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

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Bush and Carter had experience as Gov.'s - then again, so did Clinton

Did Bush finish his term as governor?

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Meh - I did it and it wasn't that painful

Did you have a little liquid help darling?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Did Bush finish his term as governor?

I believe he was 1994-98 for the first term and then 1998 -99 for the second term. He was actually not a bad gov. for Texas in that he successfully sponsored legislation for tort reform, increased education funding, set higher standards for schools, and reformed the criminal justice system. He also used a budget surplus to push through Texas's largest ever tax-cut of two billion dollars.

He also did the religious stufgf like extending government funding for organizations providing education, alcohol and drug use and abuse prevention, and reduction of domestic violence, so long as those organizations are religious - and, my personal fav. pandering - he proclaimed June 10, 2000 to be Jesus Day in Texas, a day on which he urged all Texans to answer the call to serve those in need

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Did you have a little liquid help darling?

Actually soon thereafter - and it was a barnburner

[HejiraNYC]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Probably. But I've been wrong about a few things. I'm still not sure that he will be the nominee.

I know nothing about nothing... but for some reason I feel that the Hillary camp has one more nuclear device up their collective sleeves. I'm not sure what it is... but I have a hard time thinking they would keep fighting so hard on this uphill battle unless they had some kind of an extreme contingency plan to fall back upon; they must know something that nobody else knows. I'm not saying this is even remotely likely, but for all we know, Hillary could very well threaten to leave the Democratic party and, in the process, take all of her supporters with her- guaranteed doomsday for the Dems. I mean, she is 60, she and Bill have left their mark on history, she's filthy rich and it really is now or never for her; I doubt that she will be physically capable of doing this again in 8 years. She is the underdog in the race, but she still is party royalty, and she can inflict incalculable damage if she was so inclined. And given the horrible treatment she has received from her party recently, I wouldn't blame her if she did retaliate, although I would be shocked.

Another thing I have noticed is that there have been no new superdelegate endorsements for Hillary recently, whereas Obama's superdelegates are trickling in slowly. Sure, maybe it's because they see the writing on the wall and don't want to back a loser. But then again... maybe her camp is trying to create momentum by unleashing a huge block of endorsements all at once- possibly the day before the Democratic rules committee decides on the fate of MI and FL (May 31). Again, this is pure speculation... but I wouldn't put it past Hillary's campaign to pull some kind of D-day tactic like this.

[Hawkeye]

I keep going back to John McCain. I really like the guy. And for the most part I love what he stands for. He's big on acknowledging climate change unlike Bush, he wants to control spening, which I think would be good for our economy. But its so hard for me to get over his danmed support for continuing the war. That's an awseome way to reduce spending right there. We need to fly Stevie down to Arizona so she can tell him this:

"John, This isn't about winning or surrendering, It's about finances"

And if that worked to change his mind JM would 100 percent be my choice, until then, I'm very conflicted.

[HejiraNYC]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye

I keep going back to John McCain. I really like the guy. And for the most part I love what he stands for. He's big on acknowledging climate change unlike Bush, he wants to control spening, which I think would be good for our economy. But its so hard for me to get over his danmed support for continuing the war. That's an awseome way to reduce spending right there. We need to fly Stevie down to Arizona so she can tell him this:

"John, This isn't about winning or surrendering, It's about finances"

And if that worked to change his mind JM would 100 percent be my choice, until then, I'm very conflicted.

Thanks for your "other side" viewpoint. But considering that Hillary and Obama have similar viewpoints (as McCain) in terms of the environment and the need for energy independence, why would McCain get your support? And given the Clintons' record of balancing the budget, as well as Hillary and Obama's desire to end the war, why wouldn't you consider them?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye

I keep going back to John McCain. I really like the guy. And for the most part I love what he stands for. He's big on acknowledging climate change unlike Bush, he wants to control spening, which I think would be good for our economy. But its so hard for me to get over his danmed support for continuing the war. That's an awseome way to reduce spending right there. We need to fly Stevie down to Arizona so she can tell him this:

"John, This isn't about winning or surrendering, It's about finances"

And if that worked to change his mind JM would 100 percent be my choice, until then, I'm very conflicted.

I think McCain is a decent and honorable man. I also think he would be a decent president. My beef with him is a civil rights one. He wants to overturn Roe and throw the fags to the wolves.

I think he has the most realistic view on the war in Iraq in that I think he knows that we cannot immediately withdraw all troops and not likely suffer serious consequences. I think he is for a staged withdrawal in the near future, but the withdrawal will go more slowly than either pandering plan Clinton or Obama are currently selling. I think McCain is likely correct on this point, though I am loathe to admit it. For me, the one who can make the Iraqi govt. take control faster is the one with the winning plan and I am not sure an immediate withdrawal over the next year is the way to do that. I also think anyone (in general) who thinks that any of these three candidates with have all troops home in a year is not facing the reality of the situation.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I believe he was 1994-98 for the first term and then 1998 -99 for the second term.

Well at least he finished something.

[dontlookdown]

With the state most of the world is in right now, I think putting a guy in office with a serious anger-management problem, is a huge mistake. I appreciate that McCain served the country honorably, but I'm having a hard time with the idea of a prisoner of war (who's been tortured) negotiating international issues in a way that we would demand - having suffered through Bush's retarded cowboy diplomacy for 8 years.
The fact that he doesn't quite grasp the situation in Iraq or the rest of the middle east is scary especially when you factor in his geriatric senior moments that seem to strike daily.
And then we have Roe vs. Wade.
I think he's an awful candidate, even if he has done a lot in the past to work across the aisle.

[dontlookdown]

[QUOTE=HejiraNYC;755337]So what part of "g*****n America" and "the government created AIDS and infected black people" did I take out of context? And his recent performance before the Press Club pretty much confirmed what people had suspected all along- he's a hatemongering whack-a-doodle, and Obama is guilty by association.


If you understood the black community at all, and listend to Wright's rants in full, you'd get what he meant.
But you only want to hear the Fox News bytes.
He's referring to the history of blacks in urban America. The Aids comment was silly, but it referred to gov't testing on a black community generations ago.

But this is the big problem with all this Wright ****. Nobody is going to "get" him the way they want him to unless they want to understand. The only thing I've seen that spelled it out was his interview with Bill Moyers.

[gldstwmn]

I just got a phone call from Obama for America.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

I know nothing about nothing... but for some reason I feel that the Hillary camp has one more nuclear device up their collective sleeves.

There have been persistent rumours for the last several months that there are more skeletons in Obamas closet. If anyone knows how to play this game, it's the Clintons.

[HejiraNYC]

Originally Posted by dontlookdown

If you understood the black community at all, and listend to Wright's rants in full, you'd get what he meant.
But you only want to hear the Fox News bytes.
He's referring to the history of blacks in urban America. The Aids comment was silly, but it referred to gov't testing on a black community generations ago.

N*****, please. For one thing, I am not white and, secondly, I grew up in an area that was 80% black and had mostly black friends. I know from racism (as a recipient of it!) and I know from anger and resentment. I also know that two wrongs don't make a right and that hate is hate, regardless of whether it is white-on-black, black-on-white, black-on-black, etc. I know that Wright was quoting another speech in his "chickens coming home to roost" sermon, but it was the way that he conveyed that message with such conviction and vitriole. And the only reason he would stand up there and deliver that speech within a sermon is because he believed it and wanted to spread his message of militant outrage. He is/was a terribly polarizing figure, even in the black church, and either you agreed with him or you didn't. Obviously Obama chose to agree with him until it no longer fit in with his political ambitions.

But this is the big problem with all this Wright ****. Nobody is going to "get" him the way they want him to unless they want to understand. The only thing I've seen that spelled it out was his interview with Bill Moyers.

So do you "get" Wright? I just hear a cuckoo clock when I see him.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dontlookdown

If you understood the black community at all, and listend to Wright's rants in full, you'd get what he meant.
But you only want to hear the Fox News bytes.
He's referring to the history of blacks in urban America. The Aids comment was silly, but it referred to gov't testing on a black community generations ago.

But this is the big problem with all this Wright ****. Nobody is going to "get" him the way they want him to unless they want to understand. The only thing I've seen that spelled it out was his interview with Bill Moyers.

Do you honestly think Rev. Wright is not a racist

And - I and I am sure Ed (HejiraNYC) read all of this guy's statements as opposed to talking them in a limited context from whatever source. Interestingly, every black person I know thinks Rev. Wright is, at the least, incorrect. Surely, they get it even though they may have a preacher just like that