I'm In!
 

With Hilary and Obama both organizing Presidential Exploritory Committees, if both are on the democratic ballot, who do you vote for?

It is a bit early to really know as I don't know where either of them stand completely on the issues but for now i'm voting for Obama. I think fresh blood could do a lot in the presidency. Plus 10 years from now I don't want every conservative still saying suchandsuch is Clinton's fault ;)

Between the two options, and assuming I'd ever vote Democrat, I'd vote for Obama One Kanobi. He is a very smart and capable man.

I'm gonna have to go with the ABC camp...Anybody But Clinton

Bill Richardson still has my vote, but if we're limiting it to these two, Obama's the very obvious choice for me. My friends that are active in the Democratic party in Chicago have been singing his praises for 4 years at least.

I thought I was the only Bill Richardson vote. He is announcing tomorrow.

Among the three, Hillary probably has the broadest and deepest policy background on issues across the board, but weighed down with such huge negatives. Obama has demonstrated a unique combination of personality (the ability to connect with people) and depth, so he would get my vote if the choice came down to one or other. We need somone approaching a real "uniter, not a divider" in '08; Obama may be the best hope.

Has anyone else noticed that the "mean machine" is already going after Obama? The right wants to run against Clinton. 2008 is going to have a great lineup of Democratic hopefuls for a change. As much as I loved McCain for 2000, I've lost all faith in the man for 2008. Presently, there doesn't appear to be a Republican candidate to beat him.

In answer to the op, it's Obama at this point. I would want to know more about who he would be bringing in to support him before I could get excited about his prospects.

Hillary - she did very well from 1992 to 2000!

I voted Hillary. A great deal imo, 2 for the price of one. :D Bill Clinton is part of her package....and he's my favorite president of the last 30 years...hell yeah! I'm voting Hillary....can't wait! :thumbsup:

Reallary?

_______

Neither. I would vote for Edwards, Gore, Mario Cuomo (if he somehow came out of the woodwork), I can think of several others.... but Obama and Hillary... um no. Maybe for V.President but not for Pres.

I would even vote GOP just to NOT have either of those in office if either won the nomination.

(I could change on Obama, I flip flop on him.... but Shrillary No f'n way.)

WHAT?! but....but....you're serious?

Gore? I love me some Big Al :love: :love: ...I voted for him once. :) ...but look what I got! :eek: A 10 gallon pea brain in pointy boots......:mad:

Serioully :p ....what's everybody so afraid of Mrs Clinton for? :confused: :D

Hillary is my senator, and although I didn't like her initially, she has done a very good job in the Senate. She has shown flexibility, adaptability, diligence and a whole lot of other good qualities. That being said, I think a Hillary presidency would be bad for the country. She should remain in the Senate, where she is doing a good job. If you think the partisan divisiveness is bad now, just wait until Hillary gets into the White House - it'll make the partisan stupidity of the last 14 years look like a walk in the park.

That doesn't mean I like Obama for President. He's smart and charismatic, but almost totally untested, and he has zero executive experience. For VP I think he'd be great - get him positioned for the future. He's still young and will be a great candidate down the road.

Hillary has too many negatives to win the general and Obama looks too young. Unless the Republicans totally screw up I don't think either one can win the popularity contest for President.

As it stands now I imagine the nomination is Hillary's unless the anti-war crowd derails her. A lot depends on how far left the Democrat and how far right the Republican has to go to win their party's nomination.

Why do you think Mrs Clinton would so greatly increase partisan devisivness?

Would this increase be something she would deliberately cause by her actions? Or would it be because for some republicans, she is the "one they love to hate the most"? (I always just figured that she was the one they thought most likely to win an election, so the devisive ones began the whole "hate hilary" thing years ago).
Do you think she is just an angry woman with an ax to grind or something? Hell, after the last 8 years....everybody is angry!

I'm just curious.....I stll don't quite understand why many hate her so.....except because their talk radio hosts instruct them to. :confused:

I wouldn't mind seeing a take charge woman get in there and try to clean things up a bit....it's a nasty job, but she sort of knows what she's getting into. (plus she has Bill to help)
With Obama....I'm not sure if he's not biting off more than he can chew.....:confused: Running mates will help....I like my senator....Evan Bayh. ;) :thumbsup:

Ok....what ARE these negatives I keep hearing about! :lol:

I voted Barack Obama, but just for the record, I am a democrat who still loves Hillary.

I think Hillary Clinton as President Of The United States would drive the islamofascists completely nuts.
A great and massive psychological blow to the movement.
Perhaps they just might surrender or honorkill themselves en masse, in complete befuddlement.
For while they keep their women in burlap sacks, America appoints one as the most powerful person on the planet.
That in itself could be a greater victory in the "war on terror" than any military battle of the type they wage these days.

This is not how I feel but what I perceive:

She's a woman.
She's a carpetbagger Senator from a liberal state.
She rode in on the coat tails of her husband.
Her demeaner inspires dislike from a large percentage of the population.
She made fun of Tammy Wynette.:)

I'm not afraid of her, I just wouldn't vote for her.

She supports the war on Iraq, despite the fact that her constituants were by far against it (unwilling to admit a mistake). She said she wouldn't run for president or vice president, but here we are (she values politiking more than her word). She has always and will always straddle, so as never to offend anyone (indecisive and weak). She has long standing ties to Wal-Mart (there must have been a sale on revolving doors). She is best known becuase she has ridden the coat tails of her husband, and really isn't known for her own acomplishments. She is even trying to pass a law that would imprison the creators of violent games (lives in fear, is unable to do the research into voilence in children). In 2000, she urged her hurband to veto a condemnation of Israel's treatment of Palestine, and continues to focus on improving our relationship with Israel. Clinton opposes gay marriage.

how about obama pres and hillary vp?

that's enough to make me vote twice for her :)

Dc-dux, I would like to read your reaction to this Steve Clemons piece on Bill Richardson, and your opinion of both of them, as far as the integrity of each.

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001884.php

I was surprised to read what Clemons had to say. I agree that Richardson has no chance other than to run a symbolic campaign and get in the way of more promising prospects. I share Clemons opinion of Richardson, but his accusations are news to me.

I want Hillary to get the nomination. Why? Because the last thing I want is to be called racist because I live in the South and won't vote for Obama.

Sadly this isn't a joke. We ALL know if a pro-gun control liberal is nominated he/she will have a VERY hard time carrying the rural states. This will inevitably make it's face shown about how White Southerners are not ready for a black president even though his race (I hope) won't even be an issue for the vast majority of people.

Host...I've heard the accusations about Richardson. Others describe him as just an outgoing "schmoozer" (picture something between Bush's back-slapping good ole boy style and Clinton's lusty womanizing approach) whose style may make some uncomfortable. He probably should tone it down if he wants to play in the national arena. He also can play hardball politics with the best of them as was evident by his position on Bolton, something he was passionate about from his own experience as UN ambassador. His lack of diligence as Energy Secy is a more serious shortcoming that he will have to deal with in the campaign.

I dont think he will get in the way of other candidates. He brings a unique perspective to the campaign as a red (or purple) state Dem with moderate positions on immigration, gun control, welfare, energy/environment. I imagine he will more likely be in a position to consolidate his supporters around the major candidate of his choosing at some point that will broaden that candidate's support.

I just think she is a female George W. and would be unwilling to work with others.

Bill Clinton was a great president, but wasn't given much ability to lead as the GOP were constantly at him. This will continue with Hillary. Plus, as liberal as I am, as much as I like the Dem Party and have supported it.... I flatly refuse to have her represent me. I never liked her personality, her demeanor, the way she talks to people, her attitude and so on. Bill is very charismatic... Hillary, to me is the opposite.



EXCUSE ME?????? My talk show radio host?????? Lol.... I must now be a "Dittohead". So, even if I am a liberal, and I am a democrat and I have written numerous posts deflating Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and the radio talking heads and I have voted for 1 GOP candidate my entire life..... I must now follow the Right Winged talk show hosts..... all because I have a tremendous dislike and fear of Shrillary?????? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Just this thread alone, shows the attack mode her supporters are in... and then they want to say the partisan divide won't be so bad????? WTF? You're distancing diehard Dems by the above attitude. :thumbsup: You just maybe so blinded by that..... that you believe whatever she and her camp tell you....

I have no problem with a woman president.... as long as I trust her and believe she is best qualified.... Shrillary, with or without Bill.... is not one I trust, believe qualified or would ever support.

I agree, I don't think Obama has enough experience. But the issue with me is he is playing the reverse race card..... "I'm black," he says to affiliate himself with the NAACP, Jackson, and so on..... yet he moves me away because he is HALF BLACK... his mother is lily white. I just dislike the way he is trying to use his race for this, I've lost a lot of respect for the man.

Bayh, is a very good man and if he were to get his name out more could be a spoiler candidate and definately a very good VP candidate.


You have them above but MY opinion, belief and feeling of Shrillary:

SHE IS A FEMALE GEORGE W. BUSH AND WOULD RATHER DESTROY THIS COUNTRY THROUGH THE HATE MONGERING SHE KNOWS WOULD HAPPEN, THEN TO FULFILL HER OBLIGATION IN THE SENATE AND PROVE THROUGH THAT OFFICE SHE CARES MORE ABOUT THE COUNTRY THAN THE OFFICE SHE HOLDS. FEMALE GEORGE W. IN DEM NAME ONLY, THAT'S ALL SHE IS

Didn't you hear? Obama is a muslim now.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=5xfUD8R3P...elated&search=

:rolleyes:

This is going to be a long campaign.....It's not even 2008 yet.

I didn't mean "you" Y-O-U dude....just people who do follow the talking gas bags .....;)

Dang! I just can't imagine she'd be all that bad! Well....I'd take her and Bill over the newbie.
I was so bummed Bayh dropped out, but it was Obama this and Obama that....silly people....;)

I would choose Obama. Hillary Clinton is too much of a demagogue for my liking. I wouldn't support her for the reasons Willravel listed above; especially for her initial support of the Iraq war. Obama's position has more legitimacy as he was opposed to it from the start.

pan....I dislike her and I don't think that she can win because it's probably not time yet for anyone who isn't from the sunbelt, but especially not a female democrat, to win in the 2008 generall election.

I don't wish the presidency on a democrat because I am convinced that there is only one way to avoid the coming collapse of the exchange rate of the US currency. That way is to leverage the US malinvestment in the military....and quickly, like in the next 30 months.....to dictate terms of immediate unilateral nuclear disarmament of China and Russia (and every other country, for that matter)....followed by unfettered access for US/UN weapons inspectors....or else.
I've asked before...and no one has offered another solution that would delay the coming Chinese hegemony, or a way to maintain the value of US paper currency, and thus, the maintenance of the US military triad of a land, sea, and undersea nuclear deterrent.

The US will someday, when it's currency has already busted, and China has many more than it's present "arsenal" of 25 ICBM and Russia has modernized it's currently decrepit nuclear arsenal, launch an unsuccessful attempt to pre-empt it's two rivals, and then go down "swinging".

I am no hawk, but I am a realist who wants to leave my grandchildren a future that does not consist of living in a shattered former superpower under the economic control and the military dominance of China and/or Russia.

Hillary is the most experienced candidate for US president, possibly ever. I suspect that she has the guts to craft and launch a plan as desperate as the one I described, and that she is smart enough to recognize that our circumstances and future prospects are dire enough to make it neccessary to do so, early in her presidency.

I do not wish to see anyone elected who cannot act that boldly, and convince the Chinese and Russians that we mean it, and that we will obliterate their civilizations if they do not comply, while ours, including our leadership, will survive, albeit in a limited way. Our superior air and submarine offensive delivery systems will insure that outcome, for the next few years.

I don't like her, pan, but I want an American future for my descendants, and for yours. I want a none "money party" democrat to win, an Edwards or what's his name, governor of Iowa. but neither seems to have the potential resolve to use the military to seize the future from China......and without doing something that radical, the next president will preside over the crash of US paper currency......the end of the US as the world's only superpower.

I think that you are wrong about her being a "divider":
...it's 10 additional pages long, pan. Read it. If you're gonna hate her, do it in reaction to being informed about her, not by the influence of the spin from the right that you dislike as much as you think that you dislike Hillary......

I had said that the partisan stupidity of the past 14 years (and likely the next two) would continue if Hillary became President not because I think she would set out to divide people - she wouldn't - but because the animus in half the country is already there. It's roughly the equivalent of what the situation would be if Jeb Bush decided to run - he's a different guy from his brother but the baggage is all there with half the country: they hear the name "Bush" and start ranting. Same with Hillary - for half the country, they hear the name "Clinton" and immediately take leave of their senses.

I'm not saying this is a good thing. As I noted earlier, I have come to respect Hillary a great deal and I think a lot of the rabid antipathy toward her that is left over from her husband's term is unwarranted. But it's there. And just as I think the vilification of Bush is way over the top, there is no denying that it's there, which is why I don't want another Bush to run - irrespective of whether Jeb would be a good president or not (I have no idea whether he would), it wouldn't be good for the country. Ditto for Hillary.

Thank you host and loquitor for injecting a little levity into this discussion. If Hillary had come out of nowhere the Democrats would be on fire to get her into the White House and the Republicans would be quaking in their boots - actually, they are quaking in their boots even though many of them would rather cut their tongues out than admit it out loud. She is a brilliant and talented woman and an accomplished politician. She cares. She is visionary. And I respect her very much. I'd love to see her as my president, but unfortunately I think she is too shackled by all of this hysterical notoreity that she has garnered. I hate to think it, but in my gut I believe its true. I don't think she would be suffering the same public lambasting that she has if she were a man. I can't think otherwise when there is not a single male politician I can recall who has suffered the same fate for simply doing what a politician does. It's a damn shame so many Democrats are willing to throw away the best candidate we have for such bullshit hysteria.

"levity"? It's more sad than anything else. She's a very talented woman.

i have no particular committment to anyone at this point.

hillary clinton seems a consistent moderate who has the curious fortune to have been consistently painted as someone to the left of trotsky by the conservative media apparatus. i'm kinda pleased that she is running if only because the reality/conservative view gap is so enormous on this, and perhaps this gap will cause still more trouble of their own making for the right---one would hope that even more people will realize that they are not being offered rational perspective lines by that apparatus.

but i am not particularly interested in the field for 2008 yet: it is a distraction in itself, and the sporting event coverage of it even more so.

For Obama to win the popularity contest for President he has to overcome several major negatives:

He's black (or partially)
He looks too young.
He has a funny name.
The "liberal" label.

Dunno, flstf, charisma and competence go a long way. Obama's apparently got charisma to spare. I'm not sure about the competence yet. No one thought a funny name and an ethnic appearance was by itself enough to disqualify Michael Dukakis - he got the Democratic nomination. And if you recall, Colin Powell could have had the presidency pretty much for the asking 15 years ago, so I think a nontraditional black politician (a description that does fit Obama) has as good a shot as anyone.

I just think he's too untested. It's like asking for a rerun of Jimmy Carter or George W Bush.

I'd vote for Clinton. Even when I disagree with her, at least I know where she stands. She is a fighter, and not affraid to get her hands dirty if she need too. Obama seems to have a "let's all be happy" attitude and on position issues he seems to avoid taking a clear stance. I think he would be like Jimmy Carter. Clinton would be more like Lydon Johnson. Johnson was a good president, Carter was among the worst in our history.

I like Loquitor's leadership characteristics of charisma and competence; I would add character.

And, just for kicks, based on ace's references to Johnson and Carter, I would rate the past presidents:

Johnson - the highest "political" competence in working the political system, no character (nearly as crooked as Nixon), no charisma

Carter - character, with little competence or charisma

Reagan - highest charisma, respectable character (if you overlook Iran-Contra), but marginally competent (needed his note cards or he was lost on the isssues beyond his black-white view of the world)

George HW Bush - competent (with a broad and varied political background), charisma-challenged, questionable character (we are still paying for those ties to the Saudis)

Clinton - high "policy" competence (could talk in depth on any issue for hours), charisma (the best schmoozer in recent history), no character

George W - neither competent (too stubborn to admit policy failures, in part, because he rarely understood the short or long term impact of his policies) nor possessing much character (spoiled rich kid whose daddy always, and continues, to bail him out of his fuck-ups) and charisma-challenged like daddy. Certainly in contention for the wosrt president in history.

Hillary has as much competence as Bill (debatable who is the bigger policy wonk) but only slightly more charcter than Bill and lacking any charisma.

Obama - with more experience, he could be a three-fer or a dud (a new face on old liberal policies)....too soon to tell.

McCain - which one? the old or the new? The old had character (slightly tarred by his connections to the Keating/saving loans scandal that everyone forgets) and competance as an independent thinker who appeared to put principal above politics. The new, pandering to the religious right, lost his way. Never very charasmatic and is looking old and tired.

Pan identified the one sure three-fer in recent years - Mario Cuomo. Too bad he never got his chance.

So much for my simplistic analysis :) Back to slogging through the next 20 months. (*groan* - is it just me, or is way to soon to be serious about '08 yet?)

CNN actually went to the school to check it out and basically did real investigative jouralism to find out the truth. Instead of spreading lies.

So the media are falling over Hillary and Obama. Hillary because she'd be the first woman president, Obama because he'd be the first black president.

Why is there no falling over for Condy Rice?

dc_dux, Reagan's choosing to launch his 1980 campaign in Philedelphia, Miss., his "Vietnam was a noble war", message, his attack on the chancellor at Berleley and his firing of the man, and his "conversion" from a democrat who headed the SAG to this:
dc_dux, IMO, reagan was an awful man, without any integrity, a man who would say anything that he would anticipate appealing to his "base".

He was first elected in 1966 with two themes, "Cleaning up the mess at Berkeley, and "sending the welfare bums back to work"....

He was an ignorant, selfish, divider who doubled the federal deficit during his president and persuaded people to thank him for doing it.

dc_dux, Ken Starr investigated Clinton for more than 6 years. Please describe one or two incidents about Clinton, discovered in the course of the Starr investigation, other than allegations about his sex life and sexual practices, that back your opinion that his character was lacking, compared to Reagan's.

She's a monsterous bitch. :thumbsup:

...and she has demonstrated neither competence as national security advisor and Secy of State (a complete and utter failure as a security "expert" and a diplomat, mired in her obsolete academic background in cold war issues) nor character (lied repeatedly about the forewarnings she was given by the Clinton administration about the al queda threat and shamelessly spewing crap about mushroom clouds as an excuse for our invasion of Iraq).

Host..as far as Reagan and Clinton, I said my analysis was simplistic, but I believe Reagan was a decent man, but certainly not a great president. His shortcomings were in depth of knowledge driven by his own simplistic belief in a misplaced ideology. But his rhertoric was more strident then his actions, particularly as president.

Clinton has admitted his own character shortcomings, although I would suggest that he was the most compassionate president among those listed and the only one to truly understand the plight of the working middle class and the poor (not that he always acted on it).

I have loved Cuomo since the keynote speech he gave in '84. The question I have always wondered is why he didn't want the Supreme Court when Clinton was president. I think that was his dream, not the presidency.

As for future Dem. power: I see Eliot Spitzer becoming very powerful, I think my guy, Sherrod Brown will wield some heavy power, Andrew Cuomo, may if he can recover from his divorce.

Personally, I think Obama and Clinton will destroy each other, not just the presidential hopes but a total political destruction. From the ashes, we'll see someone fresh and very charismatic, with a very respectable past and character that is almost unflawed. Someone who will be viewed by both sides with respectability, complimented on how fair and honest he works and has the intelligence to know the issues and plans to work them out.

Who will this person be? I don't know, I'd like to say Edwards..... Gore.... maybe Evan Bayh.... someone we all know but I think this will be someone very few outside of his state truly know.

Someone who has flown low on the radar screen. Perhaps, it's a dream.... but I truly see someone like that coming out of the shadows around this time next year.

The high profile surrogate attacks on Hillary, begin....

I thought that even a stopped clock is right, twice a day......

<b>(...is the notion that terrorizing the rest of us is the Cheney family business, only in my imagination....or ???)</b>

Guys, I don't know why you are in love with Cuomo. I live in NY and he was governor here for 12 years. I certainly don't care for him at all. The best thing about him is that his successor (George Pataki) was worse. However, Cuomo is an absolutely <i><b>fabulous</i></b> speaker and he has a very good "common touch."

I think she did her hubby proud, it was almost like you could see Dick, W, Condi or numerous others mouth them.

Maybe people glorify Cuomo because of what we have had in Wash. (even with Clinton, great as he was the GOP tied his hands and he was scandal ridden) add with the fact we saw him give great speeches but most of us don't have any idea what living under his governorship was like.

nostalgia for articulateness is strange: i watched a really bad film about crossword puzzles recently--wordplay--which featured a few segments during which bill clinton talked about his fascination with and devotion to crosswords--i felt a twinge of near-nostalgia for him during these segments, simply because he seemed intelligent and could talk articulately about stuff that actually interested him. quite a constrast rightwing one-dimensionality of what followed--quite different from the one-dimensional partyspeak characteristic of conservative talking heads in general, who in the main operate using types of language that seem modelled on leninism more than anything else (the "wooden language" of the party)....

but i didnt forget for all that that clinton was an appalling centrist politically (not at all the left militant that the inhabitants of conservativeland like to imagine him to be)---same would apply to cuomo. hell, the same applies to most of the horses who have launched themselves into the early stages of this very long sporting event that is the election cycles--because constructing brand loyalty takes times and repetition--and because politics in the states is a kind of shopping, brand loyalty is important. it's what gets you elected.

Clinton wasn't a radical Leftist but he was Left of Center.

The problem in this country and you illustrate it very well..... as does Limbaugh when he talks.

If you are too far Left, even the moderate Left will be Right to you, perhaps too far Right.

If you are too far Right, even the moderate Right will be Left to you, perhaps too far Left.

You need to find balance in politics and in life, otherwise you grow into a very bitter, very negative person.

Amen. Including balance in how much time you (or I, or anyone) spend obsessing about politics!

pan:
so let me get this straight.
the "argument" in your post seems to be:

1. if i were to agree with you politically, i would be on the path to well-being, but if i persist in not agreeing with you politically, i am on a path to negativity and bitterness.

2. everyone who disagrees with you politically is the same, united in their disagreement with you. everyone who disagrees with you is an extremist.

so that

3.you are the center of the political universe. your positions are the absolute. everything about american politics is arrayed around you as its center.

i didnt know you were that important pan.
see what distortions a messageboard format can introduce?

mea culpa.

i think you could help me spare myself alot of work: why should anyone bother to think for themselves when they can just check in with you?

and if you do think for yourself and find yourself drifting unacceptably, you will inform them of this drift by throwing them out of the Big Musical.

dont get me wrong on this: i appreciate that you take time out from your important centering functions to throw me out of the Big Musical.
i take it as an example of your largesse, and i am suitably grateful.

but in order to reduce the time i may be spending flailing about in the Land of the Unacceptable and Bitter, why dont you let me know which positions of yours should i adopt in order to bring myself to happiness and well-being?

it'd help me become a better person, i am sure.

Got to love ya RB.... you are almost a master of spin, Rove and the Clintons have nothing on you. :p

I'm not saying any of that. I am simply pointing out that people like you, Limbaugh and so on.... are so extreme in your political views you leave no room for anyone else's views.

If you are so far left that everyone else (say 90+%) is right of you.... you maybe the one that needs to move.... stop bitching how this person wasn't left enough for you.

If you are so far right that everyone else (again 90+%) is to the left of you.... stop bitching about how this person needs to move further right because he's not right enough for you.

If in politics you cannot balance to some degree and find middle ground to compromise.... you are obsolete, have no business in politics and are serving noone but yourself and your own self interests, no matter what color you want to paint it or how much perfume you put on it..... it's still one color and it still stinks and does nothing to better society.

I find it curious that mainstream rightwing thought is often characterized by those on the left side of the median line as "extreme." Here is a helpful rule of thumb: if it is the kind of idea that shows up without fuss in <i>National Review</i>, it's mainstream right. If <i>NR</i> tosses the speaker, as it did to Anne Coulter, and, I believe, to Pat Buchanan (whom many of the NR staffers regard as anti-Semitic) it's extreme right. Rush Limbaugh is mainstream right.

Trying to redefine the terms so that anyone X distance to the right of you is "extreme" isn't really fair. Plus, it's overly simplistic. I, for instance, don't particularly care for social conservatism or religious influence in politics. But I'm a quite adamant free marketer. Am I an extremist? There are plenty of people like me.

Fair enough. I don't know I find most of the Republicans I know believe Limbaugh to be right of them.... definately not as far as Coulter, but more Right than they are.

I don't think from your description you are an extremist.... however, all you have to do is answer this question (pretend you are a politician)...... If it were more beneficial to the country to compromise and give something to get something..... would you do it? Or would you hold firm and basically say "I know what's best for the country and it's my way or the highway."

Is not the first holding true value to your office, being a true statesman and doing what is needed? While the latter, is pompous, arrogant and self righteous bs?

If you can put aside your own self interests to better the whole... whether in politics, business or life..... you have a calmer, happier life?

Granted there are some issues everyone has where you will be unbending, that is normal..... but to be Left or Right on every issue and to take them to the extreme that it can only be done your way..... is ludicrous, idiocy and suicidal to society as a whole.

Sorry, threadjack ending......

I find it interesting USA Today really went in depth over whether Hilary could win. The battle lines are being drawn.... sad really the people who will suffer the most are us, the citizens.

i am not interested in continuing this, pan: but read your post and you'll find that you WERE saying that. it might not have corresponded to what you were thinking as you wrote, but i would have no access to your psychological state as you write--any more than you have any access to mine. there is just what you wrote.

but what is absurd is that you followed one post in which you said this with another in which you said the same thing, except in the second there is a denial that you are saying it.

i have other things to do.

pan....I thought that the article I posted, from the Atlantic, contained information that thoroughly countered your opinion that Ms. Clinton was as divisive as George Bush, and I was disappointed to see that so far, you have not responded to it.....

.....can you consider that it might be irrelevant where you consider roachboy or me, for that matter, to be located on your political "road"? If most of the US population has allowed itself to perceive, politically, that the black space between the double yellow line in the middle of the "road".....is the boundary where non-extremists dwell? Couldn't this just as likely be a reasonable "take" on what the "road" looks like, from the POV of a self described "centrist" in France or Germany?
___________________________________________________________
_________________________Left Shoulder________________________
<br><br><br>
Centrist EU voter.........host
<br><br><br>
____________________________________________________________
______________________________Yellow Line_____________________

_______________Extreme Left Begins Here__________________________
______________________________Yellow Line_____________________
<br><br><br><br>Bill Clinton<br><br><br><br>Centrist Americans
<br><br><br>George Bush
______________________________________________________________
______________________________Right Shoulder_____________________
Rush Limbaugh

_







______________________________Off the road completely_____________
Bill O'Reilly

I wonder where host thinks I am on that chart. :)

It might be an interesting experiment for those of us in the political forum to place each other on host's chart. Just for kicks. We might be surprised to see where we sit on the left-right scale in other people's eyes.

Host, I didn't ignore it, I just got lost in my own self righteous BS. (I do that occasionally.... ok so more than just occasionally.... sheesh. hard crowd to please...)

The article does paint Hillary in a different light, but, and it's just my gut instinct and how I feel, Hillary would be every bit as bad a president as W. Perhaps my instinct is wrong.

My whole argument isn't about being Left or Riht... it's taking the issues so far one way that everyone else is to the opposite of you and you refuse to compromise.

mm, I'll let you shape my opinion...this test is far from perfect, but I think that it's main value is that the results can be compared to the opinions we have all posted.

Many of us here have taken the test linked in the OP on this thread, my score was similar to rb's score, if I recall....

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=3880

That's an excellent test. I'm an 8. I don't think Hillary is in the right place on that anymore.

Pan, you're collapsing two issues here. One is whether a person's views are extreme, the other is whether a person is flexible. Two very different things. Ted Kennedy, for instance, is pretty far to the left (at least if you take his public pronouncements at face value). But he knows that if he insists everything has to be 100% his way he'll never get anything done, so he will accept half a loaf if need be. His views haven't changed - he just wants to get things done, which is how he's lasted as long as he has. Ditto for Nancy Pelosi, who is one of the leftiest members of Congress - she's smart enough to try to achieve what's achievable, even if it means some of the loons in her district will accuse her of selling out by not insisting that things have to be their way.

I scored a 9. One point more radical than Hillary. :lol:

I scored a 26 on that test. Probably right where I would have guessed (no pun intended).

Maybe some day we won't be divided down party lines and we (and those in Washington) will examine each issue on its merits alone and not what are party whip tells us to think.

Sometimes I wonder if I am the only person in America who gets violently ill when people mention gun control but also thinks that a gay couple should be able to legally marry whenever they want to.

Guns don't kill people, gays kill people? The two issues are far apart. No one has ever murdered a family of 4 and then themselves with a 12 gauge man wearing heels. Apples and rainbows.

The two issues are worlds apart. I pointed them out for that reason. Most of my political views are fairly conservative but some are at the other end of the spectrum.

12....smack in the middle of a Bill and Hil sandwich :eek: ..or a pragmatic progressive, as I would described it.

In politics, it is often not how you perceive yourself, but rather how your words and actions (votes) are perceived by others.

Rightly or wrongly, Hillary's negatives are as high as her positives in most polls and it is far more difficult to change the perceptions of the negative naysayers, particularly when they are constantly being fed through mischaracterizations by the Limbaughs, O"Reillys and Coulters....which is why I agree that Hillary would be as divisive as Bush, although eminently more qualified.

Exactly, just like no one has ever gotten aids by being sodomized by a M60 machinegun.

desal75, i understand your point, I am the same way to also include abortions, I dont believe in them but, I do not want to take away anothers right to them.

32 for me on the quiz....

I believe it was Glenn Reynolds who said gays should be allowed to marry and keep a house full of guns.

Wow that brought back some interesting names and some friends gone but not forgotten.

BTW I scored a 16 now, back in '05 when I originally took it here I was at 12. I guess I have grown a little.

And while some may view Kennedy and Pelosi extremists... they aren't as you stated they are willing to bend to get the job done.

What I'm trying to get across is that there are people on these politics boards, and on the radio and in life, that are so tied to party line and their beliefs that they would refuse any compromise because it doesn't fit into "their picture".

As you said there are those extremists "loons" that think compromise is selling out.

Say Kennedy gives in on an issue to get something else through.... the extremists start crying how he sold out and isn't "Left" enough. Meanwhile they totally dismiss the fact that the GOP had to make sacrifices also.

Or Bush makes a deal and the extremists rake him over the coals talking about how he isn't "Right" enough. Again, dismissing the fact that the GOP may have gotten an item they really wanted.

Thus Kennedy and Bush would not be "extreme" enough and thus to the extremist even those 2 are too centrist.

Here I thought it was corporal Max Klinger on M*A*S*H

my point was that whether a person is extreme would be linked to what his/her views are - you can have extreme views but also be practical about things. I have some extreme views about the free market but I also understand they're impractical in this country today.

I think everyone privately holds extreme views on issues close to them.

extremist.
there's that stupid word again: like kurtz in heart of darkness, eh?

some positions i argue for:

i think education should be free to everyone.

i think basic medical care should be universal.

i think that the contemporary pseudo-debate about migrant workers is framed in a manner that makes it nearly fascist in its tone and implications.

i think the iraq war was wholly unjustified and that the bush administration should be held to account for it.

i think the bush administration reveals a real structural problem with american pseudo-democracy as there is no way to get rid of them for another 2 years.

i think "free markets" are a type of fantasy formation tht have more to do with the history of capitalist political economy (cheerleading books about it) than anything in actually existing capitalism.

i think the existing rationality (the modes of dividing up information, the modes of reproducing knowledge shaped by them) is incoherent.

by extension, i do not think the present order coherent. i have little faith that it can adjust itself, that it can be adjusted. it is on the basis of this assumption that i can see the possibilty of revolutionary action. it is also true that i see no coherent position from which this action could at the present time be carried out. but in principle, i do not oppose revolutionary social change. sometimes i wonder if that follows from liking the word revolution, though.

i think a radical political critique of the existing order to be both politically and ethically important. fundamental even. it is a mode of political and creative action. it is something concrete that can be done.

i do not see any of this as extremist.
there is no connection between these positions and any inflexibility in debates or in how i might think about the world.

i think that the word "extremist" as pan is using it is meaningless, except as an inflammatory term which is used in recurrent attempts to exclude others from debate. it seems to structure projections.
it never comes with anything like meaningful argument: it comes only with a series of nonsensical assumptions that are held together only by the word "extremist" itself.

if you want debates within which there is flexibility, pan, maybe you should consider ending your relationship with the tactic you use and engage more in actual debate involving content, rather than relying only on assumptions. arbitrary assumptions no less, because the fact remains that neither you nor anyone else can reach around posts and get at the 3-d reality of the person who writes them. given that, you are simply making shit up, and "extremist" is the term you use to justify that. it poisons debate: and then you act all surprised and/or miffed if things unfold predictably from there.

For someone who said this:

you sure are worried about my thinking you an extremist.

I'm spelling it out for you 1 last time, RB.
If you are so far left that everyone is right of you politically and you cannot compromise you are an extremist. (Either side)

RB I have come to the conclusion you are no more than an USTWO on the Left....... you are so self righteous and full of preaching what you believe to be the only way... you are blind.

Same can be said for me actually, in cases like this where I self righteously point out others shortcomings..... but this is politics and we all have those beliefs we hold and nothing can or will sway us unless we let it.

I can't be locked into "my way or the highway" anymore. I did that, made me evil and sick and mean. I prefer to look at things from both sides and work with people of differing views to come together and form a solution that can work and be helpful to the most people possible. I want my politicians that I elect to do that.... I don't want them to be self righteous and so full of themselves they get nothing done.... we've had 6 years of that with King George II and quite a few with Newt and the boys trying to bully Clinton. ENOUGH already.

I refuse to get into the hate politics anymore.... this is one reason Hillary and Obama do not interest me, right or wrong, I view them as hate mongers whether it is they that do the hating or the opposition that does it. Either way very little gets done to truly help the people.

pan....can you post something....anything....that we can "sink our teeth into".
Something that can be examined, held up to the light. I posted an article of eleven pages, written last november, that some are saying is the current definitive article on Hillary Clinton. It offers verifiable information....an example is her political opponent, Sen. Sam Brownback's reaching out to her, in a prayer breakfast of all places, her response of immediate, genuine, forgiveness, and the"proof"...the two went on from there to work together on legislative issues.

I don't have a horse in that race, pan. I don't even like Hillary. I liked your bold, red lettered rant, even less. Especially after your red lettered comments, it was incumbent upon you, to offer more than an "I feel this way......".

You've backed up nothing, pan. If moving towards the middle is simply replacing facts with feelings, it's a big disappointment to watch. I'm uncomfortable ever stating anything that I can't share the reasoning....the research behind. If that is "extreme", then call me an extremist.

If "I still feel" that such and such is such....and that is all that you've got, IMO it borders on an incoherent post. You say you have "grown" since the last time that you took the "left or right" test. To me, "growing" is an increasing ability to defend your arguments, even if it is to your own satisfaction.....but it should include an effort to include an increasing body of reliable sources to draw from to support your new found thinking.

Why aren't you sharing it with us?

I wish I could answer that Host. Just Hillary evokes much iirrational ire in me. Much the same way W, Clinton, Reagan, Kennedy, FDR and so on do in others.

I wish I knew what it was Host.

Is it the way she looks? I think she looks like a bitch, but that doesn't mean anything.

Is the way she talks? It's like nails on a chalkboard to me, she's shrill and talks much but says little. (But I do the same thing.)

Is it the fact she has this power hungry reputation? Could be....

Is it that I see her more as a polarist than bringing together people to better the nation? Yes.... but it's just gut feeling and observation... I have no proof just the way I feel.

Can I give her a chance? NO.... because as much as I want to be open minded... I can't be with her. It's kind of like W, just when I think either one has something I can respect in them.... they open their mouths and disprove that idea.

Sorry to let ya down Host, but those are among my reasons... I can delve deeper but they're all my opinion and gut instinct and to be honest, I trust them far more than I will ever trust her.... but as you have implied, that is not good enough reason... so I'll be quiet on the issue and let those with knowledge speak.

i'm hardly worried about it, pan: i just find it irritating.

i ended the post before the last one as i did because i had other things to do in 3-d.

when i got back to the thread, i was surprised--and i really dont know why--that you continued to post in the same vein, as if there was something to be taken seriously in your bizarre-o classification game.

if this was the only thread in which you decided to play this particular way, i really wouldnt have cared and certainly would not have wasted the effort on posting a response of any kind. perhaps it would have been better that way in any event, since "whatever" or its equivalent seems the only rational response. but it wasn't the only time: you do this same thing all the time.

i am not sure that i disagree with your politics because i see so little of them really that it is hard to say anything.

I dunno, guys, I can't speak for anyone else, and as I said, I have come to have a good amount of respect for Hillary (I voted for her for reelection to the Senate last Nov) -- but I do remember why I didn't like her before. It was because I was convinced (a) she wasn't genuine in how she dealt with others, that everything she did was carefully calculated and calibrated, and (b) if you scratch through her exterior to look at what's underneath, deep deep down she's got a strong socialist impulse that skews her thinking.

What brought me around was the realization that being calculated and calibrated can actually be useful and help you get things accomplished. Even if she's not genuine, she's smart, she works hard and she's well informed. And she's very talented - in different ways from the way Bill is talented, but talented nonetheless. She'd probably be a good president precisely because she's so careful and controlled. But lots of people would be good presidents. I'm not sure she's right for the country because of her baggage. That said, if the election for Senator was tomorrow I'd vote for her again.

Loquitur, I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you. I can completely see your point and I will admit that her connections and national prominence have probably helped NYS a couple of times in Congress. I just felt somewhat perplexed that she chose our state to run for Senate in considering she had no prior connection with us. I know very few Senators and Representatives live in there state but the majority at least hail from that state or have, at some point, lived there.

Of course, us Western New Yorkers probably have a completely different outlook on it than those of you in NYC. We do tend to think all state politics are biased towards the City and downstate but a lot of that is just perception.

Desal, I didn't vote for her in 2000. I did vote for her in 2006. In 2000 I thought pretty much the way you just described.

As for NY state politics.......... well, I think we have one of the worst state governments in the country, possibly the worst.

Something about Hillary rubs me the wrong way. While Obama is inexperienced, his charisma and idealism are just what I think the country could use right now.

I also think that we could use more discretionary spending so that we're not in debt up to our eyeballs, but that's a different topic.

I'd like to know why it is that no one is taking Chris Dodd seriously as a candidate. He's a good guy. Ditto for Bill Richardson, who has a terrific resume.

I'm really mystified as to why Democrats keep putting forth such unattractive candidates in the last 30 years (not that all the Repubs were such bargains, but the bad track record of the Dems is really astonishing). Except for Clinton, who is many things but <b>not</b> an unattractive candidate, in the elections I voted in I was presented by the Democratic party with Jimmy Carter (incompetent AND moralistic), Walter Mondale (nice fellow, bland to the point of resembling a slice of Wonder Bread), Michael Dukakis (colorless, pedantic), Al Gore (actually not such a bad guy, but also charisma-challenged) and John Kerry (all the charm of a tree stump, coupled with a prickly demeanor). What is the reason for this? When I was a kid the Dems ran <i><b>Hubert Humphrey</i></b>. John Kennedy. I look at the current Dem field and the only one who has an exciting feel is John Edwards, who unfortunately also strikes me as having nothing behind the facade (sorry, it's my prejudice against pretty boys).

I am coming to think that our country's method for selecting candidates is not a good one. The skein of primaries is not good at selecting out the best candidates. And the structure of the system turns a lot of potential good candidates off.

I should add, btw, that in 2000 GWB was not the best candidate for the Republicans to put forth. John McCain was. Again: the structure of the system was not designed to bring the best person forward.

The Dems tend to pick someone and crown them before any primary. IF someone does surprise and gains steam they work to destroy the person.

'84 they WANTED Mondale..... Hart be damned. Can't blame them really, they didn't want to throw out one of their young guns to be destroyed by an unbeatable Reagan, so they send a reliable workhorse whoserved the position of sacrificial lamb (we saw the GOP do this with Dole in '96).

'88 they WANTED Dukakis..... Glenn be damned, Hart was destroyed

'92 they crowned Clinton

'00 was Gore everyone else step aside

'04 Kerry hand picked and everyone else go to Hell, Dean scared him for a minute.

This coming year they wanted to ordain Mrs. Clinton, but Obama entered and now they are splitting..... the person that will benefit most from this and may end up getting the nod..... Edwards (my man). Simply because I see Obama and Clinton destroying each other, to the point they may not even win the senate ever again.

The GOP..... hard to say but I don't see McCain getting it, I don't see the crown being handed to Guiliani or Pataki either. But I do see the GOP heading more centrist pissing off the Religious Right with their decision and losing big, the GOP may even pick someone they know will lose, simply so they can show the moderates how badly the party needs to stay in favor with the Religious Right.... (but this is dependant on a somewhat respectable Dem Congress.... if the Dems come off in Congress as lousy.... the GOP could run Kermit the Frog in '08 and win.)

Loquitur, so you mean to tell me that you don't like spending some of the highest taxes in the country but still receiving below average public services?

At least the SUNY system is good.

People in NYC pay THE highest taxes in the country, Desal. But you know what? The services in NYC until about 12 years ago were so bad that right now the place seems to be nirvana, so I'm really not complaining. Maybe it's just perspective. I might feel differently if I had lived elsewhere.

Doesn't mean we dno't have a dysfunctional, corrupt state government. The clamor about earmarks at the federal level is comical - the Albany people have raised it to a new level.

folk are discussing the publc constructions of clinton and obama for the democrats (amongst other things)--what about mccain for the right?

caveat: i think that one of the fundamental problems with the american electoral system is the length of the campaign--which seems more about favoring the most heavily financed campaign over all others----and so is about generating signs of twtching "life" to attract pollination from money-bees--and only secondarily (at best) about informing voters of anything. i see no reason why this particular sporting event--the primaries before the primaries, the horserace between presidentpotentials--has tog et underway now. it is as irritating as the way in which xmas spreads itself into the whole of november, knocking up against halloween as the signal for the annual onslought of dreadful music and capitalist cheer to get under way.

that said, i wonder what folk who have the stomach for this money-season think of the article by sydney blumenthal that appeared in this morning's guardian about mccain. do you think it accurate? why or why not?
i think that if this is anything like accurate, mccain is far more unelectable than anyone the democrats are floating now...but i am not sure, so.

source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...999819,00.html

RB, right now Giuliani outpolls McCain among the "base" - which, to me, as a NYC resident, is amazing.

Yeah, but his indiscretions such as divorcing his wife for some woman 20 years younger or something, and I've heard he has had others, haven't reared their heads yet.

One thing about the national voting majority, they will see an adulterer and whether he has good policies or not and he'll lose their vote.

I wonder........ the "base" seems to know about Giuliani being gay-friendly and pro-gun-control and just shrugs. I don't know how sanguine they'll be about the adultery part.

Not only that but he tongue kissed the woman on national tv at the first New Year's Eve broadcast after 9/11. Of course, that stuff doesn't bother me - I could care less, but the hyenas will run with it.

I guess it's going to depend on people's priorities. Most people were pretty damned impressed with Giuliani's leadership skills in the aftermath of 9/11 and I would guess they would be willing to cut him some slack in his personal life. I live in NY and benefitted from his mayoralty, which was overwhelmingly positive, but I do have some other issues with him (for one thing, he isn't too good about dissent). I just don't know how people in other parts of the country will take to him - he's not warm and fuzzy, and much of the rest of the country doesn't much care for NY - and he is very New York.

I can never vote for Hilary. While I will give you she is bright, ambitious, smart I do not feel that she is worthy of my support. All her talk for years now about healthcare she has yet to ever do anything for it (until she announced her running for president). No one mentions but she used to be on the Board of Directors of Wal-Mart, which is known for having horrible healthcare plan.

I am disgusted by her initial run where her husband gave her a nice gift by pardoning a group of individuals from New Square. That community votes in a block and by pardoning these men they literally bought a whole group of individuals.

It is not like she has done that much for us as our senator that anyone else can do (well unless you want to talk about her useless fight against video game companies). This is just a few small reasons why I dislike her.

Needless to say, it is a no to Hilary for me.