Democratic Presidential Primaries 2008

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Azure

Hope and change Captain, Hope and change.

I really hope Obama isn't anywhere near what JFK was. Or the US is royally screwed.

Obama is running the same style, but I don't think he's the same kind of leader. Someone is coaching him pretty heavily though. I honestly don't know what kind of president Obama is going to be, because he's a massive contradiction in terms.

To me JFK was a terrible President who badly handled the Cuban Missile Crisis setting back the cold war by about 20 years, allowing one party hack after another to continue to control the Soviet Union. But he was a personality, and people basically mourned over his death because he was portrayed as a great leader and royalty.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I would disagree with that. Bill more or less ignored the world's turbulation, it wasn't "settled down."

Compared to now, that world was settled down. Whoever steps into that Presidents office is stepping into a combination or wasps nest, tarbaby, beartrap, mine field. The office of the president now is far more complex then it was even a few years ago when Clinton ran it. Unfortunatley, America cannot lob a few cruise missiles at a problem ala Bill and walk away from the problem.

Originally Posted by Gozer

The argument is about experience, it is undeniable that Hillary has more to draw from.

It scares me that the day Hillary gets elected* she'll install her own army of minions to execute her will. I'd prefer Obama gets elected and he'll bumble his way through a few months before he gets things going.

*hypothetical only

Everyone wants change, not succession government, and Hilary using her contacts from the Bill Clinton Administration to me is not a great thing. Again I don't count Hillary's time in the white house as relevant experience, its like giving my wife (if I had one) credit on her resume towards my skill set because she had dinner with me for 5 years and met my buddies.

Heck I guess she can do my job through osmosis.

There's no track record with Hillary, and you can't base her track record on her husbands.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Azure

Now you're comparing Obama to Reagan and Clinton? Hilarious.

Reagan was governor of California for almost 10 years, plus he ran two campaigns to become the Republican Presidential candidate and lost before winning the 3rd one in 1980.

Clinton was both Attorney General and governor of Arkansas before he became President.

No, I wasn't comparing Obama to them at all.

Gozer claimed that Hillary would be a better president because she's a known commodity and a recognizable name and face in international affairs. My counter-point was that both Reagan and Clinton were completely unknown on the world stage prior to their terms as president, but they seemed to do quite well, at least according to their respective party's supporters.

"Having a recognizable face when dealing with foreign diplomats" is a pretty meaningless quality in international relations and certainly doesn't give Hillary Clinton any advantage over Obama.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Gozer claimed that Hillary would be a better president because she's a known commodity and a recognizable name and face in international affairs.

I was countering the argument that she is less experienced. Quite different.

"Warrener is better at blocking shots than Phaneuf"
"You think Warrener is better than Phaneuf!"

[MarchHare]

I'm talking about elements of Obama's experience - do you think experience is not relevant, or that my points do not address his experience?

I would infer that you think experience is a detriment, but I'd like to hear what you actually think.

Certainly experience is relevant, at least to a certain point. Hillary Clinton and John McCain's "experience" didn't give them the wisdom to oppose the Iraq war back in 2003, when it would have made a difference.

Mainly, though, I'm curious why you think Hillary has more experience than Obama. In my opinion, being the spouse of a governor/president does not entitle one to claim that as their own experience. When it comes to experience in terms of number of years spent serving in elected office, it's as follows:

Clinton: 8 years in the US senate
Obama: 4 years in the US senate, 8 years in the Illinois state senate

At best you could argue they have relatively equal amounts of political experience (if you assume that Hillary's federal experience is more "valuable" than Obama's two terms in the state legislature), but then you get back to my earlier point that federal experience can't be that much of a difference-maker since neither Ronald Reagan nor Bill Clinton had any federal experience at all prior to becoming president.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I was countering the argument that she is less experienced. Quite different.

"Warrener is better at blocking shots than Phaneuf"
"You think Warrener is better than Phaneuf!"

See my previous post just above this one. How do you support your contention that she's more experienced?

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Compared to now, that world was settled down. Whoever steps into that Presidents office is stepping into a combination or wasps nest, tarbaby, beartrap, mine field. The office of the president now is far more complex then it was even a few years ago when Clinton ran it. Unfortunatley, America cannot lob a few cruise missiles at a problem ala Bill and walk away from the problem.

You're point is valid. The next president cannot tread water like Bill did.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Everyone wants change, not succession government, and Hilary using her contacts from the Bill Clinton Administration to me is not a great thing. Again I don't count Hillary's time in the white house as relevant experience, its like giving my wife (if I had one) credit on her resume towards my skill set because she had dinner with me for 5 years and met my buddies.

Hillary was active in politics doing stuff like pushing health care reforms, she wasn't sitting around boozing up and flicking her bean like you're hypothetical wife.
If nothing else, she is cognizant of the magnitude of the title. I think that counts for something.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

At best you could argue they have relatively equal amounts of political experience (if you assume that Hillary's federal experience is more "valuable" than Obama's two terms in the state legislature), but then you get back to my earlier point that federal experience can't be that much of a difference-maker since neither Ronald Reagan nor Bill Clinton had any federal experience at all prior to becoming president.

I would agree with the above.

I also contend that McCain blows them both away in experience.

[MarchHare]

Hillary was active in politics doing stuff like pushing health care reforms

Hillarycare was proposed very early on in Bill's first term and was a disaster for the Democrats. It pretty much single-handedly resulted in Newt Gingrich's Republicans winning both the House and Senate in the 1994 mid-term elections. After that fiasco, Hillary pretty much stayed away from the political limelight. If I was a Clinton supporter, I certainly wouldn't be bringing that up as a positive point when touting her experience.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Hillarycare was proposed very early on in Bill's first term and was a disaster for the Democrats. It pretty much single-handedly resulted in Newt Gingrich's Republicans winning both the House and Senate in the 1994 mid-term elections. After that fiasco, Hillary pretty much stayed away from the political limelight. If I was a Clinton supporter, I certainly wouldn't be bringing that up as a positive point when touting her experience.

I'm surely not a supporter of either Marxist running for the Democratic nomination.

For the record, I'm a Ron Paulette.


However, contending that unpleasant experience doesn't count is silly. She tried something, saw where enemies came from and their agendas, and presumably learned something from it. Failure and inexperience are not mutually exclusive - quite the opposite.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I would agree with the above.

I also contend that McCain blows them both away in experience.

No argument from me there...clearly McCain has the most political experience of any of the candidates.

Obviously that doesn't make him the best choice for president, though. Despite his image as a "maverick" Republican, he's supported pretty much every single Bush initiative for the past several years. If we agree that Bush's presidency has consisted of one horrible mistake after another (and I think we agree there), there's certainly some truth that McCain will be Bush 2.0 -- his own voting record supports that claim.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I also contend that McCain blows them both away in experience.

Yeah, McCain has probably forgotten more than Obama will ever know. The question is, as time goes on McCain will be forgetting more and more, just a fact of life, and does the Western world want someone with deteriorating faculties in charge?

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Yeah, McCain has probably forgotten more than Obama will ever know. The question is, as time goes on McCain will be forgetting more and more, just a fact of life, and does the Western world want someone with deteriorating faculties in charge?

He must know a hell of a lot of nothing then...Because he doesn't even understand elementary economic policy.

BTW, what's with all those "Honor McCain" signs at his little gathering?

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

He must know a hell of a lot of nothing then...Because he doesn't even understand elementary economic policy.

BTW, what's with all those "Honor McCain" signs at his little gathering?

Maybe because of his war experience.

I can say right now that as far as speaking styles go, Obama is going to whip McCain.

[OILFAN #81]

I for one am so glad that Obama clinched the Democratic nomination with 2,119 delegates tonight! CNN just confirmed this. Congrats on officially winning the democratic nomination! Goodbye Mrs. Clinton!

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

Hillary is limping on the same. In fact, she benefited more than Obama did in that decision. A few facts:
1) All parties involved agreed that those votes would not count because the state broke the rules
2) Obama removed himself from the ballot because that was part of the agreement that was reached.
3) Clinton won a very narrow majority in that vote when she was the only name on the ballot. She almost lost to 'Uncommitted'.

I see how you could think that Clinton is a strong and honorable candidate after an objective look at the facts.

1)All parties did not agree that those votes didn't count. The voters in those states did nothing wrong and voted because they wanted to be a part of the democratic process.

2) Obama chose to remove himself from the one ballot and then chose to remain on Florida's ballot and even visit there a couple times. His choices! Do you think maybe someone pointed out to him that Florida was going to be allowed to vote in the general election?

3) The votes she got there were still peoples votes and represent her share of the vote from that state.

The Democrats should have fixed this problem when it started by punishing the people responsible. They didn't and had to do the best they could with a bad situation on the weekend.
I think the half votes were a good idea but they shouldn't have generated votes for Obama that wasn't there. I can't see the people of that State taking kindly to that decision. Yes Hilliary would have won more delegates and it would have been a mini victory for her side but, in the end the super-delegates will decide it and they will certainly pick Obama. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that if Obama loses to Hilliary the black vote is gone too for at least this election cycle if not longer.
By being generous to Hilliary and those who voted in those States the Democrats would have retained many of those votes for the fall(especially if Obama took the decision with some grace).

Also they should have taken away the super-delegates from both States. The Super-delegates represents the leadership that bare the blame for moving their primaries ahead; Not the voters of those States.

As it stands right now the Democrats will probably lose both States and maybe the election because of their incompetance.

[Calgaryborn]

[the_only_turek_fan]

Clinton showing a lot of class right now.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

Clinton showing a lot of ass right now.

What else is new?

[the_only_turek_fan]

^ She seems like she is giving another campaign speech though.