Strange Famous

Its the equivalent of voting for George Greghan dancing in front of you jeering "four more years boys, for more years"

Hillary CANNOT win an election.

It has nothing to do with her being a woman, and everything to do with her lacking charisma, likability, electability - not to mention being a hate figure of the right. She is shrill, angst ridden, sharp, and unsympathetic. Her husband may have been a buffoon, but at least he had charm.

I have little doubt that Hillary is more intelligent than Obama, and they dont seem to have many key differences of key policy... but Obama is personable, charismatic, and able to come across as earnest and decent. He would certainly win a presidential election.

It will be a disaster is Hillary is selected for the Democrat party... its the equivalent of selected Howard Zinn as your candidate, but without even having the short lived joy of the moral high ground for the left wing. if she wins the primary, you can bet on 4 more years of the Republicans, you can take it to the bank.

I do not understand how people can risk throwing away a general election which should be impossible to lose by flirting with the selection of such a bad candidate.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Willravel

Right now a centrist sock puppet could beat McCain. Hillary would beat McCain and we'd end up with the same two families in the white house for 24 years.

Strange Famous

I think you under-estimated the impact of Hillary.

The % of voters who vote for political reasons is under 50%

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

MuadDib

And the brain-washing of the Obamaniacs reaches fruition here.

That is the most ridiculous thing ever. Hillary is the more experienced politician and hasn't even begun to run against McCain. Many prominent Republicans have stated they would prefer Hillary to McCain, much less Obama who represents extreme liberalism to them. Furthermore, Hillary was killing Obama in the polls early on and things shifted after she started getting labeled as a dirty player. I won't contest that now, but the point is that she has run into difficulty against the Obama campaign because Obama doesn't have the record, experience, or age for the Clinton machine to drudge up much. Against that fossil McCain the Clinton machine will destroy the old coot! As a final analytical note, Obama might be able to pull that [s]he's-playing-dirty crap in the primaries against Hillary, in a party that wants to take the moral high ground, but the Republicans won't have those inclinations. They will attack him in every single way and his whining about it won't win him votes in the general election.

Finally, if you don't want to buy into my analysis you can look at all post-Super Tuesday polls. I'll argue they aren't forward looking or important since they neither candidate has begun competing against McCain, but if you want to take a freeze frame now they have Clinton winning by around 3% and Obama by 7%.

__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

Willravel

1) Hillary has been Senator from NY since 2001. She's a political baby along with Obama.
2) Google Abraham Lincoln, see how much experience one of the greatest presidents in our history has.

Cynthetiq

I thought that Hillary wouldn't win the senate seat, and she did. Twice.

While I don't like her politically. She has done some things that I agree with as state senator. There are other things I dislike her for, but that's with all politicians.

I don't think she's "unelectable".

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Bear Cub

You're forgetting Will...


Hillary's already served two terms

MuadDib

1) She's served multiple full terms, but I wasn't referring to her mere Senate experience as the measure of her political experience. She has been integral in multiple political campaigns (including presidential bids) not to mention years of working on the Hill trying to manifest her political will and broker deals.

2) I wasn't talking about experience in terms of ability to lead, that's a different point all together that I'd be happy to discuss. I was talking about experience in campaigning, specifically in defeating Republican hardhitters.

__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

Ustwo

I've always wondered why Lincoln is considered the greatest president in our history when his election sparked a rebellion and half a million or so American dead.

The problem with history is the true great ones win before it starts and history gives them no accolades.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Willravel

McCain has been in Washington for, what, 30 years? Yeah, Hill is a baby. In addition to that, after reading her record, it's clear that most of her decisions have been about walking the fence and then going with what's popular, even when it's contradicted what she's done in the past.
Who cares about experience campaigning? I have more experience than both of them combined when it comes to being involved in campaigns, but I probably would have trouble beating McCain (because I'm 24 and socialist).

BTW, McCain is to republican hard hitters as Maggie Simpson is to hardcore anime.

ratbastid

I think part of Obama's appeal is that he seems like he'd actually be a good PRESIDENT, not just somebody who knows how to win an election.

Willravel

Well for one he got elected despite having almost no political experience and virtually no education. I mean even dubbuyuh was ivy league. The Civil war was coming whether Lincoln wanted it or not, but he won the war and handled the reconstruction like a fucking champ. The reintegration of the Southern States was some of the best work done by any president.

roachboy

i dont know comrades...i watched the last democratic debate pretty closely and i saw two intelligent, informed and articulate people. both are a best centrist for my taste. personally, and both are prone to bouts of vagueness, but in the main, i didn't see anything at all like the "hillary" that is described above. i don't agree with her, but it's actually for ok reasons, in that they're about something beyond whether she is "liberal" in general or an element in one or another rightwing hallucination. these images of hillary clinton float about like some gas-driven spores, just out and about on their own la la la. sometimes they land on otherwise reasonable people and the odd metallic probes they send into the skull of their host organisms generate strange reactions, baroque but stereotyped distortions in what the host organism thinks and writes, kind of like those little dudes you see when you take dmt, you know, the ones that talk to you like the parents on the peanuts but sped up----yes, clearly a spore invasion of some kind is afoot.

you'd think the conservatives would worry about spores.
they get so worried about the body national being violated, particularly from south of the border if you know what i mean. behind the defenses like... where you're not looking. and who's looking for spores?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

MuadDib

The topic of this thread is Hillary's ability to defeat McCain so I think her experience campaigning is quite on point here. Moreover, McCain's not being a hardhitter is the every point... she will crush him once she starts to engage him. Lastly, every politician compromise and some change positions (even Obama; for example his position on marijuana legalization) what's important is that they grow in the right direction.

By the way, I'm 26 and have been actively involved in political campaigns at all levels since high school. Comparing your experience to that of Hillary or Barak's is as ridiculous as it is insulting to both of them.

__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

Willravel

good to see you (in a manner of speaking), roachboy. in honor of your triumphant return, i am not using caps for this post.

i think the concern here is over hillary being unapologetic regarding her war vote. here's something nutty that everyone seems to be forgetting: they both vote for the patriot act. this is the main reason i was supporting kucinich until he dropped out, and quite frankly it's why i'm not head over heels for obama. neither has apologized.

MuadDib

I couldn't agree more. I'm sure at some level a part of my support for Hillary comes from my internal backlash against ridiculous Hillary-hate. And that actually brings us back to the original assertion in this thread; that that hate will stop a Hillary win. Other than the points I originally made, I have to add that this hate has existed since she tried to push universal health care through as the first lady in her husband's first term. She's overcome it repeatedly and I have no reason to doubt she will again.

__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

Willravel

Obama could not only beat McCain, but he seems to make better decisions in his position than Hil.
I have no problem insulting them, but it doesn't make me any less right. I worked on the campaigns of Barbara Boxer, Dianne Fienstein, Chuck Reed, and numerous others.

MuadDib

Agreed, and neither are my ideal candidate either. As you may remember Will, I was the massive Kucinich pusher on this forum back in '04. I have loads of respect for the man, but ultimately the election is about politics which is why I didn't donate or work for him this time around.

Ultimately, we aren't going to get an apology from either of them. I doubt it would mean much to me if I did anyway. I'd rather have whoever gets the job apologize through actions rather than words anyway and I do believe both candidates would do that. This is what I was talking about, moving in the right direction. They've both changed positions, hedged, etc., and really that's okay. What matters is if we can trust they will do what they say they will do now. I put that trust in both of them, honestly, and just prefer what Hillary says she will do on a policy level.

Look if you honestly think you have more political experience than Hillary or Barak you're superiority complex will have to be addressed by a professional psychologist and not me. Some of the campaigns I've worked on include Bob Kerry, Ben Nelson, Chuck Hagel, David Hahn and with the Gore campaign in Iowa and the Kucinich campaign both in Iowa and as the president of my colleges student chapter; nonetheless I have the humility to realize that my experience pales in comparison to that of the actual candidates who literally are the campaign, at every level and at every stop. All I'm saying is that both candidates are damn fine Americans and you should have a problem being insulting towards either of them considering their contributions to our country.

__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

Willravel

Like not leave Iraq?
You want me to be "addressed by a profession psychologist"? Don't make me call the Grammar Master, The_Jazz. I'll totally do it. I'm loco.

Obviously I was exaggerating before when I said I had more experience, considering that I've only been a gofor and lower jobs like that on campaigns. Jesus, I was just surprised that you actually started formulating a counter argument about why I wasn't as experienced. If I said I was taller than Shaq or had more ladies than Cynth you won't think I'm serious, right?

Neeways, experience CAMPAIGNING, doesn't necessarily mean anything, considering that Barack and Hillary are neck and neck. Bam.

dc_dux

I'll be voting or Obama on Tuesday, but I agree with Roachboy that they are both "intelligent, informed and articulate" with Obama being the more traditional liberal and Clinton the more centrist DLC democrat....although on many issues there are few distinctions between their past voting records and current campaign positions.

Cliinton is far more experienced then some seem to think....going back to serving as an attorney on the House Judiciary Committee staff for the Nixon impeachment and her work as a lobbyist/advocate for the Children's Defense Fund before marrying Bill.

And I would never underestimate the ability of the Clinton campaign machine which is far more experienced that Obama's. If Hillary wns the the nomination, she will have my full support and I have no doubt that she would run an effective winnable campaign against McCain.

One thing attracted me to Obama more than anything else. He is the only candidate in either party who speaks about bringing the country together, and he does so with passion and conviction.

Clinton, McCain, (Huckabee, Romney, Edwards,...) seem to be more interested in perpetuating the divide then acknowledging that it needs to be fixed.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

MuadDib

Both say they will leave Iraq. Hillary says 60 days into her presidency and has been saying that for a while.

More importantly, I've gone back and corrected my misspelling (not the same as grammar) for fear of The_Jazz and your loco-ness. Please spare me.

And as for campaigning experience, my only point was that Hillary's experience would give her an edge on McCain (not that either candidate would need it and not that Barak doesn't have things giving him an edge as well). Again, either candidate would beat McCain if the election were today according to the most recent polls, that's what matters. Hillary and Barak are essentially neck and neck, the former has a slight edge at this point but I expect it to disappear by the end of February, reassert itself slightly once we get to Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, then we can go into the convention split and either do something with Michigan/Florida (count them entirely or partially or allow them to revote) or broker some other ridiculous deal resulting in, I think, a Hillary win, but either way we'll end up with a candidate that will soundly defeat McCain.

__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

Willravel

Ahem, but "profession" instead of "professional" is a grammatical mistake, not a spelling mistake. You spelled professions just fine.

As for Hillary on Iraq: precedence says otherwise. Maybe you remember her stance on health care. In addition, it's the same thing Bill did in 1991.
http://www.observer.com/2008/hillary...too?page=0%2C1

Johnny Rotten

As it turns out, she said she didn't have a timetable in the last debate. This is the first I've heard of "60 days," actually.

Unfortunately, as is typical with political discussions, the title of the thread is total flame-bait. I believe there's more than a little truth to it, but you're going to have Hillary supporters come into the thread steaming mad because of how it's titled.

Personally, I think her supporters underestimate how much the right wing is galvanized against her, and has been from the beginning. I've talked to many people on the left who would either sit it out or vote McCain if she got the nod. I haven't heard anything like that with regards to Obama.

In the end, her experience comes with too much baggage and too many closet skeletons; things like being on the board of directors of the most anti-union corporation in the United States, and never speaking up in their favor; overstating her role in the moderate improvement of Arkansas healthcare; overstating the amount of time she actually held a civil service position before becoming senator; downplaying her former law firm's ties to Wal-Mart; getting entangled in thorny campaign funding issues during her 2000 senatorial campaign; sending out nasty fliers that say Obama doesn't support women's productive rights; saying that he studied in a madrassa in Indonesia; saying he's a slum lord; the list goes on.

As ratbastid said, Obama is acting presidential while Hillary is bent on winning the election. Rumors fly that she's furious about Obama challenging her ascendancy -- that it's not his "time," as though we're playing a game of musical chairs. Never mind the uncomfortable connotation that he simply doesn't know his "place."

Also, I was born in '78; I have never seen an election that didn't involve a Bush or a Clinton. That just doesn't seem democratic to me. It sounds more like warring dynasties. I don't want to see the same old power players in the White House again, only this time of the Clinton royalty instead of the Bush royalty. I want to see a country brave enough to elect a person of mixed parentage, who doesn't know their own father (a Muslim, no less), who smoked dope and not only admitted it but said that inhaling was the point; who walks up to a stage and galvanizes people not against Republicans, not even against their opponent, but against the politics of Washington that have pushed our economy and our global standing to the threshold of no return.

That person is not Hillary Clinton.

__________________
"The idea that money doesn't buy you happiness is a lie put about by the rich, to stop the poor from killing them." -- Michael Caine

MuadDib

By that logic there is no such thing as a spelling mistake ever, as whatever got spelled, rather an actual word or not, was spelled correctly for it. This matter clearly boils down to intent. If I meant to write profession instead of professional then it would be a grammar error, but as you've clearly noticed professional is what I meant, thus making it a spelling error.

Anyway, so her ploy (from the Observer? What kind of a socialist are you, anyway =P) was to play the Iraq vote politically safely? Listen, Congress was given faulty information by the administration, execution did not culminate as planned, and virtually the entire party wants to undue the impact of that vote. Yeah, I wish Hillary hadn't voted for Iraq and that Barak would've been in the Senate at the time to vote against it as he said he would have; not that it would have changed anything, but it would make me happier. But that didn't happen and we live in an a world over five years later and what I care about now is not pointing the finger but fixing the damage. I believe both candidates are committed to that goal and will do what is in their power, if elected, to that end.

__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

Johnny Rotten

The Geneva Convention and U.N. Security Council specifically forbid the military action we have taken in Iraq. It doesn't matter what intel you have; it was and is in violation of international law. That's why Obama gave that speech in 2002 against the war. There was no clear and present danger, no imminent threat, and no evidence of import. Obama made a call based on judgment and backed by the rule of law and the Constitution.

That's why Obama said in the last debate that it was important to be right on day one, not merely ready.

__________________
"The idea that money doesn't buy you happiness is a lie put about by the rich, to stop the poor from killing them." -- Michael Caine

MuadDib

I'm certainly not going to defend the 'rightness' of the war in Iraq, but legally it is solid as far as the United States Congress is concerned. The Geneva Convention has undoubtedly been violated by our conduct in Iraq, but that has nothing to do with Senator Clinton's vote. Security Counsel Resolutions 1441 & 1483 respectively found Iraq in violation of its Kuwait resolutions and implicitly authorized the US & UK to stabilize Iraq as occupying forces. Even without either of those Resolution 678 granted the US the authority to use all necessary force to bring international peace and stability to the region. Lastly, Bush may have violated the Constitution by acting without initial Congressional authority, however Congress did ultimately authorize the action and, perhaps more importantly, Doe v. Bush effectively cleared the 2002 Resolution of Constitutional challenge.

Now, I'll be the first to tell you that the war has been conducted illegally and without regard for law or human rights. But that isn't the fault of any legislator simply for voting to pass the 2002 Authorization of Military Force.

__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

Willravel

The Security Council said no, therefore 678 cannot be used to legally excuse the invasion. The invasion was a breach of Article 51 of the UN Charter, which is a valid US treaty and as such is US law. Under the UN Charter, there are only two circumstances in which the use of force is allowed:
1) in self-defense against an actual or imminent armed attack
2) and when the security council has authorized use of force
Neither of these situations existed in 2002 or 2003.

The reality is that the UN can't do shit when it comes to a member of the security council so all they could do was say "Don't say we didn't warn you, you idiots" and watch the whole thing go to hell in a hand basket.

Elphaba

Strange Famous, I'm curious as to how you came to your opinion regarding Senator Clinton.

Frankly, I'm curious as to how many people come to their opinion regarding the senator from New York.

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

Willravel

I was her biggest fan back in 1994. Unapologetically not only voting for, but speaking multiple times in support of he war managed to undo her healthcare battles in my mind, and then Clinton voted against the Levin Amendment to the October 2002 Iraq War Resolution, which would have required the President to conduct vigorous diplomacy at the U.N., and would have also required a separate Congressional authorization to unilaterally invade Iraq.(1) After this, Clinton decided it was her job to attack video games (obviously she had a lot of time on her hands in 2005). She voted in favor of a Senate resolution calling on the State Department to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps "a foreign terrorist organization". (1)

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary...States_Senator

MuadDib

It never came to a vote before the Security Council. The US/UK dropped their proposal when it became clear that it was would get vetoed by one of several permanent members. 678 is still valid international law and in the absence of said explicit no, it would still validate the action. Point is, regardless of whether you agree with the legal argument or not, I don't think Congress is blame for the illegality of the initial action they had no say in nor the later illegalities that came as a result of White House (or otherwise executive) policies.

__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

Elphaba

Will, I knew you would have a good reason for any position you took. My major objections to Senator Clinton are her votes in support of military action in both Iraq and Iran. Even so, if she becomes the nominee I will support her over McCain.

I'm curious about the "Hate Hillary" crowd and how they justify their opposition to her.

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

Charlatan

I wouldn't say that I hate Clinton but rather like what I see in Obama better.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Tully Mars

You think Lincoln's election sparked or started the civil war? By the time Lincoln took office in on March 4, 1861 the nation was in a full tilt nose dive. Causes and sparks for the Civil War can be debated but most historians would cite events in the early 1850's or before. The activities of John Brown such as the "Pottawatomie Massacre" have often been offered as the cause. Personally I think looking for one event or cause denies the complexity of the situation. But to say Lincoln sparked it is inane. His election may have been a tipping point, but it was no spark.

As for his legacy I think his leadership during and after the war speaks for itself.

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

Ustwo

Please don't call me inane, it annoys me, especially when you are using a very short post to do so.

Lincoln's election was not the only factor in the civil war by a long shot, but had someone with more apparent southern sympathies been elected perhaps the bloodshed would not have been so great, and perhaps civil liberties would not have needed to been suspended.

Yes his leadership was inspiring during the war, but his inexperience meant he had to learn some things the hard way and the hard way was the cost of lives, 1000's at a time.

Interestingly if say Lincoln had prevented the civil war from happening, and made an agreement which preserved the union without bloodshed, I'm willing to bet less people would think of him as 'the greatest president'.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Tully Mars

For the record I didn't call you inane. I stated I found your comment inane, big difference. In the future I'll consider using longer posts to point out comments I find inane. Though likely only when I feel they're needed to point out inane statements. It's possible I might even use larger words, but only if I think they're necessary to convey my position.

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

flstf

I think that there is a large percentage of the population that just doesn't like Hillary. I don't quite know what it is that makes a person come across as negative but many people feel she has it. I have met people in my personal life that I did not like from the get go and cannot explain it.

Also I suspect there are many who do not like the idea of a polititian's spouse riding in on their coat tails. Apparently the same feelings don't seem to apply to polititian's children.

ubertuber

If you count the Vice Presidency in there and give Hillary 8 years, we'd be looking at 44 years with the same two families running the country.

Something about that bothers me. I doubt history would judge us kindly -- there must be people out there more qualified than those two families. That we would not see this is indicative that our political process may not be as open as we claim.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

sprocket

I agree with the OP. The Clintons are crooked, just as much as Guliani, GWB, and the majority of people know it. People are sick of criminals in the white house. The right has a lot of uncertainty about McCain, but if Hillary gets the nod, they will enthusiastically vote against her.

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

Willravel

I never said they voted no, I said they said no. And yes the US and UK dropped it. And we did it anyway. If 678 were valid, why would we have brought it before the UN? We wouldn't have. Congress should have had the knowledge of US law and treaties to see that their vote was illegal. Just as Illegal as banning free speech or bypassing warrants.
I'd take a giant dyslexic prawn running on a Christian Falangist Party of America ticket over McCain. I'd rather vote for Paris Hilton.

allaboutmusic

Wouldn't it be 36 years?