
Damocles said:
Hillary's campaign dude was on the radio specifically stating that they were going to make sure people know about his statements to the effect that there was "little difference between him and Bush" on Iraq.
Click to expand...


Oh, okay.

One thing I'll give topper, is he's been consistent in his support of hillary, and he's taken a ton of crap for it. I've never jumed on that hillary girl/bash topper bandwagon. Topper can be bashed for a lot of crap, but the hillary girl crap was a projection of the cult of hillary-hate, IMO.

And, I'll be the first to say, I hardly ever jumped his ass for it, because I never saw much difference between Hillary, Richardson, Biden, or Obama. I think a lot of democrats project Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman onto Hillary. And the blogosphere, the rightwing media, and the MSM in general has been grossly unfair to her. I've said that for months if not for years.

There's a lot of crap to be pissed at hillary for. And I've got some major beefs with her. But, I do think she's held to a different standard than other candidates. Is she ambitious and calculating? Yeah. What politician isn't? Sure, there's the oddball Russ Feingold who seems like he's totally clean and above reproach. But, does anyone remember what the democratic party did to howard dean? That was hardball, calculated politics. And biden, kerry, gephardt and all of them were in on it. Why does hillary get singled out as some calculating "b*tch"?

I'll still take Obama over Clinton. And I'll definetly take Edwards over Obama.. At this point, my primary vote is even probably going to kucinich.

But, I'm going to scream if I hear another Democrat in the blogosphere say that there's no difference between Hillary and Gulliani/McCain/FredThompson, so "why not vote third party". And these people think that Obama is somehow so much better than clinton? I think not.

I think Obama, might be a better president than hillary. Maybe he'd be a little less hawkish (although his voting record doesn't suggest that). But, I'm going to at least give the edge to a guy who knew the iraq war was fucked up in the beginning. And I don't like the whole dynasty dynamics of Bush/Clinton
 
Last edited:
I just had a very speculative idea but... what if Hillary could get Obama to back off with the promise that as soon as Justice Stevens retires she names Obama to the Supreme Court. 47 years old, democratic majority in the Senate and the same threat to use the Nuclear option if they attempt to filibuster. That is the great thing about the Repubs going public about their nuclear option to end the filibuster. For those of you not refreshed on this, Bill Frist said that the filibuster should not apply to judicial nominees. So what he threatened to do was have the President of the Senate rule that filibusters on judicial nominees are unconstitutional and they call for a vote. It would only require a 51 vote majority and then BANG! No more filibusters. Obama MIGHT like being a Justice for the next 30 or so years.
 
Socrtease said:
I just had a very speculative idea but... what if Hillary could get Obama to back off with the promise that as soon as Justice Stevens retires she names Obama to the Supreme Court. 47 years old, democratic majority in the Senate and the same threat to use the Nuclear option if they attempt to filibuster. That is the great thing about the Repubs going public about their nuclear option to end the filibuster. For those of you not refreshed on this, Bill Frist said that the filibuster should not apply to judicial nominees. So what he threatened to do was have the President of the Senate rule that filibusters on judicial nominees are unconstitutional and they call for a vote. It would only require a 51 vote majority and then BANG! No more filibusters. Obama MIGHT like being a Justice for the next 30 or so years.
Click to expand...

He'd rather be President. He's not going to back off of Hillary as long as there's a chance for him to get the nod. I still believe that there's no way a (R)etard gets elected in November, so whoever gets this D nod is the next President. There's no way he's going to give that up based on a promise that might never even come to fruition.
 
Beefy said:
He'd rather be President. He's not going to back off of Hillary as long as there's a chance for him to get the nod. I still believe that there's no way a (R)etard gets elected in November, so whoever gets this D nod is the next President. There's no way he's going to give that up based on a promise that might never even come to fruition.
Click to expand...

I would have agreed with you, but apparently the Democrats thought that the race would have been too easy this year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top