Hillary Clinton vs. Barack Obama: Of the two, who do you like?
 

So, we all know about the long drawn out DEM primanry. Which of the two candidates would you/have you voted for/ which on are you cheering for?

I like Hillary. 'Nuff Said~

Hillary has my vote

Hil's my girl!!
:thumbsup:

Seriously, I want her to be president...

They're both tyrannical collectivists & I wouldn't vote for either of them if my life depended on it.

Where's Bob Dornan when you nee him?:lol:

Hillary all the way!!!!

I don't like any of the candidates. In any party.

I'm not sure whether I think our problems are the system's fault or the voters' fault.

Neither. Hillary is...well, Hillary. And Obama is the Antichrist. So....yeah.

It's really good to see that more people are actually voting this time around though. I think 90% of the "Bush complainers" I've come across didn't even vote. I think we all have a duty to vote to be honest. I'm sure Nader is having fun this time around.

Neither. Hillary is...well, Hillary. And Obama is the Antichrist. So....yeah.

It's really good to see that more people are actually voting this time around though. I think 90% of the "Bush complainers" I've come across didn't even vote. I think we all have a duty to vote to be honest. I'm sure Nader is having fun this time around.

Hillary.

- Jake

Obama. :wavey:

wow....that post literally made me lol!!
:lol:

seriously, my friend Rachel and I were discussing this the other day,
and neither of us trust him.
plus I just think Hil is way more experience, and McCain is way too old....not that I'm agest, but just for some reason, we need someone who looks like they can take control if needed, and personally, I don't think even Bush has that look. [Don't shoot the messenger, but I really think he looks like a monkey...:shrug:...]

That is part of the reason why I like Hil so much, she has a powerful presence, plus she has had experience in the white house.

Hello all-- I stood up for John Edwards in the Iowa caucus. Believe we will be all right with either Hil or Obama. Just my 2 cents worth. Best always, Madelow.:wavey:

But did you spit out your diet coke all over your keyboard? :shrug:

:lol:

Hillary, as of now, but if McCain names Dr. Rice as his running mate, I might have to reconsider. :shrug:

Could someone please clearly point out to me the differences between the two specifically? I can't tell from the debates or anything really.

Well, one voted to authorize war in Iraq- the other is on the record for opposing it since the beginning.

One also has tons of political baggage and a whole lot of enemies, and the other has an actual chance to beat McCain in November.

That's the long and short of it.

Uh... why?

I think she is an extremely intelligent woman. Unfortunately, she's been trapped under Bush, and I think if she had a chance to work independantly she'd have a chance to really show us what she's made of. :shrug:

Condoleeza Rice is the woman who made a Freudian slip when she referred to President Monkey as "my husband". She is with him because she wants to be.

I agree with that...
 

I basically have gotten to the point I consider myself as anti-politician! The ONLY good politicians are the ones on the dollar bills and coins, and they are all dead!

Um... her negligence and ignorance of intelligence pretty much allowed 9/11 to occur.

For the record, Obama was not yet a senator and did not vote on the invasion of Iraq. I think it's very convenient for someone who never voted on the war to go around telling everybody that he was against it from the very beginning. The fact is that he was not privy to the so-called intelligence at the time (which was subsequently found to be untrue), and is therefore unable to understand the situation that congress was in. By contrast, if Hussein indeed had weapons of mass destruction and they blew Israel off the map, there would have been hell to pay if we sat by and did nothing. Of course the reasons for war were a sham and a hoax, but there was no way for anyone to know at the time. Perhaps Obama had a crystal ball or something...

Also, please note that Obama and Clinton have identical voting records on war-related issues (that is, after Obama was elected to the senate).

Apparently even Reverend Wright and Obama are now enemies. Something seriously bad must have gone down between them, because Wright now seems on this crusade to kill Obama's chances at the Dem nomination.

Obama never had an opportunity to vote on IWR because he wasn't a senator then.

Obama has his baggage too; Rezko, Reverand Wright, the bull**** about him not taking PAC money or money from the oil industry or lobbyists.

As an aside, did anyone see Roger Waters (now missing) inflatable pig at the Coachella festival with "Obama" written on its underbelly?

I agree. What is this guy about anyway? Hope? We had hope in the Bush presidency too- hope that we'd make it through. Look how that's worked out. :lol:

Can you imagine if the Clintons had gone to a church that had named Louis Farrakahn man of the year? :shocked:

The governor of North Caronlina endorses Hillary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZZlvHFS_-A


I will be happy if 1) she wins Indiana and 2) she loses North Carolina by less than Obama lost Pennsylvania.

I didn't say that Obama voted on the war, did I?

There are many documented instances from the time surrounding the initial vote to authorize force up until the actual start of the war where (State) Senator Obama was quite vocal about being opposed to it. He spoke at several anti-war rallies in the Chicago area in early '03, weeks before the invasion.

This isn't a "hindsight is always 20/20" thing here- as an elected official, he was very clear about his position. If the Illinois House/State Senate held a symbolic vote on the war (as many states/municipalities around the country did), you would have had your vote.

Indeed, but as I said above, as a state official I do not think he was privy to the type and extent of "intelligence" regarding the weapons of mass destruction that officials within congress were privy to. Accordingly, I suspect that it was not such an easy, arbitrary decision, and I also suspect that there must have been a very compelling case, even if it was completely fabricated. I just think Obama's attempt to paint Clinton out to be some warmongering monster is specious and unfair. I am sure she, as well as other Dems, struggled with the decision to vote for the war; even John Kerry, who witnessed the tragedy of war firsthand, voted for it. If Obama was so sincere about his opposition to the war, he should have rebuked Kerry's endorsement.

Exactly, the only thing he promises is 'hope for our country' but Hil actually could accomplish things, and has a mindset agenda.

oh you should have heard the View ladies on this...god...I wanted to slap Hasselbeck upside the head...

Personally, I think that Hil will win the dem nod, if it is too close to call [which will happen], because the super dels like her, and plus she is WAY more qualified.

heh.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...etrainbaby.jpg

^^*gigglesnort*

:laugh:

George W. Bum**** has screwed up so royally and tarnished Republicans so bad that I could picture Democrats controlling the white house for 16 years IF Hillary Clinton were to preceed Barack Obama as President. But if Barack Obama swoops in and gets the nomination now, I don't think that will happen. It is probably now or never for Hillary, whereas Barack could benefit greatly from a possible eight years in the white house. When was the last time there was one, let alone two candidates that Democrats were so enthusiastic about? Everybody can end up happy if they are put in the correct order.

I've been steadfast in my support of Obama but what disturbs me is why both Democratic candidates now have to pander to the Christians ..what ever happened to the seperations of church and state that the writers of the Constitution so clearly intended? It should be no one' s f*#king bussiness what a candidate's religious beliefs are (if any)nor should they be discussed and dissected ad nasuem..McCain's stance on the Iraqi war is execrable but at least he didn't bother to show up at the preposterous 'faith and compassion ' forum the way Obama and Clinton did .I know plenty of atheist and humanist with far more compassion than most Christians I have come across so how absurd it seems to even equate faith with compassion.

I think they are trying to appeal to that elusive swing voter.

I am stealing this.

Obama!
 

Wow - I'm really surprised that people on this board are siding with Hillary Clinton.
Senator Clinton
began with such a promising start in January. For a while I saw her as a stronger candidate then both
Al Gore and John Kerry.

But since then, she has done nothing to win my
confidence. Instead I have witnessed an embarrasing
determination to pander to elderly voters and voters who
are not educated. She has mixed republican-style fear
mongering with an appaling level of racism that has left me with
only one qiestion: Why would any Democrat that's truly
paying attention buy into this disgusting mafia of a campaign?

We expected more from the Clintons and you will
find that smart voters in places like LA and San Francisco
will no longer welcome them.

After 8 years of sleaze & bigotry, this country will
no longer tolerate a candidate like Hillary Clinton.
They can race-bait to people in
Appalachia, but the rest of us are watching in
disgust with our jaws on the floor.

I'm disappointed to hear fans so easily condone the racism in this campaign.
But all that aside, I know Senator Obama has what it takes to actually get things done.
Clinton would have spent her entire presidency fighting off the Republican attack machine.



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/opinion/11rich.html



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/op...4a7&ei=5087%0A

Hillary at this point is just doing what she can to hobble Obama's chances in the general election..and yes her fear mongering and pandering to the god and guns contingent in Appalachia and other places is despicable..she is really coming across as a Medea willing to sacrifice the chance to get the Republicans out of the White House for her own aggrandizement .I don't think it is any coincidence at all that Meryl Streep deliberately patterned her power mad harpy in the remake of The Manchurian Candidate after Hillary.If she continues on her ruinious and deluded course we may have her to thank if we are looking at Mccain's old mug in the White House come January..If she really cared about what happens to this nation she will step down now and throw her support behind Obama.

I am not going to pretend that I know how it feels to live out in rural smalltown America, or how it feels to be elderly or trying to make ends meet in a faded rustbelt city. All I know is that a lot of the American population falls into one of those categories, and they are segments of society that don't receive a lot of attention. Sure, it appears that Hillary seems to have tapped into this underserved demographic with her populist speeches and platforms, but guess what? Obama is now doing the same thing with his "I was raised by a single mother on food stamps" narrative in his speeches. Everyone is pandering. Everyone is doing whatever it takes to get a vote. And I don't blame them at all- they need to do whatever it takes to get a non-Republican into the White House. However, where I do take exception is Obama's supposed high road moral superiority. At the end of the day, he is playing the same dirty politics as anyone else, except he has brainwashed a bunch of yuppies with white guilt into believing he is somehow different.

Put down the Huffington Post and step away. She is hardly fear mongering. Yes, I think the whole 3AM telephone call business was a bit tacky, but I hardly call that fear mongering. But it does raise a valid point. Put another way, do I want a newbie who has failed to serve a single term in the senate, that has not sponsored any meaningful legislation, who has voted "Present" on over 100 occasions, has hardly traveled, hardly exposed to foreign policy issues, has never served in the military, to make critical decisions if the nation is under attack?

I would tend to disagree, especially since Obama has not made much progress with Latinos. And the gays are certainly uneasy about his background with the notoriously homophobic black church and prominent homophobe evangelists like Donnie McClurkin. It is no accident that she won CA by double digits on Super Tuesday.

Can you please name me one instance where she race baited? Sure, the Obamatons are screaming bloody murder at Hillary's comments to USA Today about the fact that Obama is not appealing to the white working class Democrats. Sure, Jesse Jackson won the South Carolina primary. These are statements of fact. This is not mere conjecture or a hasty generalization based upon racist ideology. It's fact, fact, fact, fact. And it also is worthwhile to mention that if Hillary had a KKK leader as a spiritual advisor for 20 years, and she never renounced him or parted ways with him until she was forced to, she would have been thrown out of the race months ago. As far as I am concerned Obama totally got a pass on the Wright issue. Also, if Hillary had said "a typical black person," she would have been kicked out of the Democratic party, whereas Obama's "a typical white person" comment doesn't even cause a flicker. Hello, double standard?

Also, I am purely disgusted at the notion that white people who don't vote for Obama are considered "racists," whereas, when 92% of the black Democrats voted for Obama (rather than Hillary), that's considered appropriate. So, in other words, blacks voting based on race is okay, but it's not okay for whites. Talk about race baiting!

Based on......? His "stellar" U.S. senate record? :rolleyes: Surrounding himself with questionable, shady figures? His ability to give a good speech (with passages lifted directly from Reverend Wright)? What has he done for you lately? What I fear about Obama is that he will be indecisive and unwilling to take the correction actions when they are needed. I fear that he will be singing Kum Ba Ya with Iran while Israel gets erased off of the map. I fear that he will keep talking about issues rather than taking active, decisive steps toward implementing solutions. His "Present" voting record in the senate pretty much sums it up for me.

The first Clinton did that, yet presided over the longest peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history coupled with a budget surplus by the end of his term. The Clintons are a known entity, and much of their dirty laundry has already been aired and retired. They are by no means perfect people, but at least they know how the game is played, and they have extensive roots. Obama for me is still just a nice speech... and he can play a good game of basketball. :shrug:
[/QUOTE]