I get the feeling that many Obama supporters are either right of center, or they are willing to sacrifice on many traditionally progressive issues in order to see 'someone new' in Washington?
I just don't understand the logic here, because by all accounts, Bill Clinton's presidency was an exceedingly popular one, in which ALL SEGMENTS OF THE POPULATION did well, unlike the current 'economic boom' (/sarcasm)
So, people would be giving up a LOT, in terms of their day to day quality of life and cost of living, just to have a new face in Washington, even though many people - perhaps even most of us, just can't AFFORD that.
New faces are for TV weather shows, not the Presidency..
Are people just not looking beyond the surface, or what?
>Obama's candidacy is fundamentally stronger than hers, and a poll blip doesn't change that.
when I read how much President clinton was disliked on say DK. and disliked is a mild word. Why hadn't this come out before? I did well financially during his presidency - helping me to survive now with my 401(k). I knew the Republicans around me hated him but all these Dems hated and continue to hate him. The posts were vicious. It's not healthy for the country to have all this bad kharma floating around.
Well, good luck to us all - since we are entering precarious financial waters. And Goolsby doesn't fill me with confidence.
at least, according to New York magazine..
But now two months have passed since Edwards dropped out--tempus fugit!--and still no endorsement. Why? According to a Democratic strategist unaligned with any campaign but with knowledge of the situation gleaned from all three camps, the answer is simple: Obama blew it. Speaking to Edwards on the day he exited the race, Obama came across as glib and aloof. His response to Edwards's imprecations that he make poverty a central part of his agenda was shallow, perfunctory, pat. Clinton, by contrast, engaged Edwards in a lengthy policy discussion. Her affect was solicitous and respectful. When Clinton met Edwards face-to-face in North Carolina ten days later, her approach continued to impress; she even made headway with Elizabeth. Whereas in his Edwards sit-down, Obama dug himself in deeper, getting into a fight with Elizabeth about health care, insisting that his plan is universal (a position she considers a crock), high-handedly criticizing Clinton's plan (and by extension Edwards's) for its insurance mandate.
yes, I've taken to watching it lately - he has toned down - but that will change of course.
Elizabeth as any good politician - said in essence don't believe everything you read.
she was also a good advocate on behalf of us - remember us (before the Candidate wars) - and healthcare - putting it pretty straight as to McCain's healthcare plan.
What issues is Obama more conservative on? In my book his foreign policy is what puts him to the left of Clinton. His willingness to speak with foreign leaders, his unwillingness to support a preemptive strike against a country that posed no threat and his unwillingness to support efforts to characterize the Iranian army as a terrorist organization set him apart (and to the left of Clinton). Care to suggest she is more liberal on these issues?
making her out to be..
These issues are all complicated, and you are insulting all of our intelligence with your attempts to distill them down into one or two lines of anti-Hillary rhetoric..
Believe me I understand the complexity of the issues at hand. I am more than willing to debate with you the merits of voting for the Iraq War etc. if you would like to try and argue that such a vote makes Hillary more liberal than Obama (the point of the post). For the interests of brevity, so that I don't have to write a novel anytime that someone claims Hillary is more liberal than Obama, I choose to simply point out the things that she has done that -- on their face -- seem like more conservative actions. Saying they are complicated does not excuse them away or somehow make them acceptable to a movement progressive. I'm sure that many of the issues about which you think Obama is more conservative are also "complicated".
It's always interesting to me when people make this argument about the economics of the Clinton administration. I'd ask you to look at who Obama's economic advisers are. That's right, the very people who worked for Bill Clinton (Robert Reich).
There is no guarantee that a Hillary presidency will repeat the economic success of her husband's presidency. In fact, it looks even less likely given the fact that the people advising Obama are the very ones who helped engineer that prosperity.
Finally, I have to say this: it is not 1992. Things are FAR WORSE than they were then. I think Hillary would be a good president, but I just think Obama has a much better chance of winning in the GE. I also worry about Hillary (as someone who voted for her for the Senate). Her work on health care was a disaster. I've also recently read reports that she argued against intervention in Rwanda (early on, when lives could have been saved) because it would detract attention from her health care initiative. Whether those accusations are true or not, I do remember the disastrous way she handled health care (preventing us from even debating the issue nationally for 15 years). I think it's a mixed bag with either of these candidates. I honestly think Obama has a better chance. But that's just my two cents.
i agree. Obama obviously has a better chance with help from the media and DNC leaders backing him, but I believe Hillary is stronger on the issues. I voted for her, I will vote for her again if I have the chance. the fact is Im disappointed on how her campaign has been run, man she needed to fire some of those retards in charge along time ago. Shes got some identity problems going on. Shes the fighter, the victim, the establishment, the underdog, or the liar; depending on how you look at it and how much you hate her. Personally, she is the fighter to me but whatever. Obama has the better chance and maybe with some better policies he could clinch it.
Besides how many more "internet booms" will there be to boost the economy like during the 90s.
I think Bill gets a bit too much credit for all the economic success of the 90s. I'm not saying he hurt, but he isn't the cause or the reason that the 90s were such a boon.
well circumstances like the internet boom can be attributed to one man
------Al GORE.
after all he did invent the internet hahaha, all joking aside: so searching through some of my amer. pol. books i found this.
[presidential success may depend less on personality than on circumstances under which the newly elected come into office. presidents become 'great' only when political circumstances allow them to]
circumstances like high gas prices, downing economy, a war,UHC, & domestic distress all spell 'greatness' for our next prez.
Was it Brit's posts here? Because those posts could be debated.
You know on the healthcare issue - she was a novice in DC and the opposing party fought it tooth and nail. They were particularly vicious. I have to say though - I should research this. anyone know of a document or a good book or articles that places the blame on Hillary alone (a Dem source hopefully) instead of a mix of situations. You know you read she mishandled the healthcare issue on the blogs over and over and over and you believe it without making an effort to tease out other arguments, other strands. It was, you must admit, a really new concept, a complex one, and one the Republicans would abhor. Look at Sen. McCain's healthcare proposal - more of the same - personal responsibility.
Hillary is now being held responsible for the Iraq War (huh, what happened to bush?), the deaths in Bosnia, and our healthcare system. Wow - it takes a village, doesn't it?
Still, your two cents is as good as mine - and I hope they don't take those pennies out of circulation. I support HRC but would certainly vote for Obama. Frankly, I don't know who would have a better chance.
