Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Who do you think should or will win the Democratic Nomination for President in 2008?

Obama.

obama for me as well I really like that guy

i'll vote for tony blair.

I've heard that Clinton is the front runner... But I haven't a clue to be honest.

Obama is the only REAL chance the Democrats have if they want to win this election

John Edwards is a joke

and more than half the country hate Hillary Clinton as it is

Originally posted by Grimm22
Obama is the only REAL chance the Democrats have if they want to win this election

John Edwards is a joke

and more than half the country hate Hillary Clinton as it is The fact that she's considered the frontrunner immediately disproves your claim that half of America hates her

Originally posted by Strangelove
The fact that she's considered the frontrunner immediately disproves your claim that half of America hates her

1 in 3, it's getting there .

Personally, I'd like Obama to get the nomination, but I think that it's going to wind up as Hillary.

Hmm...I wonder whose campaign I will be on???

Originally posted by Naz
Personally, I'd like Obama to get the nomination, but I think that it's going to wind up as Hillary. If the Democrats don't go with Obama, they should just fold the whole party, it'll prove a lack of brain cells on that political front.

A major political party (1 of the main 2) hasn't collapesd in a long long time in the US.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Who do you think should win the Democratic Nomination for President in 2008?

Anyone BUT Hillary Clinton. Hell I'd vote for satan himself before voting for her.

Originally posted by Strangelove
The fact that she's considered the frontrunner immediately disproves your claim that half of America hates her

I guess that depends on if the people that hate her actually vote.

Originally posted by Naz
Personally, I'd like Obama to get the nomination, but I think that it's going to wind up as Hillary. Obama's a serious contender though

Originally posted by Strangelove
The fact that she's considered the frontrunner immediately disproves your claim that half of America hates her

Only because the Democratic party is too ignorant to realize how unpopular she is

Originally posted by Grimm22
Only because the Democratic party is too ignorant to realize how unpopular she is How unpopular she is with people that would never vote for a Democrat anyways? What a blow that would be

Originally posted by Strangelove
How unpopular she is with people that would never vote for a Democrat anyways? What a blow that would be

That and anyone with any common sense, whatsoever

Originally posted by Grimm22
That and anyone with any common sense, whatsoever

Do you even know anyhting about her? I'm guessing no.

MANY people whould vote for Hillary. And the Democratic party is not ignorant, neither is Dean. So I think you're over-reaching.

Hillary is going to be riding the democratic ticket in my opinion.

Originally posted by Soleran
Hillary is going to be riding the democratic ticket in my opinion.

Yeah and as America knows whatever she is riding, she doesn't suck.

edited

Hillary is now officially in the race, and Obama will announce his intentions on Feb 10th

I would vote Hillary over Obama.

It will be interesting to see what happens with those two.

Originally posted by Soleran
I would vote Hillary over Obama.

It will be interesting to see what happens with those two.

They suck. I would vote for McCain or Guiliani over them any day, and I'm a Democrat.

Originally posted by Soleran
I would vote Hillary over Obama.

It will be interesting to see what happens with those two. If it was a Clinton-Obama ticket I think I'd cream myself

Originally posted by Strangelove
If it was a Clinton-Obama ticket I think I'd cream myself

I would certainly know the other canidates though because I am not big on Hillary's policy's and Obama needs more experience.

Originally posted by Strangelove
If it was a Clinton-Obama ticket I think I'd cream myself

droolio

Well I had doubts about her and I changed my mind, so I think once the voters get to know her and watch her kick her opponents ass in debates she will pick up enough steam.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
They suck. I would vote for McCain or Guiliani over them any day, and I'm a Democrat.

John Kerry gets my vote.

thankfully he announced he wont be running

Originally posted by Soleran
I would certainly know the other canidates though because I am not big on Hillary's policy's and Obama needs more experience. Well, I like her policies, and Obama would be a great Vice President

Originally posted by PVS
thankfully he announced he wont be running I wish he won in '04 and all, but he'd self-destruct this coming election season

Fine, I'll pick Al Gore.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
They suck. I would vote for McCain or Guiliani over them any day, and I'm a Democrat.

No, no...thats the opposite of being a Democrat

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, no...thats the opposite of being a Democrat

In case you haven't noticed, I'm not a blind party follower. Ok?

I'm in the center, and I vote based on the individual. McCain is my Senator; I voted for him every single time he ran for Arizona Senate. And I sure as hell would vote for him if ran for Prez, ese.

John and Rudy are a lot more experienced, politically able and qualified than those 2 clowns the Democrats keep showboating.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
In case you haven't noticed, I'm not a blind party follower. Ok?

I'm in the center, and I vote based on the individual. McCain is my Senator; I voted for him every single time he ran for Arizona Senate. And I sure as hell would vote for him if ran for Prez, ese.

John and Rudy are a lot more experienced, politically able and qualified than those 2 clowns the Democrats keep showboating.

guiliani is an experienced as a psycho nazi mayor. thats about it.

*edit* corrected

Originally posted by PVS
guiliani is an experienced police comissioner and experienced as a psycho nazi mayor. thats about it.

No. He's only socially liberal. He's pro gay and anti-gun.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
No. He's only fiscally conservative. He's pro gay and anti-gun.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
No. He's only socially liberal. He's pro gay and anti-gun.

i just review his actions against the homeless when he was mayor.

edit: double post

now its a triple post

Originally posted by PVS
i just review his actions against the homeless when he was mayor.

I ****ed up on that post.

I meant to say that he is fiscally conservative. As am I.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
In case you haven't noticed, I'm not a blind party follower. Ok?

I'm in the center, and I vote based on the individual. McCain is my Senator; I voted for him every single time he ran for Arizona Senate. And I sure as hell would vote for him if ran for Prez, ese.

John and Rudy are a lot more experienced, politically able and qualified than those 2 clowns the Democrats keep showboating.

Look, that kinda makes you not a party follower at all.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Look, that kinda makes you not a party follower at all.

You think that every Democrat and Republican votes their party 100% of the time???

Get outta here!

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I meant to say that he is fiscally conservative. As am I.

they're all "fiscally conservative" though, arent they? ...until they're elected. then its wars/nation building, trickle down economic theory, complete lack of concern for alternate energy sources/whoring ourselves to the arabs, cue recession.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
You think that every Democrat and Republican votes their party 100% of the time???

Get outta here!

No, well....no, but someone voting for a Republican Senator repeatedly (since 1987, holy JESUS) just doesn't fit the general description of a Democrats follower...generally.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, well....no, but someone voting for a Republican Senator repeatedly (since 1987, holy JESUS) just doesn't fit the general description of a Democrats follower...generally.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I vote based on the individual.

^Is any part of that statement ambiguous??

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
John and Rudy are a lot more experienced, politically able and qualified than those 2 clowns the Democrats keep showboating. Clinton is more experienced at being President than McCain and Giuliani combined at this point

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
You think that every Democrat and Republican votes their party 100% of the time???

Get outta here! Sadly, there are a lot of people that do that.

While I'm certainly not a loyal Democratic yes-man, I tend to agree with them a lot more than Republicans

Originally posted by Strangelove
Clinton is more experienced at being President than McCain and Giuliani combined at this point

Orale! I voted for him both times, and if he were able to a third term, I'd vote for him over McCain and Giuliani.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Orale! I voted for him both times, and if he were able to a third term, I'd vote for him over McCain and Giuliani. I'm talking about Hillary

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
^Is any part of that statement ambiguous??

No, ese, these two just fit so unwell...

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
They suck. I would vote for McCain or Guiliani over them any day, and I'm a Democrat.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I vote based on the individual.

I tend to lean left, which is why I'm a Democrat. But if there's a guy who I really like running for office, than I will vote for him even if he's to the right.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I tend to lean left, which is why I'm a Democrat. But if there's a guy who I really like running for office, than I will vote for him even if he's to the right.

That's boring, that makes sense....we had so much fun, but you had to spoil it.

it just seems you like right wingers exclusively, considering you would vote gulianni over any possible democrat. yeah, im a registered republican. know what that means? nothing at all.

:edit: im not saying its a bad thing, but nothing about what you're saying leads me to believe that you favor the democratic side at all.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's boring, that makes sense....we had so much fun, but you had to spoil it.

So much fun with what?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I tend to lean left, which is why I'm a Democrat. But if there's a guy who I really like running for office, than I will vote for him even if he's to the right. You should vote on how the candidates stand on the issues. Who you like personally comes second

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
So much fun with what?

Arguing about trivial and obvious points?

Originally posted by Strangelove
You should vote on how the candidates stand on the issues. Who you like personally comes second I would assume their stance on an issue is a determining factor in deciding whom one likes.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I would assume their stance on an issue is a determining factor in deciding whom one likes.

Of course. I could care less what their favorite beer is.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Of course. I could care less what their favorite beer is.

Yeah, that's because you are smart though....some care about what invisible man one prays to instead.

wow, nothing makes a black man feel more proud of himself than then you say that he's a fresh change from the rest of the inarticulate dark and filthy black people.
it makes a black person feel special to know that they are not undesirable like everyone else whos black.

no way is he going to shake this one

lambs to the slaughter with plenty of media highlighting.

Originally posted by PVS
wow, nothing makes a black man feel more proud of himself than then you say that he's a fresh change from the rest of the inarticulate dark and filthy black people.
it makes a black person feel special to know that they are not undesirable like everyone else whos black.

no way is he going to shake this one Word up. He might as well have said "You're not one of the usual dirty monkeys I have to deal with so I can tolerate your running in this race."

Obama announces his decision tomorrow, one way or another

Originally posted by Strangelove
Obama announces his decision tomorrow, one way or another


Good, lets all cross his fingers that he stays in the Senate getting some more experience.

Originally posted by Soleran
Good, lets all cross his fingers that he stays in the Senate getting some more experience. I kind of wish that too, but he'd make a great VP

I hope Obama decides to run. More experience wouldn't hurt, but hell, I'd hate to see Hilary in the running for president. Republicans can almost guarantee a win then.



edit: and I'm not saying that just b/c she's a woman, but rather because she's a woman that a lot of people won't vote for.

Originally posted by Morgoths_Wrath
I hope Obama decides to run. More experience wouldn't hurt, but hell, I'd hate to see Hilary in the running for president. Republicans can almost guarantee a win then.



edit: and I'm not saying that just b/c she's a woman, but rather because she's a woman that a lot of people won't vote for. Wrong. Hillary Clinton can win. Informal polls indicate that if the election were held today, Clinton would defeat McCain, Romney and Giuliani by comfortable margins. Inter-Democratic polls show Clinton leading both Obama and Edwards in important issues.

Bring more to the table than opinion next time.

Hilary would get tons of votes from chicks who would never have voted to begin with, she has a leg up here, just not for poor mr clinton.

Originally posted by Soleran
Hilary would get tons of votes from chicks who would never have voted to begin with, she has a leg up here, just not for poor mr clinton. Way to be prejudiced thumbsup

Originally posted by Strangelove
Way to be prejudiced thumbsup


What are you talking about?

Originally posted by Soleran
What are you talking about? Well, maybe not prejudiced.

Nevermind, I'm a moron ermm

Originally posted by Strangelove
Wrong. Hillary Clinton can win. Informal polls indicate that if the election were held today, Clinton would defeat McCain, Romney and Giuliani by comfortable margins. Inter-Democratic polls show Clinton leading both Obama and Edwards in important issues.

Bring more to the table than opinion next time.

I wouldn't be too reliant on informal polls. Many polls placed Kerry/Edwards as winners of the 2004 elections.

Still, I think you're right and I'm probably not giving Hilary enough credit. I think that she does have a strong backing. But from my first-hand experience, almost everyone I've talked to about the issue has said they would never vote for Hilary. Those that said they would vote for her were people that fell into the category of "chicks who would never have voted to begin with".

But you have to remember that, unfortunately, there are many "guys who would never have voted to begin with" besides the fact that they don't want a woman running the country. I don't think they will balance each other out, but I doubt it will be a very significant amount of voters in the grand scheme of the election.

Either way, I hope Obama wins. Otherwise I'm going republican.

Originally posted by Morgoths_Wrath
Those that said they would vote for her were people that fell into the category of "chicks who would never have voted to begin with".Oh, and you forget the people who know how qualified she is to do the job.Like I've said before, people who think like that don't deserve to voteWould you vote Obama for VP? I think that'd be a better thing than to try and go for the top prize. He's simply not experienced enough. His powerful charisma and voice would be a fantastic fit for the VP

Originally posted by Strangelove
Would you vote Obama for VP? I think that'd be a better thing than to try and go for the top prize. He's simply not experienced enough. His powerful charisma and voice would be a fantastic fit for the VP

Yeah, I would support that...depending on who he'd be running with. I'd certainly want the most qualified person at the helm, and VP would give him plenty of experience to try for a run in 2012.

Originally posted by Morgoths_Wrath
Yeah, I would support that...depending on who he'd be running with. I'd certainly want the most qualified person at the helm, and VP would give him plenty of experience to try for a run in 2012. or '16

See I think Obama should go staight for the Gold. Clinton should be VP.

Originally posted by Alliance
See I think Obama should go staight for the Gold. Clinton should be VP. As much as I like Clinton, she'd never go for that. If I were her, I'd be kind of pissed off, being VP to the young upstart

Obama for VP is the best bet.

Originally posted by Morgoths_Wrath
Either way, I hope Obama wins. Otherwise I'm going republican. Omg no. We have to vote democrat no matter what. I just can't handle another four years with a Republican in office. I'm gonna start the revolution if that happens. gunsmilie

Originally posted by Strangelove
As much as I like Clinton, she'd never go for that. If I were her, I'd be kind of pissed off, being VP to the young upstart

Obama for VP is the best bet.

No. Clinton needs to understand (what I think) is the best for the party. Shes a powerful force to ignore, but I'll be upset if she gets the nomination.

Clinton (imo) can't WIN a national election. Regardless of how entitled she is to get the nomination. It would be better for her to use the VP office as a stepping stone to NATIONAL, not Democratic popularity.

NATIONAL popularity is something Obama has/can gain. THAT wins elections much easier.

Originally posted by Alliance
No. Clinton needs to understand (what I think) is the best for the party. Shes a powerful force to ignore, but I'll be upset if she gets the nomination.

Clinton (imo) can't WIN a national election. Regardless of how entitled she is to get the nomination. It would be better for her to use the VP office as a stepping stone to NATIONAL, not Democratic popularity.

NATIONAL popularity is something Obama has/can gain. THAT wins elections much easier.


Yeah popularity does win elections I remember voting that way in highschool and those folks wielded crazy power!

Obama needs to learn more.

Originally posted by Alliance
No. Clinton needs to understand (what I think) is the best for the party. Shes a powerful force to ignore, but I'll be upset if she gets the nomination.

Clinton (imo) can't WIN a national election. Regardless of how entitled she is to get the nomination. It would be better for her to use the VP office as a stepping stone to NATIONAL, not Democratic popularity.

NATIONAL popularity is something Obama has/can gain. THAT wins elections much easier. That's a valid argument. And here's my counterargument.

What has been whispered through the grapevine is true: Obama doesn't have the clout to win a national election. His charisma and popularity can help him throughout the primaries, sure. But eventually, the issues will come up. And lack of experience or a track record with hurt him. And I certainly don't accuse him of not trying. His work on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has been astounding, and he has a genuine interest in what's good for the American people.

My argument for Obama for VP is identical to your argument for Clinton for VP. But somehow I think Clinton for President has more validity. She has experience, she has the political clout, and she knows how to win elections (Obama has never won a difficult one). Vice President would be a fantastic stepping stone for Obama. And he's still young(ish). Being a VP would do nothing but good for Obama and nothing but bad for Clinton. Clinton is already qualified. Obama has to prove that he can get qualified within the next two years.

Because of the anti-Republican sentiment, I have no doubt that Obama would win were he to win the nomination. However, I'm not sure it would be the right choice.

Originally posted by Strangelove
That's a valid argument. And here's my counterargument.

What has been whispered through the grapevine is true: Obama doesn't have the clout to win a national election. His charisma and popularity can help him throughout the primaries, sure. But eventually, the issues will come up. And lack of experience or a track record with hurt him. And I certainly don't accuse him of not trying. His work on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has been astounding, and he has a genuine interest in what's good for the American people.

My argument for Obama for VP is identical to your argument for Clinton for VP. But somehow I think Clinton for President has more validity. She has experience, she has the political clout, and she knows how to win elections (Obama has never won a difficult one). Vice President would be a fantastic stepping stone for Obama. And he's still young(ish). Being a VP would do nothing but good for Obama and nothing but bad for Clinton. Clinton is already qualified. Obama has to prove that he can get qualified within the next two years.

Because of the anti-Republican sentiment, I have no doubt that Obama would win were he to win the nomination. However, I'm not sure it would be the right choice.


Well said Strangelove

He annouced his running this morning, pretty exciting really.

Did I mention how much I am in love with OBAMA?

Originally posted by Strangelove
That's a valid argument. And here's my counterargument.

What has been whispered through the grapevine is true: Obama doesn't have the clout to win a national election. His charisma and popularity can help him throughout the primaries, sure. But eventually, the issues will come up. And lack of experience or a track record with hurt him. And I certainly don't accuse him of not trying. His work on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has been astounding, and he has a genuine interest in what's good for the American people.

My argument for Obama for VP is identical to your argument for Clinton for VP. But somehow I think Clinton for President has more validity. She has experience, she has the political clout, and she knows how to win elections (Obama has never won a difficult one). Vice President would be a fantastic stepping stone for Obama. And he's still young(ish). Being a VP would do nothing but good for Obama and nothing but bad for Clinton. Clinton is already qualified. Obama has to prove that he can get qualified within the next two years.

Because of the anti-Republican sentiment, I have no doubt that Obama would win were he to win the nomination. However, I'm not sure it would be the right choice.

I agree that Obama's lack of experience is a weak point, and that his strongest battle is to win the nomination.

However, look at the Obama and Clinton speeches today:

Clinton's was all about the failure of the Bush administraion and the right-wing republican conspiracy.

Obama's was about vision. He didn't mention Bush once.

I think one clearly resonates more with voters. People are sick of politics, OBAMA is the only candidate from a new generation. He can offer Americans a break from traditional politics. That can resonate more than anyhting Clinton can pull out. He has a real background in being an American, in working with real people as a community activist, as a civil rights lawyer, and as a professor.

Look what Obama has done in two years. Think what he can do in two more.

VP might be a great stepping stone for antoher politician, but OBAMA is a visionary and a leader. (Clinton is neither) You don't put visionaries and leaders in support roles.

Clinton may have more credientials, but OBAMA is more qualified to be President. His vison, ability to relate, and personality are his qualifications. Clinton has none of those imo.

it's an Obamanation!

Originally posted by Alliance
I agree that Obama's lack of experience is a weak point, and that his strongest battle is to win the nomination.

However, look at the Obama and Clinton speeches today:

Clinton's was all about the failure of the Bush administraion and the right-wing republican conspiracy.

Obama's was about vision. He didn't mention Bush once.

I think one clearly resonates more with voters. People are sick of politics, OBAMA is the only candidate from a new generation. He can offer Americans a break from traditional politics. That can resonate more than anyhting Clinton can pull out. He has a real background in being an American, in working with real people as a community activist, as a civil rights lawyer, and as a professor.

Look what Obama has done in two years. Think what he can do in two more.

VP might be a great stepping stone for antoher politician, but OBAMA is a visionary and a leader. (Clinton is neither) You don't put visionaries and leaders in support roles.

Clinton may have more credientials, but OBAMA is more qualified to be President. His vison, ability to relate, and personality are his qualifications. Clinton has none of those imo. Again, Vice President would do nothing but good for Obama and nothing but bad for Clinton. 4 or 8 years as Vice President would give Obama the critical national experience that he currently lacks, and his vision and leadership need not be dampened by the fact that he's only the second most powerful person in the nation. Vision alone does not a President make

Obama did not mention Bush in his candidacy or failed policy and 'was all about vision' because that's part of his platform. A departure from politics-as-usual. Yes, it's a good thing. But criticism of Bush and his policies are also a good thing. Bush may very well be the worst President in the history of the US.

And where do you get the assumption that Clinton isn't a leader?

I personally think that your love for Obama has blinded you to the truth of this. His 'rock star' status, as it's been called, will only take him so far. Then he needs to get serious. And while I have no doubts that he is capable of it, Clinton is already there, and Obama has to play catch-up.

Listen. Regardless of whether Clinton wins the nomination and chooses Obama as a running mate or vice versa (assuming that that's the way it goes), it's pretty awe-inspiring that have a Woman-Black Presidential ticket that not only can win, but probably will, no?

Originally posted by Strangelove
Again, Vice President would do nothing but good for Obama and nothing but bad for Clinton. 4 or 8 years as Vice President would give Obama the critical national experience that he currently lacks, and his vision and leadership need not be dampened by the fact that he's only the second most powerful person in the nation. Vision alone does not a President make

You're looking it as if Obama is just another candidate, like a Kucinich. Its incredibly disproportionate to have an ideological and powerful VP and a stiff and dry president. Vision alone does not make a president, but Clinton does not have the vision to become president.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Obama did not mention Bush in his candidacy or failed policy and 'was all about vision' because that's part of his platform. A departure from politics-as-usual. Yes, it's a good thing. But criticism of Bush and his policies are also a good thing. Bush may very well be the worst President in the history of the US.

Well, I was unaware that Bush was running in the democratic primary. Two thirds of Americans don't like Bush. Bush bashing doesn't tell any democrats something they don't know. It a statement about what each candidate values. Clinton will wrap herself in Republican-hating politics as usual. Obama tries to supersede that. No one from the Bush administration is running. The Republican record can completely speak for itself, at least for the Democratic primaries.

Originally posted by Strangelove
And where do you get the assumption that Clinton isn't a leader?

Why do you think she is? Obama is a charismatic orator who can move people. I think Clinton is intelligent and a brilliant politician, but she's never moved me. Obama has for years and he's getting damn proficient at it.

Originally posted by Strangelove
I personally think that your love for Obama has blinded you to the truth of this. His 'rock star' status, as it's been called, will only take him so far. Then he needs to get serious. And while I have no doubts that he is capable of it, Clinton is already there, and Obama has to play catch-up.

As for my personal love....he is my Senator and from my area. He has been on my radar much longer than he has been on the national one. My friends have worked on his campaigns (I have not yet had the pleasure, i was out of state on the Kerry campaign) and have met with him personally. Please don't assume that my support of him is not sincere or based on his current popularity.

I think Obama is well aware he has to catch up. But I really think he can. Clinton hasn't been to New Hampshire sin '92 until today. Obama is going on Tuesday (i believe). Clinton is ahead in the polls and in cash, but Obama can move voters quickly. He can move up in the primary polls and then take the lead. (Remember Dean's domination and Kerry?)

Obama's speech today was markedly different. He started professing policy, but it seems like he's going to run a different type of campaign.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Listen. Regardless of whether Clinton wins the nomination and chooses Obama as a running mate or vice versa (assuming that that's the way it goes), it's pretty awe-inspiring that have a Woman-Black Presidential ticket that not only can win, but probably will, no?

I don't know about probably. I don't support Clinton because I don't think she can win the election. I don't think Obama has enough power in the VP role to compensate. Clinton has a image issue with the American public. Obama is a clean slate.

Thats why I think CLinton would be best as VP. She needs the stepping stone, not because she lacks a resume, but she needs to redefine her image in the American public beyond what a campaign can give her.

And yes, a black/woman ticket is an amazing concept. Just a black ticket or a female ticket is amazing as it is.

Rather than responding to you point-by-point, which would take forever, I'm just going to say this.

I didn't mean that you were blinded by Obama's popularity. I was saying that that fact that you like him is keeping you from seeing the writing on the wall. Obama has an uphill battle ahead of him. Regardless of his charisma and vision, he is behind by about 20 points in Democratic polls. And I seriously doubt that and Republicans are seriously talking about voting for him.

Yes, Clinton has an image problem. The problem is that she is indicative with the 'problems' of her husband's administration. The problem is all of the slander she endured while first lady.

a) she's a qualified and trustworthy politician
b) she may have been stiff and dry once, but in the past 6-odd years, she's worked on that. Not being from New York, you don't know that.
c) she can win elections. She campaigned hard when Bill was elected and re-elected. Obama has never had a tough election where he's come out on top.

So far the only problems I've heard about Clinton running is the 'fact' that "she can't win the election because no one likes her" Bullshit. She wouldn't be considered the Democratic frontrunner by a sizable margin if no one liked her.

Funny/sad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lo-tI97bvNk&NR

Go Iraq Hussien Osama!

I will gladly vote for Obama in 08.

Otherwise, I probably wouldn't waste time voting at all. Clinton's no good.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Funny/sad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lo-tI97bvNk&NR

Go Iraq Hussien Osama!

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Funny/sad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lo-tI97bvNk&NR

Go Iraq Hussien Osama!


I don't know whether to be mildly amused or deeply disturbed (though I'm leaning towards the latter)

Originally posted by Strangelove
Regardless of his charisma and vision, he is behind by about 20 points in Democratic polls. And I seriously doubt that and Republicans are seriously talking about voting for him.

You forget that those same polls said that 44% of voters didn't know enough about Obama to have an opinion on him.

You'll also remember that Kerry was very behind in polls, even only a week before the NH and Iowa caucuses. As Obama campaigns, his #s will rise.

Originally posted by Strangelove
she can win elections. She campaigned hard when Bill was elected and re-elected. Obama has never had a tough election where he's come out on top.

She wouldn't be considered the Democratic frontrunner by a sizable margin if no one liked her.

Clinton can win among Democrats. I have no question of that. I question whether or not she could win a national campaign. Why? I don't think she can carry swing voters. I don't think its Bill thats holding Hillary back. A recent poll gave Bill a 60% approval rating. Only Laura Bush had a higher positive public perception (the poll was favorable opinions of public figures). Clinton, to me, is politics as usual.

Rumsfeld and Cheny had stellar resumes. We all saw how meaningful "credentials" are. Thats not to say that qualified candidates should be ignored, but we should be looking at more.

Obama has vision and he can motivate people. Hillary's "let the conversation begin" speech, to me, was dry, corny, and forced. Obama is an electric candidate. He may be a wild card compared to the politics as norm Clinton, but he's still, at least at this point, an ace...and one I feel comfortable playing.

As in past campaigns, I will put my money and time where my mouth is.

Hmm...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPXKOTHZ7yI

I'm going to vote for Hilary Clinton, because I want to see a fkn woman become President, at LEAST ONCE before i fkn die....

Originally posted by Alliance
Obama has vision and he can motivate people. Hillary's "let the conversation begin" speech, to me, was dry, corny, and forced. Obama is an electric candidate. He may be a wild card compared to the politics as norm Clinton, but he's still, at least at this point, an ace...and one I feel comfortable playing.

What do you think of the possibility of the two of them running on the same ticket?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I'm going to vote for Hilary Clinton, because I want to see a fkn woman become President, at LEAST ONCE before i fkn die....


Now that's how you keep the vote straight!

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Hmm...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPXKOTHZ7yI

Followed closely by:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKt71ykKH7g

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Hmm...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPXKOTHZ7yI random clips likely taken out of context by a right-wingnut

Originally posted by Strangelove
random clips likely taken out of context by a right-wingnut

Yeah, I know but I thought it was funny.

And who the heck was the guy at the end?

I've never heard of him.

Is he a real candidate?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Yeah, I know but I thought it was funny.

And who the heck was the guy at the end?

I've never heard of him.

Is he a real candidate? yikes...it's anti-semitic too shock

and Ron Paul is running, but she doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell.

This one is the best, it says it all:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9DBdokG2D0

(though the message was a little late.)

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
What do you think of the possibility of the two of them running on the same ticket?

Given money and popularity...high.

If Clinton wins the nomination....I think its likely, at least at this point, that Obama will get a VP nod. I think he'd accept, though his style and her style might clash, which makes me think that he would be shafted until the next cycle.

However, if Obama wins the nomination...i think its less likely that Hillary would accept the VP, so another candidate might step in. (Richardson?)

It of course early to be speculating, we won't have a good idea until after the first primaries. But I'm still pulling for an Obama-Clinton ticket.

And right wingnuts aren't funny. Politics used to be cleaner. Unfortunately, I think this shift in the Republican party uses smear campaigns all too often and all too effectively.

Clinton is going to win. And Obama's going to be her VP. and then from it'll be them vs. Guiliani and McCain.

Yeah, and the 04 Democratic ticket was going to be Dean.

(or so everyone thought until Iowa)

Eh. But do you think Clinton has it in her to give a rebel yell?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
This one is the best, it says it all:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9DBdokG2D0

(though the message was a little late.) Moronic, although technically true.Originally posted by Alliance
Given money and popularity...high.

If Clinton wins the nomination....I think its likely, at least at this point, that Obama will get a VP nod. I think he'd accept, though his style and her style might clash, which makes me think that he would be shafted until the next cycle.

However, if Obama wins the nomination...i think its less likely that Hillary would accept the VP, so another candidate might step in. (Richardson?)

It of course early to be speculating, we won't have a good idea until after the first primaries. But I'm still pulling for an Obama-Clinton ticket.

And right wingnuts aren't funny. Politics used to be cleaner. Unfortunately, I think this shift in the Republican party uses smear campaigns all too often and all too effectively. I do not think Obama can in good conscience win the nomination. Although his 'vision' as you say is dazzling, that's all he has. And as Alliance mentioned, 44% of the country still doesn't know much about Obama. And if more people find out, maybe they too will agree that he is not well-equipped to run this nation.

I'm reminded of Bill Clinton's Presidency. As Governor of Arkansas, he had the executive and economic experience to run for President, but he didn't have any foreign policy experience. So he tapped Al Gore, a Congressional representative and then Senator, who had fought in the Vietnam War. Clinton leaned on Gore for foreign policy advice. But he still had the economic experience (it's what he ran on). And in time, he was experienced in national and foreign affiars.

Apply that formula to Obama. He is a former State Senator, law professor, and current Senator. Nothing that gives him executive or economic experience. He also has no foreign policy experience. Were he to win the nomination, and tap someone experienced for VP, (Clinton, Richardson, Bayh), he'd be leaning on them for everything except speech-writing and anything else involving his charisma or 'vision.'

No, we need someone experienced for the Presidency and someone like Obama for VP. He can still profess his charisma and vision (great on the campaign trail), and serve as the second most powerful person in the nation. And then Obama gains critical experience to run in 2012 or 2016 while he's still (relatively) young. It's win-win, honestly.

^^^That would be the ideal situation for the Democratic party.

(think I said that about a month ago.)


The larger question is though:

With Clinton as the front-runner, will Americans go for it?

(I've made it plain I don't much care for the Republican choices this go-around, so I'm not bashing. Just a real question.)

Originally posted by sithsaber408
^^^That would be the ideal situation for the Democratic party.

(think I said that about a month ago.)


The larger question is though:

With Clinton as the front-runner, will Americans go for it?

(I've made it plain I don't much care for the Republican choices this go-around, so I'm not bashing. Just a real question.) Hillary's image was hurt was hurt during the Bill Clinton years, mostly because of right-wing propaganda (Whitewater, health care), but also because of some things that she had said or done (potentially offensive remarks to stay-at-home moms, "how could she stay with Bill after his infidelity?". She also had the reputation of being cold and business-like (not untrue)

However, after being twice elected to the Senate in New York, she has gained a new, better image (in New York at least). She has significant backing by independents and Republicans in both elections because of her strategy. She has said that people are impressed if you go to their city and simply ask for their vote (and this was a in largely Republican upstate New York). This is similar to Howard Dean's "50-State Strategy." She has also been much friendlier and open in the past few years.

If she can remake her tarnished image in the eyes of the American people, she can at least win over a sizable amount of independents (I don't think Republicans will ever again vote for a Clinton)

out of all of them so far, edwards is the only onewho doesn't smell like shit to me

Originally posted by Darth Jello
out of all of them so far, edwards is the only onewho doesn't smell like shit to me Edwards is a pussy. Regardless about how the majority of Democrats feel, he is wrong to 'apologize' for his vote for the authorization of military action in Iraq. Why? Because if he says he made a mistake, then he's opening himself up for other 'mistakes.' I'm reminded of Reagan-Mondale in 1984, when Mondale said "Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, so will I. He won't say it. I just did." He only won one state, his own.

Hillary Clinton is right to say that the 'mistake' should be focused on Bush and his Administration. Since it was their faulty intelligence that led to the "Yes" vote in the first place, this is a good position. Obama has the advantage of being consistently against the Iraq War.

My high school theatre teacher once said "Don't be sorry, just don't do it again." Edwards could take a leaf out of that book.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Edwards is a pussy. Regardless about how the majority of Democrats feel, he is wrong to 'apologize' for his vote for the authorization of military action in Iraq. Why? Because if he says he made a mistake, then he's opening himself up for other 'mistakes.' I'm reminded of Reagan-Mondale in 1984, when Mondale said "Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, so will I. He won't say it. I just did." He only won one state, his own.

Hillary Clinton is right to say that the 'mistake' should be focused on Bush and his Administration. Since it was their faulty intelligence that led to the "Yes" vote in the first place, this is a good position. Obama has the advantage of being consistently against the Iraq War.

My high school theatre teacher once said "Don't be sorry, just don't do it again." Edwards could take a leaf out of that book.


I have to say your opinion in this discussion stinks, poop smells better

Your high school teacher needs more lessons in life I guess.

Oh you just like saying the word "Poop" a lot.

Originally posted by Soleran
I have to say your opinion in this discussion stinks, poop smells better

Your high school teacher needs more lessons in life I guess. Well, she was using it in the context of making mistakes on stage, but I apply it to my life as well.

And just because you disagree doesn't mean it's an invalid argument

I personally want Obama to run with Bayh as his running mate. Unless, of course, Gore throws his name into the lot; after all, he's the greatest president to never serve.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
I personally want Obama to run with Bayh as his running mate. Unless, of course, Gore throws his name into the lot; after all, he's the greatest president to never serve. Evan Bayh droolio

I'm from Indiana, you know ermm

Hillary continues to have a wide lead over all contenders...she has a large lead among black voters over Obama too....yikes ermm

Looking bad for the Dems come next November then.

Americans won't elect Hillary for Prez. if she gets the nomination from her party.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Looking bad for the Dems come next November then.

Americans won't elect Hillary for Prez. if she gets the nomination from her party. I don't think so. People seriously misunderestimate her

And even if she was an unpopular as the right-wing media would have us believe, she's a far cry better than any other Republican:

John McCain: Likable guy, sure, but he's a shameless back-pedaler and contradicts everything he says

Mitt Romney: Serious lack of trust within the party. Used to be pro-gay rights and pro-choice, but now he's 'redfining' himself as a 'true conservative.' Plus people are unsure about his Mormon faith.

Rudy Giuliani: He might be able to win the general election, but he'd never win the nomination, not in a million years.

Sam Brownback: Neoconservative evangelical. And I'll be damned if we're going to let one of those back in office.

Tommy Tancredo: Single-platform candidate. Never works

Chuck Hagel, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, Tommy Thompson, etc: Who knows at this point. But it's early, yet

I was just reading about Rahm Emanuel (my political idol), and this caught my interest. Back in 2006, he was unabashedly for Clinton, because he has a long friendship and loyalty to the family (he was a senior aide in the Clinton White House), but now he's torn between Clinton and Obama, a fellow Chi-towner.

Just interesting, that's all.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Hillary continues to have a wide lead over all contenders...she has a large lead among black voters over Obama too....yikes ermm

44%

Wait for the debates. Obama will shread Hillary.

Sorry for the double post, but its here now anyway...

Originally posted by Strangelove
I was just reading about Rahm Emanuel (my political idol), and this caught my interest. Back in 2006, he was unabashedly for Clinton, because he has a long friendship and loyalty to the family (he was a senior aide in the Clinton White House), but now he's torn between Clinton and Obama, a fellow Chi-towner.

Just interesting, that's all.

You may think people underestimate Hillary, (I agree), but you misunderestimate Obama. People don't swap sides easily in politics. Clinton has had a lot of surplus funds and time left over from easy races that she has dontated to other campaigns. People remeber that.

If Emanuel joins the Obama camp. Thats a STRONG sign. Chicagoan or not. Obama could use Emanuel on his campaign.

Originally posted by Alliance
44%

Wait for the debates. Obama will shread Hillary. Idle speculation. We shall seeOriginally posted by Alliance
You may think people underestimate Hillary, (I agree), but you misunderestimate Obama. People don't swap sides easily in politics. Clinton has had a lot of surplus funds and time left over from easy races that she has dontated to other campaigns. People remeber that.

If Emanuel joins the Obama camp. Thats a STRONG sign. Chicagoan or not. Obama could use Emanuel on his campaign. I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at with that first point, really. Could you clarify, please?

And I seriously doubt Emanuel will join a campaign, but you're right that an endorsement from Rahm-bo will mean a lot. However, given his personal ties to both candidates, I'll wager he won't endorse either of them in the primaries.

Is anyone else watching the Democratic Presidential Candidates forum on C-SPAN? It's good stuff.

All of the candidates (minus Obama, who's campaigning in Iowa) are talking to George Stephanopolous

Originally posted by Strangelove
Edwards is a pussy. Regardless about how the majority of Democrats feel, he is wrong to 'apologize' for his vote for the authorization of military action in Iraq. Why? Because if he says he made a mistake, then he's opening himself up for other 'mistakes.' I'm reminded of Reagan-Mondale in 1984, when Mondale said "Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, so will I. He won't say it. I just did." He only won one state, his own.

Hillary Clinton is right to say that the 'mistake' should be focused on Bush and his Administration. Since it was their faulty intelligence that led to the "Yes" vote in the first place, this is a good position. Obama has the advantage of being consistently against the Iraq War.

My high school theatre teacher once said "Don't be sorry, just don't do it again." Edwards could take a leaf out of that book.
That makes no sense. It's unreasonable for anyone to expect presidential candidates to be infallible, last thing anyone wants is a president to be wrong and be persistent about it.

Is there anything else for you to think of Edwards as a pussy or is it the same irrational "I just don't like him/her" mentality people seem to have towards Hillary?

So far at this point if the election were tomorrow i'd vote for Edwards...i admire the fact that he's owning up to his mistake..a mistake that many in this nation made in supporting this war. He also is just an intelligent and reasonable man...something the office needs more than ever...but i'm keeping my mind open to obama and hillary but out of those two i'm more for obama.

Originally posted by Eis
That makes no sense. It's unreasonable for anyone to expect presidential candidates to be infallible, last thing anyone wants is a president to be wrong and be persistent about it.

Is there anything else for you to think of Edwards as a pussy or is it the same irrational "I just don't like him/her" mentality people seem to have towards Hillary? I have nothing against John Edwards except the "I made a mistake" spiel. And his reasons for doing it aren't even bad. He's right that it should be a bout accountability, and it does indeed throw the Bush Administration in sharp contrast. So maybe pussy was a bit harsh

HAHA one thing is for certain regardless of "party"votes Clinton sucks as hard as everyone else.

I just saw the crappiest "right to vote"speech ever,what an embarrassment.

Originally posted by Strangelove
I have nothing against John Edwards except the "I made a mistake" spiel. And his reasons for doing it aren't even bad. He's right that it should be a bout accountability, and it does indeed throw the Bush Administration in sharp contrast. So maybe pussy was a bit harsh

Well, Coulter said he was a f*ggot.

I don't like him. He's wishy-washy. He has no stand.

Originally posted by Soleran
HAHA one thing is for certain regardless of "party"votes Clinton sucks as hard as everyone else.

I just saw the crappiest "right to vote"speech ever,what an embarrassment.

Yes, it sucked.

Now Obamas' speech...

The difference is when she said it, it was funny.


Do you have any reasons to think that or is it the same ol' "he admitted to making a mistake... the pussy."?

Originally posted by Eis
The difference is when she said it, it was funny.


Not really. She's just a worthless, self righteous heartless hag.

Originally posted by Eis
Do you have any reasons to think that or is it the same ol' "he admitted to making a mistake... the pussy."?

No. I'm not the type that belives people aren't allowed to change their minds.

I just don't think he has a lot to run on. He just acts wishy washy and I think he tells people what they want to hear. He has essentially the smae message as everyone else and very little to run on.

He seems like he's just all smiles to me. That makes me uneasy.

Originally posted by Strangelove


Rudy Giuliani: He might be able to win the general election, but he'd never win the nomination, not in a million years.



Giuliani up 25 points

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Giuliani up 25 points

Al Sharpton, where is he at in this process?

Nowhere.

I really can't imagine the republicans electing a candidate like Guiliani. Will he be in drag for the convention too?

Originally posted by Soleran
Al Sharpton, where is he at in this process? nutnut

Originally posted by Alliance
Nowhere.

I really can't imagine the republicans electing a candidate like Guiliani. Will he be in drag for the convention too?

Originally posted by Alliance
He seems like he's just all smiles to me. That makes me uneasy.

yeah, nobody who wins the presidency in '08 should be smiling... they've got a lot of problems to deal with and no easy answers


me, I might vote for McCain, but I don't know how I feel about his Iraq war policy...for that matter, I don't know how I feel about the Democrats' Iraq policy

...I think our troops are going to be involved in that region for a long time now regardless of whether we pull out of Iraq or not (a major foreign policy overhaul notwithstanding)

That may be the case. However, I feel you won't have the opportunity to vote for McCain beyond the primaries.

However, Obama's plan wants benchmarks for the Iraqi government with finnacial and troop withdrawl repercussions if they aren't met. If they are met, the US is willing to be flexible.

Imo, that the best plan out there right now and its a democratic one.

Originally posted by Alliance
Nowhere.

I really can't imagine the republicans electing a candidate like Guiliani. Will he be in drag for the convention too?
That'd be epic. Wouldn't be the same without Julie Andrews by his side though.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/03/07/us/08rudy-3-650.jpg

Originally posted by Alliance
44%

Wait for the debates. Obama will shread Hillary. John Kerry did far better than Bush at the debates. But look who's president.

Kerry definately wonthe first debate, but the last two were close, maybe even in Bush's favor.

Besides, it absurd to think voters only decide on the debates.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Giuliani up 25 points Apparently the GOP has realized he has the best chance of winning the general election

http://photos-334.ak.facebook.com/ip002/v67/33/59/6853019/n6853019_36255334_9954.jpg

ermm

Hillary...The woman back in the home...where she should be.
ermm

Originally posted by Alliance
Hillary...The woman back in the home...where she should be.
ermm So now you're extending your rabid sycophantic Obamania into sexist jokes?

Not at all. I'm commenting on how she chose to enforce a blatant sexist stereotype in her own campaign announcement.

Originally posted by Alliance
Not at all. I'm commenting on how she chose to enforce a blatant sexist stereotype in her own campaign announcement. Which stereotype? That women like to have conversations? That they sit on couches? You're making a baseless claim here