US Presidential Elections

[Gorgon]

So has anyone got any fresh polls on who would win a presidential election, a republican or a democrat. Obama and Clinton are basically the same on the issues, so why is this taking up everyones attention. There seems to be a lot of emotional reaction, people feel strongly for or against Clinton, not unlike her husband.

[walkerguy]

News for all!

 

Bush to endorse John McCain

 

WASHINGTON - It's not good to keep President Bush waiting. But John McCain did on Wednesday. Bush joked with reporters and laughed and turned left and right as he waited for the Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting to show up at the White House for a promised endorsement.

 

McCain finally showed up and the two men went inside for lunch. "He's going to win," Bush said. He shook hands with McCain and kissed his wife, Cindy, on the cheek.

 

McCain was getting a formal welcome at the North Portico, followed by lunch in Bush's private dining room and an endorsement in the Rose Garden.

 

In recent weeks, Bush has gone out of his way to defend the senator's conservative credentials, saying criticism of the Arizona senator has been grossly unfair. The two were bitter rivals in 2000.

 

"The president has said he looks forward to vigorously campaigning for the GOP and tonight it has become clear that the GOP nominee will be Sen. John McCain," White House press secretary Dana Perino said Tuesday night. "Of course the president is going to endorse the GOP nominee, which is going to be Senator John McCain."

 

Bush made morning phone calls to McCain's former rivals Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson to congratulate them on their primary campaigns. He intends to call Rudy Giuliani later.

 

"He said he appreciated their ability to keep their sense of humor and that he looks forward to working them in the '08 election," Perino said.

 

Asked about McCain's past disagreements with Bush, she said: "The point of these elections is for the candidate to run as their own person. Elections are about change and going forward, and one of the most attractive things about Senator McCain to the Republican Party is that he has been his own person. He has blazed his own trail and he will have to make the case as to why voters should vote for him."

 

[Sand]

My main beef with the Clintons is that they already had their chance as the Presidency and I for one am sick of the same old crap. Bush-Clinton-Bush, then Clinton again? No thank you. We need a fresh start, someone who is with it for this generation, and not some oldie from years gone by. It has nothing to do with Hillary being a woman, it has everything to do with her being part of the old vanguard of Democrats. Been there, done that.

[Amentep]

Yeah the "dynasty" aspect of Clinton is a bit worrying to me. If she wins the presidency that would mean a period of 24-28 years where the US was run by 2 families...

[Sand]

Yeah the "dynasty" aspect of Clinton is a bit worrying to me. If she wins the presidency that would mean a period of 24-28 years where the US was run by 2 families...

 

That alone is good enough reason for me to deep six her.

[Dark_Raven]

Just like a monarchy. A very bad one thanks to Bush Jr.

[~Di]

Obama is a media darling, both here and especially abroad. Hell, CNN carries his campaign speeches live, along with Obama-supporting analysts for color commentary. Hillary's speeches are clipped to make her seem shrill and mean-spirited, and the commentators tear her to ribbons... and are constantly commenting upon her appearance. Media can and does color its presentation of candidates, ignoring unpleasant background and rumors about their fave, while rehashing old, debunked scandals about their least fave.

 

I have nothing against Obama, except that he doesn't have the experience to be president. A few years in a state legislature (not even as governor, mind you) and a year or so in the US senate does not a president make. But he is charismatic, makes nifty speches (which, quite frankly, don't tell us squat about the details of what these "changes" are that he offers), so the negatives are swept under the rug in the media, or at best mentioned in passing and immediately discounted by some "expert" commentator designed to do just that.

 

Eh. If he gets the nomination I'll no doubt vote for him... I do not want another republican president choosing 2-3 more supreme court justices... but I'll be darned nervous about that vote. I don't believe he's up to the job; I only hope that if he gets it, he can surround himself with people who are.

[Gorth]

But he is charismatic, makes nifty speches (which, quite frankly, don't tell us squat about the details of what these "changes" are that he offers), so the negatives are swept under the rug in the media, or at best mentioned in passing and immediately discounted by some "expert" commentator designed to do just that.

Look at the bright side, the less he tells you, the less promises he is going to break, should he win

 

A more serious question about his lack of experience, how much of the decision making is done by the president (current, past and future) and how much is the country run by the group of people backing him/her?

[Pop]

I have nothing against Obama, except that he doesn't have the experience to be president. A few years in a state legislature (not even as governor, mind you) and a year or so in the US senate does not a president make.

Dear ~Di,

 

Lurk Moar. Speak less.

 

Signed,

Abraham Lincoln, one-term US representative, best president ever.

[Sand]

Yeah, but what experience does Hillary have? She was never a governor either. I don't count being a wife of a president as high in credentials.

[Pop]

Some blogger chums of mine on the ****ty, ****ty Clinton campaign.

[~Di]

I have nothing against Obama, except that he doesn't have the experience to be president. A few years in a state legislature (not even as governor, mind you) and a year or so in the US senate does not a president make.

Dear ~Di,

 

Lurk Moar. Speak less.

 

Signed,

Abraham Lincoln, one-term US representative, best president ever.

 

I think I have a right to express an opinion without being singled out and told to basically shut up. That was uncalled for.

Edited March 6, 2008 by ~Di

[~Di]

But he is charismatic, makes nifty speches (which, quite frankly, don't tell us squat about the details of what these "changes" are that he offers), so the negatives are swept under the rug in the media, or at best mentioned in passing and immediately discounted by some "expert" commentator designed to do just that.

Look at the bright side, the less he tells you, the less promises he is going to break, should he win

 

A more serious question about his lack of experience, how much of the decision making is done by the president (current, past and future) and how much is the country run by the group of people backing him/her?

 

That depends on the individual. Since I've not been a fly on the wall during several administrations, I have only my own observations and opinions upon which to rely. Reagan... especially in his second term, when quite frankly his disease was beginning to be noticeable... relied a great deal on those around him. Jimmy Carter, if what I've read is correct, was a micromanager whose lack of deligating resulted in possibly the weakest presidency in decades. Bush... cripes... Bush surrounds himself with idiots, so who knows if the idiocy of his presidency is his idea or someone else's.

 

Bottom line, the president is the final word in all things over which he has presidential authority. I'd like to believe in the person carrying the title, and not rely on his entourage when it comes to running the country is concerned.

[~Di]

Yeah, but what experience does Hillary have? She was never a governor either. I don't count being a wife of a president as high in credentials.

 

On her own, nearly a decade in the Senate, where she has by all accounts performed admireably enough to earn placement on several high-ranking committees. She has more senate experience than JFK, for that matter. Realistically, she has been her husband's closest advisor, not only in the governor's mansion but in the whitehouse. She knows the workings of the presidency more intimately than most. And it's not just my opinion; even her political enemies grudgingly admit that she does indeed have the experience and the ability... they just don't like her policies... or her personally.

[Pop]

I have nothing against Obama, except that he doesn't have the experience to be president. A few years in a state legislature (not even as governor, mind you) and a year or so in the US senate does not a president make.

Dear ~Di,

 

Lurk Moar. Speak less.

 

Signed,

Abraham Lincoln, one-term US representative, best president ever.

 

I think I have a right to express an opinion without being singled out and told to basically shut up. That was uncalled for.

You have the right to be called out when you're impressively wrong. Unless you're honestly willing to argue that my old friend Abe really was an undistinguished and unsuccessful president as a direct result of his lack of experience, which I suppose you could, except... no, no, you can't, really. That would be well stupid.

 

There seems to be a lot of emotional reaction, people feel strongly for or against Clinton, not unlike her husband.

This is why it's imperative, if the Dems want to win in November, that they keep her as far away from the nomination as possible. Clinton's appeal among independents is laughable, and it's important to point out that those "strong feelings" are not confined just to Democrats. With 8 years of GWB, war and economic downturn lain at the feet of the Republican party, they're in a lot of trouble. Their nominee is not popular amongst the far right of the party. They need something to rally around, or against, and a Hillary Clinton ticket would be like a gift from God for them. The independents would go out for McCain, but every last Republican voter across the country will go out against Hillary, and if she gets the nomination it will only be through superdelegate currying, which will alienate a sizable chunk of the democratic voting block.

 

So what I'm saying is, if Hillary Clinton gets the nomination, be prepared to cut your thumbs off, because you'll be glad you did when President McCain institutes the draft in '09 for Operation Persian Freedom.

Edited March 6, 2008 by Pop

[taks]

that's a pretty idiotic stance, pop. abe ran the country in completely different times, so you're making a complete strawman argument. abe didn't have to deal with "foreign policy" as we do today, nor did he have 303 million folks, 6 million employees, a littany of bureaucracies to run, a 2 million man army, income taxes... the internet did not exist so any of his flaws would never have made a splash. media, too, was non-existent compared to today. the list of differences is endless.

 

not a surprise, either, that the best example you could come up with was from over 140 years ago.

 

dum, dum, dum dum duuuuuum.

 

taks

[~Di]

I have nothing against Obama, except that he doesn't have the experience to be president. A few years in a state legislature (not even as governor, mind you) and a year or so in the US senate does not a president make.

Dear ~Di,

 

Lurk Moar. Speak less.

 

Signed,

Abraham Lincoln, one-term US representative, best president ever.

 

I think I have a right to express an opinion without being singled out and told to basically shut up. That was uncalled for.

You have the right to be called out when you're impressively wrong. Unless you're honestly willing to argue that my old friend Abe really was an undistinguished and unsuccessful president as a direct result of his lack of experience, which I suppose you could, except... no, no, you can't, really. That would be well stupid.

 

You have the right to disagree with my opinion. Elections are nothing more than a counting of opinions, after all. An opinion, a choice, cannot be "wrong". You do not have a right to tell me to basically shut up. If you want to go back a couple of centuries, sure, we can go back even further. George Washington had no governmental experience whatsoever. Neither did most of his immediate successors. However, we are not talking about the 18th century, or the 19th century. We are talking about the 21st century, where foreign affairs really are a big deal, and a lack of experience thereof can be catastrophic. We are also talking about issues, clearly stated, that we may disagree with versus issues not articulated at all, so we can't really figure out if we agree or disagree with them.

 

Between Obama and Clinton, I think Clinton is the stronger, more experienced candidate. If you disagree, swell. I won't tell you to shut up. If you want to delineate what Obama's positions are on basic policies versus Hillary, great. I'll listen. I'd love to know what his positions are, since he hasn't managed to tell me yet. So go on. Let's see a lovely comparison of Obama versus Hillary, position by position. Let us know exactly why you feel his positions are superior. And try to do so without ridiculing me, since I'm actually not running, y'know.

Edited March 6, 2008 by ~Di

[Pop]

I honestly don't believe the candidates are drastically different, policy-wise, at least not in any way that matters to the average voter. They set out to achieve the same things, more or less. On foreign policy, Obama has pledged to take a more internationalist bent, which given all that war business, is probably what's needed. I don't have much reason to believe Clinton wouldn't do the same. The only significant difference between the two as far as I can tell is their electability. Clinton won't win. Obama has a chance, but not as strong of a chance as he would have, since Clinton is going to fight until August for the nomination even if it's obvious she won't get it, and that's going to severely weaken the Democrats.

 

Acknowledgments to our peanut gallery.

[tarna]

I have nothing against Obama, except that he doesn't have the experience to be president. A few years in a state legislature (not even as governor, mind you) and a year or so in the US senate does not a president make.

Dear ~Di,

 

Lurk Moar. Speak less.

 

Signed,

Abraham Lincoln, one-term US representative, best president ever.

 

I think I have a right to express an opinion without being singled out and told to basically shut up. That was uncalled for.

You have the right to be called out when you're impressively wrong. Unless you're honestly willing to argue that my old friend Abe really was an undistinguished and unsuccessful president as a direct result of his lack of experience, which I suppose you could, except... no, no, you can't, really. That would be well stupid.

 

You have the right to disagree with my opinion. Elections are nothing more than a counting of opinions, after all. An opinion, a choice, cannot be "wrong". You do not have a right to tell me to basically shut up. If you want to go back a couple of centuries, sure, we can go back even further. George Washington had no governmental experience whatsoever. Neither did most of his immediate successors. However, we are not talking about the 18th century, or the 19th century. We are talking about the 21st century, where foreign affairs really are a big deal, and a lack of experience thereof can be catastrophic. We are also talking about issues, clearly stated, that we may disagree with versus issues not articulated at all, so we can't really figure out if we agree or disagree with them.

 

Between Obama and Clinton, I think Clinton is the stronger, more experienced candidate. If you disagree, swell. I won't tell you to shut up. If you want to delineate what Obama's positions are on basic policies versus Hillary, great. I'll listen. I'd love to know what his positions are, since he hasn't managed to tell me yet. So go on. Let's see a lovely comparison of Obama versus Hillary, position by position. Let us know exactly why you feel his positions are superior. And try to do so without ridiculing me, since I'm actually not running, y'know.

As someone who originally told Di to "shut up" at one time long ago...I'm siding with her here. While her opinion is that H. Clinton will win the Dem nomination may or may not be correct, her summation is sound. The nomination will be made according to viability to win, NOT the popular vote. The Dems are more concerned with winning the Presidency than anything else. If this means kissing the public booty then they are more than willing to do so. I'll make a wager with you. Watch the local Dem convention with me. Lincoln didn't start the civil war to free the blacks from slavery for reasons of morality as much as for economic reasons.

 

As it looks like the Democratic nomination will be decided here in Denver ( as it may be too close to call ), I will wager you a $100 Visa card that ( no matter what ) Hillary will be the nominated candidate for the Dems. Decision to be arbitared here by the members of this forum. I will send you the account numbers and ex date of the card I purchase to support my claim.

 

I'm up for it...are you?

 

Walk the talk or don't piss away our time ( other denominations , (lessor or greater) available as long as a confidence in a candidate nomination is shown).

 

$100.00 on the table...pick it up or walk away! What's yer choice?

[~Di]

I honestly don't believe the candidates are drastically different, policy-wise, at least not in any way that matters to the average voter. They set out to achieve the same things, more or less. On foreign policy, Obama has pledged to take a more internationalist bent, which given all that war business, is probably what's needed. I don't have much reason to believe Clinton wouldn't do the same. The only significant difference between the two as far as I can tell is their electability. Clinton won't win. Obama has a chance, but not as strong of a chance as he would have, since Clinton is going to fight until August for the nomination even if it's obvious she won't get it, and that's going to severely weaken the Democrats.

 

Acknowledgments to our peanut gallery.

 

Thank you for a mature and thoughtful response. Seriously. As I've said, if Obama is the democratic candidate, I'll vote for him despite the fact that I really like McCain as a person and think him probably more ready for the job than Obama. McCain will continue the Iraq war... I can't live with that. McCain will continue Bush's policies... I can't live with that. I think Hillary will be a better president than Obama because she has more experience and a well-honed knowledge of foreign affairs, which may make or break us in the coming decade. I honestly do not know what Obama stands for because despite his wonderful gift of speech, he has never, ever, given me a firm commitment as to what he will change, what he will do specifically. That makes me nervous and suspicious.

 

If the democrats tear themselves apart over the primaries (I'm not a democrat, btw... I'm an independent), then they risk putting McCain, who has basically become a Bush clone, in the whitehouse. I can't live with that. The more democrats spend time and money trying to destroy each other, the more likely McCain will win... and with him comes a supreme court that will become 100% conservative for decades, and an Iraq war that will go on until our grandchildren are grown. I suspect that we are on the same side here. But when people on the same side split into enemies, then the opposition has a clear road ahead.

 

If Hillary wins the nomination, which is iffy at this point, it's imperative that all democrats and independents who share the basic vision rally behind her, lest we find ourselves in a no-win war in Iraq for decades to come. Pick your enemies; don't wipe out your friends along the way. I'm just saying.

[~Di]

I have nothing against Obama, except that he doesn't have the experience to be president. A few years in a state legislature (not even as governor, mind you) and a year or so in the US senate does not a president make.

Dear ~Di,

 

Lurk Moar. Speak less.

 

Signed,

Abraham Lincoln, one-term US representative, best president ever.

 

I think I have a right to express an opinion without being singled out and told to basically shut up. That was uncalled for.

You have the right to be called out when you're impressively wrong. Unless you're honestly willing to argue that my old friend Abe really was an undistinguished and unsuccessful president as a direct result of his lack of experience, which I suppose you could, except... no, no, you can't, really. That would be well stupid.

 

You have the right to disagree with my opinion. Elections are nothing more than a counting of opinions, after all. An opinion, a choice, cannot be "wrong". You do not have a right to tell me to basically shut up. If you want to go back a couple of centuries, sure, we can go back even further. George Washington had no governmental experience whatsoever. Neither did most of his immediate successors. However, we are not talking about the 18th century, or the 19th century. We are talking about the 21st century, where foreign affairs really are a big deal, and a lack of experience thereof can be catastrophic. We are also talking about issues, clearly stated, that we may disagree with versus issues not articulated at all, so we can't really figure out if we agree or disagree with them.

 

Between Obama and Clinton, I think Clinton is the stronger, more experienced candidate. If you disagree, swell. I won't tell you to shut up. If you want to delineate what Obama's positions are on basic policies versus Hillary, great. I'll listen. I'd love to know what his positions are, since he hasn't managed to tell me yet. So go on. Let's see a lovely comparison of Obama versus Hillary, position by position. Let us know exactly why you feel his positions are superior. And try to do so without ridiculing me, since I'm actually not running, y'know.

As someone who originally told Di to "shut up" at one time long ago...I'm siding with her here. While her opinion is that H. Clinton will win the Dem nomination may or may not be correct, her summation is sound. The nomination will be made according to viability to win, NOT the popular vote. The Dems are more concerned with winning the Presidency than anything else. If this means kissing the public booty then they are more than willing to do so. I'll make a wager with you. Watch the local Dem convention with me. Lincoln didn't start the civil war to free the blacks from slavery for reasons of morality as much as for economic reasons.

 

As it looks like the Democratic nomination will be decided here in Denver ( as it may be too close to call ), I will wager you a $100 Visa card that ( no matter what ) Hillary will be the nominated candidate for the Dems. Decision to be arbitared here by the members of this forum. I will send you the account numbers and ex date of the card I purchase to support my claim.

 

I'm up for it...are you?

 

 

Walk the talk or don't piss away our time ( other denominations , (lessor or greater) available as long as a confidence in a candidate nomination is shown).

 

$100.00 on the table...pick it up or walk away! What's yer choice?

 

 

Tarna!!! I think I love you... but then, you know that!

 

Of course, when you told me to shut up I didn't take it any better either, IIRC. But you begged my forgiveness... right?... Okay, maybe not. But what can I say? I've always been a mighty-mouth. My opinions aren't any better than anyone else's; but they are colorful, yes? *hugs*

[Tigranes]

I honestly do not know what Obama stands for because despite his wonderful gift of speech, he has never, ever, given me a firm commitment as to what he will change, what he will do specifically. That makes me nervous and suspicious.

 

Personally, I think Obama is a man of great integrity and vision, and he clearly has ideas in his head about what he wants to do once he is in the White House, and this has very much to do with government transparency, attacking lobbyists and special interest groups, and reaching out to the people. This is fine. Moreover, his gift in oratory and the media's fawning over him leads him to transmit this rather pure vision onto the American people, which is one of the reasons he is doing so well.

 

The only problem with Obama is, yes, 'experience': but this is a more complex and wide-reaching quality than one is led to think. For example, Obama has quite consistently lived up to his words in what he has done. But if he were involved in politics as much and as long as Hillary Clinton had been, would he have been able to keep up such a level of consistency? As the president, will he be able to fend off, outwit and outpolitik lobbyists, special interest groups, sympathetics in the white house itself and corporate interests, inside the White House where the enthusiasim of the people is not as directly effective as it can be in the elections? He certainly has enough courage, but does he have enough guile, enough know-how to do that over the course of his presidency? And especially, if there is a high-pressure and controversial situation such as a general economic depression, major terrorist attack or unrest in areas like Israel/Palestine, would he be able to adopt a sensible and firm policy and carry it through? We cannot be sure. And that is really the crucial thing. I know Hillary is quite annoying by now in pushing the experience envelop every single day, but there are very far-reaching consequences of lack of experience. It's not just that he hasn't had to deal with X situation before: he will not know who to appoint to what job, what to say and when, and how to outmaneuvre the various obstacles in his path to 'airing out' the White House. His vision and his courage cannot be doubted; his guile, yes.

 

Combine that with the fact that 90-95% of Obama and Hillary's policies are same or similar, and you have to say, those who say they will vote for McCain if Obama loses out don't really make too much sense. I think McCain's a pretty solid candidate and he's doing well as a post-Bush candidate, but even if Hillary, say, takes lots of special interest money or whatnot, there's not much there to refuse someone whose policies are nearly a clone of Obama's.

[Guard Dog]

So what I'm saying is, if Hillary Clinton gets the nomination, be prepared to cut your thumbs off, because you'll be glad you did when President McCain institutes the draft in '09 for Operation Persian Freedom.

 

Your thumbs will be just fine Pop. Unless the US enters another two front world war (like 1941) you will never see the draft rear it's ugly head again. Believe me, the military does NOT want another draft. The reason it is so effctive is because it IS all volunteer. It doesn't not suffer the considerable morale problems that come with conscription. Besides, McCain has been one of the biggest advocates of turning away from the the 3 Bs (boots beans bullets) of defense spending and developing unmanned systems like the Predator and that new remote controlled robot, I forgot the name of it.

 

Come to think of it, you were hyperventilating about the draft after Bush was reelceted on 2004 too. It did not happen. This thing with Iran is a whole lot of nothing too. McCain is not stupid, he is not going to want to wade into Iran with Iraq finally starting to stabilize. Unless they do something dumb like give a nuke to Al-Qeada all that will ever come of it is saber rattling and posturing.

[Guard Dog]

As it looks like the Democratic nomination will be decided here in Denver ( as it may be too close to call ), I will wager you a $100 Visa card that ( no matter what ) Hillary will be the nominated candidate for the Dems. Decision to be arbitared here by the members of this forum. I will send you the account numbers and ex date of the card I purchase to support my claim.

I think your $100 is safe Tarna. As I've stated before, Hillary is a machine politician. She is the safe choice, the known quantity. The party hacks that make up the superdelegates WANT to vote for her. They want a reason to vote for her. If she wins in Pennsylvania (as seems likely) she will have swept all the big populous states. She can not catch Obama in pledged delegates but she is close enough that her wins in Florida and Michigan would have made the difference and the majority of the supers will use that as the pretext for voting for her. A fresh face like Obama riding a populist groundswell scares the machine democrats half to death. I agree, the convention will be where the nomination fight ends and it will be ugly. And Hillary will come out on top.

[Walsingham]

No time to read all the excellent input. I''m going to therefore drop out, rather than comment in ignorance.