It's not Hillary's to lose...

RonMexico

Tommy T wrote: »

I know nothing of your warning however i am neither brainwashed nor a puppet.

I am a Hillary fan and am confidtent in her ability to come out of tsunami tueaday with a healthy delegate lead given the make up of both candidates support bases...

I have a feeling you are going to be wrong. All the momentum is with Obama. Clinton is losing ground fast. Obama will pass her in the end and secure the nomination.

Manic Moran

So, Tom, is it worth asking if you voted today (I don't know what State you're in), and if so, who you voted for?

NTM

is_that_so

RonMexico wrote: »

I have a feeling you are going to be wrong. All the momentum is with Obama. Clinton is losing ground fast. Obama will pass her in the end and secure the nomination.

He may well do. Not being able to vote(wrong nationality) I find myself wondering what he actually stands for. Of late all I have heard him say is "Change" and "our time has come". While these are very attractive it does prompt a number of questions.

If Bush had been less than abysmal and divisive as president would people even be looking at him?

How damaging and problematic will it be for the Democrats to have this going on until June?

Has he actually got any real substance?

A BBC pundit made an interesting comment. Obama looks good on TV but sounds dull on radio whereas Hillary is the opposite. I have listened to him on a number of occasions and he is charismatic to an extent. But we all know where charismsa got us. :rolleyes:

Even so I have to say, that of the candidates on either side, IMO he is the greatest waffler. He sounds good but there isn't a lot there at all as far as I can see. A speech from Delaware the other day sounded like someone had raided a host of pop songs. I wouldn't be convinced by him just yet.

RonMexico

Just heard on the radio that last year on the O'Reilly factor they asked people what they thought of Barack Obama and some replied that he should be hunted down to whatever cave he is hiding in. They thought he was a terrorist

snow scorpion

I find myself wondering what he [Obama] actually stands for. Of late all I have heard him say is "Change" and "our time has come".

I've noticed that, too. And for that matter, the same observation applies to Hillary.

RonMexico

There is very little difference between Hillary & Obama in terms of the issues. Clinton can't shake off that her vote helped Dubya plunder Iraq. Obama was against it from the start. She talks about experience but what use is it when you make the wrong decision?

ghostdancer

maybe if people bothered to look up what he actually stands for instead of relying on some sound bites from debates or speeches, they'd have a better understanding of what his positions are.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

but then again, some people are just incapable of common sense...

ghostdancer

RonMexico wrote: »

There is very little difference between Hillary & Obama in terms of the issues. Clinton can't shake off that her vote helped Dubya plunder Iraq. Obama was against it from the start. She talks about experience but what use is it when you make the wrong decision?

Clinton's "experience" is laughable to be honest.
15 years as a first lady when your most notable events are trying to pass health reforms that failed miserably, and then standing by your unfaithful husband, does not experience make.

neither is being a partner in a corporate law firm.

she's been an elected official for 7 years. barack obama has been an elected official for 11.
the fact that clinton pretends that she has experience, yet her achievements are few and far between, and her judgment/awareness during this time is seriously questionable, to me makes her whole "experience" point redundant.

is_that_so

ghostdancer wrote: »

maybe if people bothered to look up what he actually stands for instead of relying on some sound bites from debates or speeches, they'd have a better understanding of what his positions are.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

but then again, some people are just incapable of common sense...

Considering much of his own campaign has been based around these soundbytes it is not unreasonable. As someone observed earlier today he's almost like a celebrity.

To me he lacks substance, more importantly experience and is not terribly dissimilar to Clinton. IMO he is also an inveterate waffler who has not been seriously challenged by the media at large. For a position this important he must be challenged properly and very few organisations are bothered about that.

His policies such as they are, are very, very vague, aspirational rhetoric and IMO loaded with purple prose. That is understandable given that he has only been in politics such a short time. Nothing on that issues page is any more than the speeches he has come up with to date. He is also potentially selling a dream he may not be able to deliver.

And that to me is the biggest question of all.

Oratory does not run a country. One of the best pieces of oratory started a civil war(Friends, Romans, Countrymen ...).

is_that_so

ghostdancer wrote: »

Clinton's "experience" is laughable to be honest.
15 years as a first lady when your most notable events are trying to pass health reforms that failed miserably, and then standing by your unfaithful husband, does not experience make.

neither is being a partner in a corporate law firm.

she's been an elected official for 7 years. barack obama has been an elected official for 11.
the fact that clinton pretends that she has experience, yet her achievements are few and far between, and her judgment/awareness during this time is seriously questionable, to me makes her whole "experience" point redundant.

As a First Lady she wasn't just a wallflower. Many of those ambitious health reforms were gutted by Congress.

ghostdancer

is_that_so wrote: »

Considering much of his own campaign has been based around these soundbytes it is not unreasonable. As someone observed earlier today he's almost like a celebrity.

To me he lacks substance, more importantly experience and is not terribly dissimilar to Clinton. IMO he is also an inveterate waffler who has not been seriously challenged by the media at large. For a position this important he must be challenged properly and very few organisations are bothered about that.

His policies such as they are, are very, very vague, aspirational rhetoric and IMO loaded with purple prose. That is understandable given that he has only been in politics such a short time. Nothing on that issues page is any more than the speeches he has come up with to date. He is also potentially selling a dream he may not be able to deliver.

And that to me is the biggest question of all.

Oratory does not run a country. On of the best pieces of oratory started a civil war(Friends, Romans, Countrymen ...).

much of his campaign, like every other candidates is indeed based around soundbytes, as Joe Public aren't bothered to look up the details of where candidates stand on issues, or how the candidates differ.

he lacks experience? really? lawyer, activist, state senator, US senator. seems pretty experienced to me.
it certainly beats lawyer - wife of politician - US senator, in the experience front.
take your qualms about the media to them. both have been tested to the same degree so it's really the media's fault if their testing of candidates doesn't satisfy you.

no-one doubts he is a great speaker, but many are aware that behind those speeches are a proven track record in the Illinois state senate, and US senate, with a proven history of delivering on what was promised (eg. Children's healthcare in Illinois, federal spending transparency, civil rights law reform, etc.), which is far more comprehensive than Clinton, not least backed by better judgment and proven achievement when compared to her.

his rhetoric is backed by achievements. her is not.

ghostdancer

is_that_so wrote: »

As a First Lady she wasn't just a wallflower. Many of those ambitious health reforms were gutted by Congress.

actually i think you'll find that's exactly what she was. going to tea parties with women's groups of whatever country your husband is in does not qualify you to be president.

if she hadn't been so naive she would have realised that her proposed health reforms didn't have a chance. once again, poor judgment on her part is her downfall.

so then, we're in agreement that she has basically no notable achievements for a good chunk of her 35 years experience?

is_that_so

ghostdancer wrote: »

actually i think you'll find that's exactly what she was. going to tea parties with women's groups of whatever country your husband is in does not qualify you to be president.

if she hadn't been so naive she would have realised that her proposed health reforms didn't have a chance. once again, poor judgment on her part is her downfall.

so then, we're in agreement that she has basically no notable achievements for a good chunk of her 35 years experience?

As you pointed out yourself you might take the trouble to look. Most of what she has done has been involved with children's and women's advocacy. Not sexy or necessarily something to boast about but still worthwhile. As for the heath bills,ambitious - yes, foolish - maybe, but it was the good old vested interests including the GOP that did for them.

RonMexico

is_that_so wrote: »

Considering much of his own campaign has been based around these soundbytes it is not unreasonable. As someone observed earlier today he's almost like a celebrity.

To me he lacks substance, more importantly experience and is not terribly dissimilar to Clinton. IMO he is also an inveterate waffler who has not been seriously challenged by the media at large. For a position this important he must be challenged properly and very few organisations are bothered about that.

His policies such as they are, are very, very vague, aspirational rhetoric and IMO loaded with purple prose. That is understandable given that he has only been in politics such a short time. Nothing on that issues page is any more than the speeches he has come up with to date. He is also potentially selling a dream he may not be able to deliver.

And that to me is the biggest question of all.

Oratory does not run a country. One of the best pieces of oratory started a civil war(Friends, Romans, Countrymen ...).

All this talk of experience is laughable when you think of the idiot who is in charge now.

snow scorpion

ghostdancer wrote: »

maybe if people bothered to look up what he actually stands for instead of relying on some sound bites from debates or speeches, they'd have a better understanding of what his positions are.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

but then again, some people are just incapable of common sense...

Why do we have to go looking up his positions? Isn't he supposed to be telling us his positions? Isn't that the whole point of the campaign?

snow scorpion

ghostdancer wrote: »

actually i think you'll find that's exactly what she was. going to tea parties with women's groups of whatever country your husband is in does not qualify you to be president.

if she hadn't been so naive she would have realised that her proposed health reforms didn't have a chance. once again, poor judgment on her part is her downfall.

so then, we're in agreement that she has basically no notable achievements for a good chunk of her 35 years experience?

ghostdancer is right. Hillary has no experience being a leader. Her husband has the experience.

Even on her website http://www.hillaryclinton.com/ she doesn't list her experience. (Who would think "35 years of experience" would take up so little room on a website? )

Manic Moran

Dave Ross, a syndicated radio commentator, made an observation in his broadcast yesterday which touches upon your recent comments.

I'm trying to find a download, but he asked the listener a number of questions on the candidates, such as "which candidate believes the following" or "what is the difference between Obama's and Hillary's plans for healthcare reform?"

Basically, questions the half of which I didn't know the answers. He admitted he needed to look up some of them himself.

He then asked.. "OK, which candidate is a woman, and a former first lady? Which candidate served his country, was a POW, and rides the 'straight talk express?' Which candidate is a mormon?" and so on.

He finishes with the question: "And we tell ourselves we're voting on the issues!?"

NTM

RonMexico

Barack Obama: The Issues

IRAQ: Opposed use of military force in Iraq. Voted for war spending bill that would have withdrawn most U.S. troops by March 2008. Supports phased redeployment of U.S. troops. Opposed Bush's plan to send additional troops to Iraq. Had once called for troop withdrawal to begin by the end of 2006.

IMMIGRATION: Supported Bush-backed immigration reform legislation, which would have increased funding and improved border security technology, improved enforcement of existing laws, and provided a legal path to citizenship for some illegal immigrants. Voted to authorize construction of a 700-mile fence along the U.S.-Mexican border.

ECONOMY: Would pump $75 billion into the economy via tax cuts and direct spending targeted to working families, seniors, homeowners and the unemployed. The plan also includes $45 billion in reserves that can be injected into the economy quickly in the future if the economy continues to deteriorate. Would provide an immediate $250 tax cut for workers and their families and an immediate, temporary $250 bonus to seniors in their Social Security checks. Would provide an additional $250 tax cut to workers and an additional $250 to seniors if the economy continues to worsen. Would extend and expand unemployment insurance.

HEALTH CARE: Would create a national health insurance program for individuals who do not have employer-provided health care and who do not qualify for other existing federal programs. Allows individuals to choose between the new public insurance program or from among private insurance plans that meet certain coverage standards. Requires employers who do not provide health coverage for employees to pay into the national health insurance program. Does not mandate individual coverage for all Americans, but requires coverage for all children. Allows individuals below age 25 to be covered through their parents' plans. Cost estimated between $50 billion and $65 billion, to be paid for by eliminating Bush tax cuts for those earning over $250,000.

ENVIRONMENT: Would implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the level recommended by top scientists. Would make the United States a leader in the global effort to combat climate change by leading anew international global warming partnership. Would establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) to speed the introduction of low-carbon non-petroleum fuels. Would create a Technology Transfer program within the Department of Energy dedicated to exporting climate-friendly technologies to developing countries. Would offer incentives to maintain forests globally and manage them sustainably. Would develop domestic incentives that reward forest owners, farmers and ranchers when they plant trees, restore grasslands or undertake farming practices that capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere

ghostdancer

is_that_so wrote: »

As you pointed out yourself you might take the trouble to look. Most of what she has done has been involved with children's and women's advocacy. Not sexy or necessarily something to boast about but still worthwhile. As for the heath bills,ambitious - yes, foolish - maybe, but it was the good old vested interests including the GOP that did for them.

yeah, and of that children's and women's advocacy, she wasn't the one passing it into law, let alone whether any of those bills even eventually got passed into law. that's because she wasn't an elected official, she was just the wife of the president. the keyword there is "involved". yes, she may have been "involved", but being involved doesn't get things through Congress.



i'll repost something i found on another forum which i found interesting:

Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term (6yrs.), and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law, (20) twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years. These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress (www.thomas.loc.gov), but to save you trouble, I'll post them here for you.

1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.
2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.
3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor.
4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.
5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson.
6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea.
7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death.
10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program.
13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.
14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death.
15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty. Only five of Clinton's bills are, more substantive. 16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.
17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11
18. Assist landmine victims in other countries.
19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.
20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.

That's her record folks. Her record before that was a failed Health care initiative as first lady. Now, I would post those of Obama's, but the list is too substantive, so I'll mainly categorize.

During the first (8) eight years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced:

233 regarding healthcare reform,
125 on poverty and public assistance,
112 crime fighting bills,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control,
6 veterans affairs and many others.

His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These inculded

**the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law),
**The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, (became law),
**The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate,
**The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, (became law),
**The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, (In committee), and many more.

In all since enter the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096. An impressive record, for someone who supposedly has no experience.

ghostdancer

snow scorpion wrote: »

Why do we have to go looking up his positions? Isn't he supposed to be telling us his positions? Isn't that the whole point of the campaign?

i've heard him numerous times tell his positions and plans, as i have with hillary clinton, and numerous other candidates.
unfortunately, it's too hard to go into detail about plans or track records in interviews, or televised debates, or campaign speeches, because the average person doesn't care a huge amount, and just wants some easy-to-digest facts or positions that they can understand without using to much brain-power.

nyarlothothep

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8358.html

looks like Obama is winning

Tommy T

Manic Moran wrote: »

So, Tom, is it worth asking if you voted today (I don't know what State you're in), and if so, who you voted for?

NTM

I don't have a vote mate. I live in Dublin... Hillary's stronger voter base won her the big prizes available on Tuesday. With the huge Latino population in Texas she's win that with alot to spare.

Combine this with what Dean said about wanting to unite the party I say the FL delegates will be invluded and Hillary will be the nominee with Barack as Veep...

whatawaster

Tommy T wrote: »

I don't have a vote mate. I live in Dublin... Hillary's stronger voter base won her the big prizes available on Tuesday. With the huge Latino population in Texas she's win that with alot to spare.

Combine this with what Dean said about wanting to unite the party I say the FL delegates will be invluded and Hillary will be the nominee with Barack as Veep...

Some very notable facts from tuesday.

1. Obama won 13 states to Hillary's 8
2. Her big wins (NY, NJ, MA, CA) came in democratic states - where either her or Obama can be expected to win in November against McCain.
3. His wins, on the other hand, came in a variety of states across America. He is more popular in red states than her, and winning some of them back i'd absolutely key if the democrats are going to win the election. He's be very likely to win southern states like Georgia, S Carolina and Alabama whereas she would not.
4. Despite your saying that Clinton would sweep super tuesday - the overall popular vote reads something like - Clinton 50.3% approx. - Obama 49.7% approx. She has blown her national lead.


Obama will probably do very well in the caucuses this weekend.
Clinton is running out of money.
Bookmakers now have Obama as narrow favourite to win the nomination.
It's getting exciting.
I just hope that Hillary doesn't start crying (again!) about Florida and Michigan in the event of a close race. Obama didn't even have his name on the ticket in Michigan and it would be an absolute disgrace, akin to Florida in 00' if the party decision is reversed.

ghostdancer

Tommy T wrote: »

I don't have a vote mate. I live in Dublin... Hillary's stronger voter base won her the big prizes available on Tuesday. With the huge Latino population in Texas she's win that with alot to spare.

Combine this with what Dean said about wanting to unite the party I say the FL delegates will be invluded and Hillary will be the nominee with Barack as Veep...

Texas Latino's are nothing like California Latinos. it definitely won't be as much in her favour.
Dean won't let Florida count. there would be uproar over it. they broke the rules, they should live with the consequences. no-one had a problem until Hilary realised that she was going to be in trouble, and now she is.
Obama will not accept a VP under Clinton.

ghostdancer

whatawaster wrote: »

Clinton is running out of money.

she has already run out of money. she loaned her campaign $5m last week, which she decided not to bother announcing until the morning after S.Tues. it seems that that money was used to pay debts already incurred, so her campaign is basically broke again. i know the Clinton's are rich, but they don't have Romney levels to pump into their campaign...

Obama raised $6million in the 24 hours after the last polls closed on Tuesday. unreal.

Hillary's really in trouble IMO.

banquo

Latest odds from politicalbetting.com:

USA: Democratic Candidate
Obama, Barack 5/6
Clinton, Hillary 11/10

And Mr. Oven Chips as the fave for pres.

Tommy T

You two guys are lke the Kennedy(Camelot) wing of the Democrats.. Coming out with lines like 'it wouldn't be fari' blah blah.. Alot of good the Teddy endorsement did Barack in Mass and with the CA Latinos by the way...;)

Living in the real politique world the DNC have to recognise FL otherwise they'll hand the State to the Republicans as all they'll have to say to the Dem voters is "1.5 million of you came out to vote and they ignored your voices"

Dean isn't dumb enough to hand the Oval Office back to the Reps over such a fundamental issue...

banquo

Tommy T makes a good point. And they'll hardly hold a 2nd primary.

There are a lot of edwards' delegates now up for grabs and in a really tight race hillary has the strings to pull to offer them cushy jobs etc in exchange for their vote at the convention.
Almost reminds me of season 7 of 'the west wing'...

Q: Can edwards say 'I want all my delegates to go to Obama[for example]', either by officailly endorsing, or by another way?

Manic Moran

Yes, he can, but apparently he doesn't actually have all that many.

And they'll hardly hold a 2nd primary.

Curiously enough, that's exactly what they're talking about doing on the radio this morning. Not so much a full primary, but a caucus.

NTM

ghostdancer

The DNC offered a new primary/caucus to the Florida Democratic Party but they told the DNC to f- off, as it would have to be paid for from their own pocket (several million) and the DNC said they wouldn't pay for it.

allowing Florida to seat delegates completely undermines the authority of the DNC. sure if they let Florida get away with it, then what stops states in 2012 moving theirs up past the dates set by the DNC.

the only way those delegates are getting to do anything is if Clinton pulls comfortably ahead in pledged delegates by the time the convention comes around.

if push comes to shove, i'm pretty sure Dean will take possibly pissing off some Florida delegates over possibly pissing off several million Obama voters.

there would be war within the party if they were allowed to vote, if their vote actually meant anything. they won't be.

Tommy, are you still living on that cloud, surely Tuesday knocked you back down to earth