Well, Its Super Tuesday...

[JohnnyFlame]

Some wisdom from one of my favorite movies of all time.

Deceitful, two-faced she-woman. Never trust a female Delmar, remember that one simple precept and your time with me will not have been ill spent.(the crying Hillary)

You seek a great fortune, you three who are now in chains. You will find a fortune, though it will not be the one you seek. But first... first you must travel a long and difficult road, a road fraught with peril. Mm-hmm. You shall see thangs, wonderful to tell. You shall see a... a cow... on the roof of a cotton house, ha. And, oh, so many startlements. I cannot tell you how long this road shall be, but fear not the obstacles in your path, for fate has vouchsafed your reward. Though the road may wind, yea, your hearts grow weary, still shall ye follow them, even unto your salvation. (this one reminds of Obama's speeches)


Obama is the change candidate -- maybe what he should do is go out an hire a midget and get a broom for a prop!!!

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by llama64

I find it interesting that no one expects Obama to suddenly start drinking Colt45's and doing gangsta rap in the White House, and yet Hillary can't escape the fact she's a woman. Apparently being black isn't a problem but if you're a woman every emotion is watched and scrutinized.

America is completely messed up in a deep, deep way.

It has nothing to do with Hilary being a woman, or Obama being black

It has to do with two incidents where Hilary has gotten all teary faced when things get emotional.

To me, not presidential, I would never trust somebody to lead me that cries at the drop of a hat, or when things get to chaotic or confusing.

I like Obama, I think he has the right disposition for the job, what I don't like is his lack of experience and his woeful lack of foreign policy experience when America needs it the most.

We've seen what happens when Presidents are lame ducks or inexperienced in foreign policy.

If I was an American, I would want a president that doesn't get caught on an emotional rollercoaster, that doesn't have her husband or his wife tied up in the campaign (Dynastic succession), and someone that I believe can get the upper hand on anyone that he deals with.

Look, I don't like George W's politics, but I do respect his [FONT='Tahoma','sans-serif']decisiveness and his appearance of strength.[/FONT]

[FONT='Tahoma','sans-serif']I don't see that in any of the democratic candidates.[/FONT]

[CaptainCrunch]

Campaign speeche from the movie Distinguished Gentleman

TOMMY
We ran a positive campaign. We
campaigned on the issues. The
issue is leadership. Leadership
for the future. Ask not what you
can do for your country. The
people have spoken. The only
thing we have to fear is fear
itself. If you can't stand the
heat stay out of the kitchen.
Live Free or Die. And in
conclusion...read my lips!
(APPLAUSE and CHEERS)

[llama64]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

It has to do with two incidents where Hilary has gotten all teary faced when things get emotional.

To me, not presidential, I would never trust somebody to lead me that cries at the drop of a hat, or when things get to chaotic or confusing.

<snip>

That's my point. The incidents were not during official events or occurring while she was doing official state business. She did not have an emotional break down either.

Hillary Clinton has a reputation as being an unemotional robot with no feelings. She also has a track record of doing foreign relations in the capacity of a US Senator for many years without ever "crying at the drop of a hat".

Yet she tears up once when put in an emotional situation (probably accidentally on purpose) and she's a woman without any backbone and unfit to be President.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by llama64

That's my point. The incidents were not during official events or occurring while she was doing official state business. She did not have an emotional break down either.

Hillary Clinton has a reputation as being an unemotional robot with no feelings. She also has a track record of doing foreign relations in the capacity of a US Senator for many years without ever "crying at the drop of a hat".

Yet she tears up once when put in an emotional situation (probably accidentally on purpose) and she's a woman without any backbone and unfit to be President.

Perception is reality my friend. Its like when your growing up, you can build all of the schools and hospitals that you want, but you have sex with a sheep just once.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

It has nothing to do with Hilary being a woman, or Obama being black

Yeah, it does. There are plenty of people down here that will not vote for a given candidate for those exact reasons. There are some who will vote for those candidates solely because of those reasons as well. Don't kid yourself, these two candidates have their own bases, and they will appeal to them in what ever way they can.

It has to do with two incidents where Hilary has gotten all teary faced when things get emotional.

I agree with you 100%. Hillary makes me puke. She plays the dirtiest form of politics imaginable and would easily resort to turning on the tears to earn some votes.

To me, not presidential, I would never trust somebody to lead me that cries at the drop of a hat, or when things get to chaotic or confusing.

Again, completely agree. Unfortunately, I think Hillary doesn't cry except when it works in her interests. I think she's a cold hearted bitch who would push her own mother under the bus if she thought it could further her agenda.

I like Obama, I think he has the right disposition for the job, what I don't like is his lack of experience and his woeful lack of foreign policy experience when America needs it the most.

I think this is over-blown. His lack of experience is a good thing IMO. He is not entrenched in the Washington cesspool and is not tied in with think tank establishment (the real seat of power in Washington). His flack of oreign policy experience is also overblown. President's don't set policy anymore, they act upon what is set by the bodies that do establish policy and the actions of the agencies and departments that act on foreign policy.

The next President will have to be an effective communicator and negotiator more than anything. A new direction will have to be forged, and it will likely come from one of the many think tanks in Washington. The policy will evolve as the different agencies and departments start to work together again. That is why the foreign policy is so screwed up, because those departments have been siloed over the past 20+ years and they have become autonomous bodies that work against each other and paralyze the effort to provide support to the international community. That shapes the foreign policy as being ineffectual and disjointed. Getting the government bodies to work effectively again is the first and foremost issue facing the next President, and from that the "foreign policy" will evolve into something worth a damn.

We've seen what happens when Presidents are lame ducks or inexperienced in foreign policy.

Really, what is that? You can't cast Obama in the same role as Bush. Obama grew up internationally and understands different cultures. He can pickout most nations on the map, Bush couldn't find Canada. Obama has a lot more on the ball in this regard than anyone will give him credit for.

If I was an American, I would want a president that doesn't get caught on an emotional rollercoaster, that doesn't have her husband or his wife tied up in the campaign (Dynastic succession), and someone that I believe can get the upper hand on anyone that he deals with.

Exactly. This will not be Hillary in office, this will be Billary in office. You get a package, and as much as I liked Bill, I can't stand his ###### bag wife. She was a pain in the ass as first lady and some how made that role into a political position (one we don't vote for). I like the fact that the 22nd amendment limits the President to two terms. I think they should expand it to include the position of first spouse too. The Clintons had their time, its time to move on.

Look, I don't like George W's politics, but I do respect his [FONT='Tahoma','sans-serif']decisiveness and his appearance of strength.[/font]

[FONT='Tahoma','sans-serif']I don't see that in any of the democratic candidates.[/font]

There, I bolded the proper word so it is accurate. Bush portrayed strength, but everyone saw right through it. Sending the most powerful military around the world to kick the crap out of a malnourished and undefended nation is not a display of Presidental strength. A show of Presidental strength would have been to use the goodwill the world extended to your country after a terrible attack and turn that into international effort to rid the world of the scourge called terrorism. The display of Presidental strength would have been to go into Afghanistan with an international coalition, get Bin Laden, remove the Taliban, and then rebuild Afghanistan as the shining jewel of what international cooperation can do, and what the results of ending terror and oppression can do. That would have been the strong thing to do. What Bush did was the weak thing to do. It was not Presidental and will always be remembered as one of the darkest periods in American history. Bush claimed to be "the uniter" but all he did was divide. He split the world and he split his own country. The healing from his Presidental actions will take generations to recover from.

[CaptainCrunch]

Not really disagreeing with anything that you said.

Now let me ask you this, because I have to take it down its logical path.

Do you actually believe that Obama could negotiate any kind of international coalition agreement where America would naturally take the leadership role.

My gut says no, he's not saavy enough at this time. Give him a few more years, put him into some foreign policy commitee's and groom him for the presidential role.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Perception is reality my friend. Its like when your growing up, you can build all of the schools and hospitals that you want, but you have sex with a sheep just once.

Too True. But that perception is being forced undeservedly on Hillary for no reason other then that she is a woman.

If McCain or Obama did the same thing, in the same context, they would be regarded as modern men who have passion. But with Hillary, she's just an unstable woman who might get hysterical given too much pressure. It's sexism at it's finest.

btw Captain, your examples are awesome!

edit:

Lanny's got the right read on Hillary. She's sell her left nut to win this election. And that's exactly what it takes to beat the Republicans. That said, Obama is the best choice overall despite his naivety over Iraq.

[llama64]

I was talking to a friend of mine about the choice of Hillary or Obama. He had an interesting point.

Basically, with Hillary you know what you are getting. The people a candidate brings in are what matter and with Hillary, you know who they all are. There is no Dick Cheney hiding in the background. With Obama, no one has a clue who his people would turn out to be.

I am starting to agree with him. Too many people assume that a Presidency is just one person without realizing that there are actually upwards of 50 people involved.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by llama64

Too True. But that perception is being forced undeservedly on Hillary for no reason other then that she is a woman.

If McCain or Obama did the same thing, in the same context, they would be regarded as modern men who have passion. But with Hillary, she's just an unstable woman who might get hysterical given too much pressure. It's sexism at it's finest.

btw Captain, your examples are awesome!

edit:

Lanny's got the right read on Hillary. She's sell her left nut to win this election. And that's exactly what it takes to beat the Republicans. That said, Obama is the best choice overall despite his naivety over Iraq.

I think you're wrong.

You watch, once McCain has the nomination his age will become a huge factor...ever 'huger' than Hillary's 'feminine emotions'. We will see pictures where he looks old and frail, seems forgetful or is staring off into space.

I'm no fan of Hillary, but her tearing up doesn't make me think any less (or more) of her.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by llama64

I was talking to a friend of mine about the choice of Hillary or Obama. He had an interesting point.

Basically, with Hillary you know what you are getting. The people a candidate brings in are what matter and with Hillary, you know who they all are. There is no Dick Cheney hiding in the background. With Obama, no one has a clue who his people would turn out to be.

I am starting to agree with him. Too many people assume that a Presidency is just one person without realizing that there are actually upwards of 50 people involved.

How does he figure we know what we're getting? And how was Dick Cheney hiding in the background, he'd been at the forefront of conservative administrations for decades!

Maybe someone should ask Obama who his people will be.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

How does he figure we know what we're getting? And how was Dick Cheney hiding in the background, he'd been at the forefront of conservative administrations for decades!

Maybe someone should ask Obama who his people will be.

They will likely be Bill Clinton and his old friends from his administration. To assume otherwise is stretching it.

No one expected Cheney to be the true source of direction for the Bush Jr. administration.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by llama64

They will likely be Bill Clinton and his old friends from his administration. To assume otherwise is stretching it.

No one expected Cheney to be the true source of direction for the Bush Jr. administration.

Why is that likely? Are you saying that Hillary has the same viewpoints and therefore will employ the same advisors as Bill? If that's your contention I think it's a dangerous one to make. They are very different politically to be quite honest.

You think Cheney is 'the true source of direction' for the administration? What did you derive that opinion from?

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by llama64

They will likely be Bill Clinton and his old friends from his administration. To assume otherwise is stretching it.

No one expected Cheney to be the true source of direction for the Bush Jr. administration.

I dont know about that. Hilary has her own agenda and like Displaced said, they are very different politically.

I've heard rumors, however, that Hilary might nominate Bill to fill a spot on the Supreme Court.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

I've heard rumors, however, that Hilary might nominate Bill to fill a spot on the Supreme Court.

The robe and the bench? No one would ever know he was being serviced while the court was in session!

Seriously though, I think a prerequisite for serving on the Supreme Court should be that you have actually been a judge before. I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think Bill has been.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

I've heard rumors, however, that Hilary might nominate Bill to fill a spot on the Supreme Court.

Oh man... that would be hilarious. Bill went through an impeachment process on the basis that he was not moral enough to hold the Presidential office. And they want to put him on the Supreme court?

10,000 Republicans might simultaneously explode upon the announcement.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by llama64

Oh man... that would be hilarious. Bill went through an impeachment process on the basis that he was not moral enough to hold the Presidential office. And they want to put him on the Supreme court?

10,000 Republicans might simultaneously explode upon the announcement.

I don't think Republicans, in general, hate Bill Clinton as much as you might think. Certainly, there is an element that hates all democrats, but I believe many moderates like myself actually think Clinton was a pretty darn good President. Not perfect, for sure, but easily the best since Reagan.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Why is that likely? Are you saying that Hillary has the same viewpoints and therefore will employ the same advisors as Bill? If that's your contention I think it's a dangerous one to make. They are very different politically to be quite honest.

Many Democrats are supporting Hillary with the expectation that they are supporting "Billary". It's not as dangerous to make that argument as you might think.

You think Cheney is 'the true source of direction' for the administration? What did you derive that opinion from?

Well, it's certainly not George W. Bush. Perhaps using a value laden word like "true" is incorrect but Cheney seems to have more influence most in the administration.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

The robe and the bench? No one would ever know he was being serviced while the court was in session!

Seriously though, I think a prerequisite for serving on the Supreme Court should be that you have actually been a judge before. I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think Bill has been.

No pre-requisite like that. Harriet Miers wasnt a judge before her nomination. The only requirement is being a US citizen and being confirmed by the Senate.

Bill actually would have a good resume - Yale law, Governor, Rhodes Scholar, President (like Taft). The Republicans would be horrified, but it might be funny.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

No pre-requisite like that. Harriet Miers wasnt a judge before her nomination. The only requirement is being a US citizen and being confirmed by the Senate.

Bill actually would have a good resume - Yale law, Governor, Rhodes Scholar, President (like Taft). The Republicans would be horrified, but it might be funny.

Yeah, I know there is no such prerequisite....but I think there should be.

Myers was a terrible nomination.