Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/public/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3
Vote for Clinton because she's more "Electable"?
I Read This
July 19, 2018, 09:47:08 EDT *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Lupinia Hosting Community, which hosts I Read This, is supported by donations!  Please contribute if you're able, click here for details.
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3
  Print  
Author Topic: Vote for Clinton because she's more "Electable"?  (Read 12023 times)
HeartBurnKid
Observer

Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« on: January 12, 2008, 21:52:22 EST »

Hi, long time IDT/BirdBrains reader, first time in the forum, but I've been catching up on BirdBrains and I just have to comment on the Jan 5 entry...

I agree with most of what you said, but as far as supporting Clinton... no, no, no, a thousand times no!

Clinton, frankly, is the consummate politician.  She panders and she politics and she doesn't really stand for anything at all.  She's a female John Kerry, and frankly, the only thing she has to her credit is her name.  And just like Kerry, she was for the war before she was against it.  She might fit the Democratic ideal of the "electable candidate", but frankly, where has that ever gotten the Democrats?

Hillary Clinton uses change as a slogan; Barack Obama actually seems to believe in it.  Not only that, but he's perhaps the first truly great orator on the U.S. political scene since Kennedy.  There's a reason why he's the only one that can get away with talking about things like "hope" and "change"; because he's the only one who seems to actually believe it, and he's the only one who is good enough to make others believe it as well.

And you cite the idea that the right-wing pundits will play the race card as a disadvantage; I see it as an advantage.  Truly, if the best they can do is shout about "Hussein Obama", then they've already lost.

They have nothing; they've broken this country, they've destroyed all goodwill both within and outside the US,  and not even they believe their garbage anymore.  This is the perfect time to nominate someone who has actual ideas, who has hopes, and most of all, who has plans to get us there.  Hillary Clinton is not that person; Barack Obama is.

Stop underestimating the American people.  Stop thinking about "who can win", and start thinking about "who can lead".
« Last Edit: May 19, 2008, 02:53:17 EDT by Felix J. Lockhart » Logged
Bringerofpie
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1485



« Reply #1 on: January 12, 2008, 22:46:33 EST »

Barack Obama has been a senator for three years. It's too early to tell if he can lead.
Logged

Set a new standard
Defy the odds
Step up.

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.21

Does anyone else get more liberal every time they take the political compass test?
Darkeforce
Banned
Political Thinktank
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7509


Forum's Punching Bag


« Reply #2 on: January 13, 2008, 16:48:33 EST »

Barack Obama has been a senator for three years. It's too early to tell if he can lead.


After the past 7 years, a neurotic hamster could lead better than the current president. Right now, I think how dedicated a candidate is to actual change is more important than their ability to lead. The White House hires dozens of people to make it seem like the president can lead, regardless of his actual ability.
Logged

"Going to War for Peace,
is like Screwing for Virginity."

"Politics. It's like having evil cake, and eating it, too" - Torg - Sluggy Freelance
Bringerofpie
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1485



« Reply #3 on: January 13, 2008, 17:10:01 EST »

Barack Obama has been a senator for three years. It's too early to tell if he can lead.


After the past 7 years, a neurotic hamster could lead better than the current president. Right now, I think how dedicated a candidate is to actual change is more important than their ability to lead. The White House hires dozens of people to make it seem like the president can lead, regardless of his actual ability.

I'm not saying that he wouldn't be an improvement, but the last great candidate (Bill Richardson) just dropped out.
Logged

Set a new standard
Defy the odds
Step up.

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.21

Does anyone else get more liberal every time they take the political compass test?
Darkeforce
Banned
Political Thinktank
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7509


Forum's Punching Bag


« Reply #4 on: January 13, 2008, 17:11:50 EST »

Barack Obama has been a senator for three years. It's too early to tell if he can lead.


After the past 7 years, a neurotic hamster could lead better than the current president. Right now, I think how dedicated a candidate is to actual change is more important than their ability to lead. The White House hires dozens of people to make it seem like the president can lead, regardless of his actual ability.

I'm not saying that he wouldn't be an improvement, but the last great candidate (Bill Richardson) just dropped out.

Kucinich and Gravel are still hanging in. So long as they're there, I won't say the last great candidate is gone.
Logged

"Going to War for Peace,
is like Screwing for Virginity."

"Politics. It's like having evil cake, and eating it, too" - Torg - Sluggy Freelance
Bringerofpie
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1485



« Reply #5 on: January 13, 2008, 17:17:06 EST »

Barack Obama has been a senator for three years. It's too early to tell if he can lead.


After the past 7 years, a neurotic hamster could lead better than the current president. Right now, I think how dedicated a candidate is to actual change is more important than their ability to lead. The White House hires dozens of people to make it seem like the president can lead, regardless of his actual ability.

I'm not saying that he wouldn't be an improvement, but the last great candidate (Bill Richardson) just dropped out.

Kucinich and Gravel are still hanging in. So long as they're there, I won't say the last great candidate is gone.

I thought that they had dropped out as well. My mistake. Either way, none of the great candidates can go to the debates.
Logged

Set a new standard
Defy the odds
Step up.

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.21

Does anyone else get more liberal every time they take the political compass test?
Naman
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 355

Your Friendly Neighborhood Misanthropist


WWW
« Reply #6 on: February 04, 2008, 02:10:26 EST »

What the hell? Hillary more electable??? At worst from what I've seen, people disagree with Obama on some things. Many people from every walk of life outright hate Clinton, and refuse to vote for her. (Myself included.) Clinton as president would practically be like 4 more years of Bush, only with the mandate that all citizens must purchase health insurance from private companies, or be fined for not doing it, with a subsidy for people too poor to afford it, which is still forcing people to participate in the broken medical system, and feeding it money. Have you people watched her speeches? She's faker than a Southern Californian blonde's tits! She's exactly the kind of politician everyone stereotypes all politicians as.

Obama, on the other hand, reaches out to the people, and he's got a great deal of sense, and seems a lot more in tune with the populace than anyone else. He knows what we really want: for America to be _America_ again, not Republican America or Democratic America. And he's got incredible amounts of eloquence and charisma, which are the things we need most in a president. I keep hearing "experience" thrown around a bunch, but that's BS. The office of President is not a dictatorship, it's a figurehead for our nation. Smart Presidents pick good advisors and delegate efficiently, and I am certain Obama would better do this than Clinton. Clinton would do the same BS as GW Bush did; taking on a staff of corporate and corrupt politico buddies.

And more and more people are (thank gods) seeing her for what she is and abandoning her. Most of the support for her was because she would be the first woman president if elected, and because she's the wife of a former decent president.

You people have seen me post around here, presumably. You know that I'm a bitter, cynical communist who hates both the Republicans and the Democrats. I've been studying the candidates in the upcoming election, though, and Obama is something special. I can see the incredible potential in him, which he very realistically could realize if elected. If he gets the nomination, it won't be a choice between the lesser of two evils, it will actually be a choice even people like me, with so little faith in humanity, will jump to make given the opportunity.

Hillary Clinton is more of the same bullshit we've had since Reagan. Barack Obama actually gives me genuine _hope_ that this country, my country, could get a little bit more sane, and a little bit more worth living in.

Please, if you haven't, listen to his speech after the South Carolina primary election: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8mG5qfDXL4

Also, at this point, it's pretty much a sure thing that McCain will win the Republican nomination, and despite the rancor towards the Republican party as of late, Clinton stands _no chance_ against him. People like McCain, even if they disagree with him. I've met almost no one who wouldn't be anywhere near as bothered by his being President as Clinton. McCain vs. Obama is actually a moderately even match. Both are people the disillusioned on their respective sides can respect and be willing to vote for, as with middle-grounders. The rightists (except the neocons) despise Clinton, and the leftists who aren't die-hard Democrats don't like her much either.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2008, 02:23:49 EST by Naman » Logged

Capitalist philanthropy is like kneecapping someone, then paying for half of their medical bills.
Quis scribit ipsos scriptores?
FireyTiger
Campaign Directors
Talking Head
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 925


Keith Olbermann's Stalker, apparently...


« Reply #7 on: February 04, 2008, 13:59:04 EST »

You just took the words right out of my mouth <.<
Logged


Quote from: azdb7
I'm sorry, you still seem to think your opinion is relevant.  Please re-examine the earlier posts and try again.
Laserlips
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 365


« Reply #8 on: February 04, 2008, 16:08:37 EST »

Disclaimer:  Registered Republican about to post.

PLEASE NOMINATE OBAMA.

If this race turns into Hillary/McCain, I might just move to Japan (or something equally drastic, like making enraged forum posts and being really grumpy for a few days).  I cannot in good conscience support Huckabee (who hates my religion) or McCain (I dunno, I guess he just hates people).  There is no way in Hell that I could vote for Hillary.  I'll promise you this:  If my party nominates McCain and yours nominates Obama, I'll be casting my vote for the Senator from Illinois.

I really like Obama.  I like Romney marginally more, mostly because of his economic experience (both in the private sector and the public) and the fact that he shares my moral beliefs.  Unfortunately, I'm pretty concerned that Romney isn't going to take very many of the primaries (except in Utah, where he has something like 84% of the vote in early polls).  PLEASE don't make me choose between Clinton, McCain, and whichever unfortunate souls run for the other parties.

There it is:  Nominate Obama, and you'll have quite a few Moderate Republicans run screaming from McCain.  Ganbatte Kudasai.
Logged

Economic Left/Right: -1.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.62

Mormons for Romney kind of sounds like it might be a palindrome, but it isn't.
Darkeforce
Banned
Political Thinktank
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7509


Forum's Punching Bag


« Reply #9 on: February 04, 2008, 18:10:15 EST »

Obama strikes me as a "yeah, okay. I could vote for him" candidate, while Hillary is more of a "the only way to keep from going to the prom alone is by taking the ugly girl" candidate. Unfortunately, all the good candidates have dropped out. The last "good" candidate is gone with Edwards dropping out, so we're left with candidates that a lot of people won't be able to vote for without at least wincing.

With that said, Obama is clearly the best of the chaff. When people talk about his inexperience, remind them that Abraham Lincoln had just as much experience as Obama did when he became president.
Logged

"Going to War for Peace,
is like Screwing for Virginity."

"Politics. It's like having evil cake, and eating it, too" - Torg - Sluggy Freelance
Bringerofpie
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1485



« Reply #10 on: February 04, 2008, 19:24:05 EST »

Lincoln was also the most hated president in American history until he was assassinated.
Logged

Set a new standard
Defy the odds
Step up.

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.21

Does anyone else get more liberal every time they take the political compass test?
Icedragon
Campaign Management Staff
Pundit
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1410


IDT colorist


« Reply #11 on: February 04, 2008, 21:02:27 EST »

Even after he was not liked for a while.
Logged

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else." - Teddy Roosevelt

"The internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck. It's a series of tubes!" -Sen. Ted Stevens
rogue-kun
Dog of Lysdexics
Campaign Management Staff
Pundit
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4057


When I grow up I wanna be a kid


WWW
« Reply #12 on: February 04, 2008, 21:44:23 EST »

There all the have Harry S Truman approval ratings were as bad as Bush Jr's, but history remembers him very favoribly
Logged


 It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the dew of the mountain that thoughts acquire speed; the hands acquire shakes; the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Economic Left/Right: -7.38 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.79
This message is encoded with ROT26. Decoding is punishable by law under the DMCA.
Rogue's Weyr Rogue's Rabblings
Laserlips
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 365


« Reply #13 on: February 05, 2008, 17:26:43 EST »

I can't think of John Edwards as a great Democratic candidate; I can only think of him as the guy who gave the "Two Americas" speech.  Remember that one?  The one where rich Americans live in tyrannical dominance over the innocent and helpless poor?

And what else was he doing while pandering to class envy to get votes?  Why, he was building a 106-acre mansion--right across the street from a trailer park.

How people think that ROMNEY is hypocritical when Edwards was in the race, I don't think I'll ever understand.
Logged

Economic Left/Right: -1.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.62

Mormons for Romney kind of sounds like it might be a palindrome, but it isn't.
Darkeforce
Banned
Political Thinktank
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7509


Forum's Punching Bag


« Reply #14 on: February 05, 2008, 20:02:15 EST »

I can't think of John Edwards as a great Democratic candidate; I can only think of him as the guy who gave the "Two Americas" speech.  Remember that one?  The one where rich Americans live in tyrannical dominance over the innocent and helpless poor?

And what else was he doing while pandering to class envy to get votes?  Why, he was building a 106-acre mansion--right across the street from a trailer park.

How people think that ROMNEY is hypocritical when Edwards was in the race, I don't think I'll ever understand.

Easily. Edwards actually helped poor people, while Romney tried to buy the election. You are allowed to treat yourself when you're doing good at the same time, you know. Besides, who says Edwards won't be giving lots of support to people in that trailer park? You're just prejudiced against Democratic candidates, I think. Your attitude seems to suggest that Republicans can do no wrong and Democrats can do no right.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2008, 20:04:09 EST by Darkeforce » Logged

"Going to War for Peace,
is like Screwing for Virginity."

"Politics. It's like having evil cake, and eating it, too" - Torg - Sluggy Freelance
Pages: [1] 2 3
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!