Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Best Presidential Candidate, Democrats

CmdrTaco posted more than 6 years ago | from the someone-resurrect-zombie-kennedy dept.

Democrats 947

This story is to discuss the remaining democratic candidates for president. Please keep discussions limited to talk about Hillary and Obama. Keep discussions of the other party in the other story.

cancel ×

947 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I personally (4, Funny)

Aurisor (932566) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290304)

support whomever posts first.

Re:I personally (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22290332)

I support *you*!

Re:I personally (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22290346)

obama

Re:I personally (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22290932)

Obama has certainly taken the crown in the Democratic campaign as "the candidate making best use of the internet." Take, for example, this clip I saw yesterday. Not sure exactly who is behind it, but the message is inspiring and - frankly - can melt through the icy cynicism of the Grinchiest Clintonite.

I would have liked more singing from Scarlett Johansson.

Watch and enjoy.

http://www.dipdive.com/ [dipdive.com]

SPOILER ALERT!!! (3, Funny)

starglider29a (719559) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290312)

One of these two will win the Democratic Party Nomination! Continue to read at your own peril.

Re:SPOILER ALERT!!! (2, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290510)

Worse yet, one of those two might become president.

Or one of the republicans might become president.

Either way, the world loses.

Altrnate endings (4, Funny)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290746)

  1. Q. A plane with Huckabee, McCain, and Romney crashes into the convention center where Obama and Clinton are debating. Who's saved?
    A. The United States.

  2. Good news, bad news:

    The good news: You wake up and find that everything was a dream - Bush not only never won the election - the votes were properly counted.
    The bad news: You slept a LONG TIME, Rumplestiltskin - Richard Nixon is president.
    Alternate bad news: Miss Carolina just won the dem nomination - for the children.

  3. "Breaking news bulletin: China, in cooperation with Google and Apple, has just purchased 51% of the United States in a secret Treasury auction, beating out the Gates-Halliburton bid. No elections for YOU!"

Obama (1, Interesting)

lowlymarine (1172723) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290334)

It seems the choice is pretty obvious, from a tech/gamer standpoint, there's no way Hillary has my favor in the primary. Also, could it be...first?

Re:Obama (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22290724)

He's also decent on nuclear power (which is sort of required to be elected in Illinois). He has more donations from nuclear workers than all other candidates combined. His views on the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site are discouraging, but perhaps he might be wise enough to reverse Carter's idiotic reprocessing ban which would reduce the volume of nuclear waste.

Well... (1, Redundant)

j235 (734628) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290336)

I for one, would like to welcome our Hillary-bashing overlords.

Re:Well... (1)

carpe_noctem (457178) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290518)

You must be looking for the republican candidate discussion thread...

Re:Well... (1)

sammy baby (14909) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290828)

Don't count on it. I'm a bit of a political junkie, so maybe I just see more of it than a lot of people, but even on the most "mainstream left" of political discussion sites there has been a fair amount of bashing the two democratic rivals. From my perspective, it's been mostly Obama supporters who hate HRC, although there's certainly a good deal of the reverse.

From my perspective, I'd vote for either one, although I'm not terribly fond of HRC's record on Iraq, and I'm not terribly fond of candidates who put a message of "I'm the only person who can bring us together" out there like Obama has. Personally, I'm content to let them duke it out in the primaries and then give whichever one wins my vote in November.

Re:Well... (2, Funny)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290922)

In Soviet America, Hillary overlords bash YOU!!!

Even though Obama is Black and did drugs, (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22290338)

Hillary would galvanize the Republicans against her.

If Hillary wins the nomination, I'm voting for Nader.

Obama is the only one who can unite the country.

Re:Even though Obama is Black and did drugs, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22290832)

Obama is the only one who can unite the country.
What is so great about him? Other than being black? I've watched his speeches, seen him debates, and looked at his record. I really don't see how he's any better than Hillary, other than she seems to hate video games far more. He's definitely a better speaker, but that's all I really see in his favor. Neither of those nanny-state right wingers deserve the nomination.

Onlk Obama and Clinton? (1, Insightful)

dougmc (70836) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290364)

Please keep discussions limited to talk about Hillary and Obama
I could have sworn there were other democrats running for president too ...

Re:Onlk Obama and Clinton? (1)

jalefkowit (101585) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290404)

I could have sworn there were other democrats running for president too ...

There aren't; they've all dropped out, except for Mike Gravel, but his poll numbers are so low (

Re:Onlk Obama and Clinton? (1)

spleen_blender (949762) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290512)

From my limited understanding of human psychology, I detest polls or referring to them as evidence at all. The wording of the question as well as the order in which the questions were asked affect it too much. Polls are just another example I have of where I believe that the plebians are getting info fed right down their throat. Supply leading demand instead of demand leading supply.

Re:Onlk Obama and Clinton? (4, Insightful)

jalefkowit (101585) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290626)

From my limited understanding of human psychology, I detest polls or referring to them as evidence at all. The wording of the question as well as the order in which the questions were asked affect it too much.

Gravel is at less than one percent in every single poll ever taken, which would discount issues of bias in a particular survey. You may not like polls, and it's true that you can create an individual poll that drives responses in one direction or another. But it's hard to discount the enormous pile of evidence that we have that Americans don't see Gravel as a serious candidate (and for good reason).

Re:Onlk Obama and Clinton? (1)

jalefkowit (101585) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290550)

Dangit, slashcode didn't like me using a "less than" sign. Previous post should read "his poll numbers are so low (less than 1%) as to be statistically meaningless."

Re:Onlk Obama and Clinton? (2, Informative)

SilentBob0727 (974090) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290956)

Offtopic but FWIW, you can use "&lt;" for "<". Gotta escape your special chars because of the html-like markup.

None of them are worth a damn. (2, Interesting)

Lilith's Heart-shape (1224784) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290372)

I don't trust any of them. They all want the job, which should be enough in itself to disqualify them. Obama talks a good game, but why should I trust his intentions? Why should I believe that he won't be warped and corrupted by the power of the President's office? Clinton has no principles, she panders to any voting bloc she thinks can help her, and not only did she not divorce her adulterous asshole of a husband, but she can't keep his mouth shut during her campaign.

Re:None of them are worth a damn. (3, Insightful)

Monokeros (200892) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290840)

Why should I believe that he won't be warped and corrupted by the power of the President's office?
You absolutely shouldn't believe that any candidate won't be corrupted by the office. Any winner will be. Some worse than others. It doesn't matter how "pure" their intentions are to begin with.
If one of your primary deciding factors is how trustworthy the candidate is, then the best you can do is pick the one you think will remain the least corrupted for the longest time. I don't know if that's Hillary or Barak. It looks like from your perspective Hillary has the handicap coming out of the gate since, as you say, she has "no principles" Who knows how long Barak would last against the temptations of the office, or how much worse than Hillary he could become?

Re:None of them are worth a damn. (1)

DCGaymer (956987) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290874)

Poor Matt. " ... she can't keep his mouth shut during her campaign." Obviously you're not in a relationship of equals. I'd sooner try to juggle grenades than try to shut my spouses mouth.

Re:None of them are worth a damn. (1)

Lilith's Heart-shape (1224784) | more than 6 years ago | (#22291092)

I'd sooner try to juggle grenades than try to shut my spouses mouth.
You're not running for President, and neither am I. As far as I'm concerned, if Hillary can't keep Bill in line, what does that say for her administration should she become President?

Re:None of them are worth a damn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22290880)

I don't trust any of them. They all want the job, which should be enough in itself to disqualify them.


What an awesome political theory you have there: "anyone running for president is not worth voting for". With such defeatist criteria, why would anyone waste their time in a debate with you?

Re:None of them are worth a damn. (1)

Lilith's Heart-shape (1224784) | more than 6 years ago | (#22291040)

why would anyone waste their time in a debate with you?
Says the Anonymous Coward?

Re:None of them are worth a damn. (1)

kent_eh (543303) | more than 6 years ago | (#22291066)

Clearly you've never read the Hitchhiker's guide?
President Zaphod [wikipedia.org]

Gravel? (4, Insightful)

iphayd (170761) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290384)

Mike Gravel is still running. It would be unfair of Slashdot to exclude him too.

Re:Gravel? (2, Insightful)

thryllkill (52874) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290506)

Mike Gravel's chances of winning the nomination are so slim, discussing him is a waste of time.

Re:Gravel? (3, Insightful)

Selfbain (624722) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290690)

His chances are so slim because of logic like this.

Re:Gravel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22290726)

You don't actually think that, do you?

Re:Gravel? (3, Insightful)

beholdsa (1185729) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290950)

The purpose of this topic is to discuss the BEST democratic presidential candidate, not the MOST LIKELY TO WIN candidate.

Re:Gravel? (1)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290520)

Gravel has zero chance of winning the nomination.

Re:Gravel? (1)

Trevin (570491) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290718)

Ironically, while Gravel was one of my top two choices for the Democratic party he was not on the California primary ballot; while on the other hand my other top choice, Kucinich, dropped out of the race just days after I mailed in my absentee ballot.

This just reinforces my dislike of the media. The uneducated masses pick the candidates who get the best press rather than bother to research what the candidates' positions and records are.

Of course, it doesn't help me that none of the presidential candidates mentioned any of the geek issues I'm really interested in, nor that the ones who did post their position on tech/science issues demonstrated less than the average layman's understanding of them.

Re:Gravel? (1)

ProppaT (557551) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290820)


That's okay, Mike Gravel was on my ballot and I voted for him. However, I live in Florida which means my democratic vote doesn't count anyway. ugh...

Re:Gravel? (5, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290978)

The uneducated masses pick the candidates who get the best press rather than bother to research what the candidates' positions and records are.
Unfortunately, you must let the uneducated masses have an equal voice if you hope to call this a democracy. The best tack, then, is for the educated elite to push for better education... which for some reason they tend not to see as obvious.

On the other hand, our founding fathers didn't trust the uneducated masses, either. We have a largely unelected judiciary, and even the Senate was not originally elected. The popularly elected House then was only given a term of 2 years vs 6 in the Senate! Even the presidential election is slightly skewed from true democracy by the electoral college.

Re:Gravel? (1)

beholdsa (1185729) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290834)

Yeah, I'm a big fan of Gravel. Why was he excluded?

Re:Gravel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22291146)

I agree. Gravel is the best candidate, and is still running, and yet the media delibrately ignores him. Vote for him in the primary even if he couldn't possibly win as president.

WTF? (1, Troll)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290394)

And this has what to do with tech? Surely the politics category is for politics relating to tech not sundry ramblings about the next election (and not one in my country either so I'm less than interested given that the important bit i.e. Bush is going is a given).

Re:WTF? (4, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290674)

As technology grows and becomes a more regular part of the everyday citizen's life, this next election will have a MASSIVE impact on us all, including from a technology standpoint. The next president will play a role in dictating funding, telcos, ISP's, piracy...you name it, this election is going to dictate quite a lot in terms of technology (not to mention everything else, of course)

In that sense, discussing this election (ESPECIALLY considering Hillary is a technological idiot) is very on-topic.

Re:WTF? (1)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290728)

OK, you convinced me. Carry on people!

Re:WTF? (4, Insightful)

kent_eh (543303) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290816)

Slashdot: News for nerds, stuff that matters


Doesn't the process of selecting the leader of the (for better or worse) one of the most powerful and influential nations on the planet have some relevance to the phrase "stuff that matters"?

Even if you live in another country, the US government and it's actions have some amount of influence on your existence. (whether it should have as much influence as it does is another topic for another thread).

Re:WTF? (1)

QuickFox (311231) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290928)

(and not one in my country either so I'm less than interested given that the important bit i.e. Bush is going is a given)
Bush leaving isn't enough if his cronies stay. Radically new policies are needed, not just a new individual. We desperately, desperately need the US to stop fueling terrorism and generally messing everything up.

For once my vote counts! (5, Interesting)

FuzzyDaddy (584528) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290410)

I live in DC. We get three electoral votes for president, but since we are overwhelmingly democratic, our general election vote always goes to the democrat. Our primary is after super Tuesday, at which point there is usually a clear "winner" for the democratic nominee.

My political friends from both camps assure me that super Tuesday is NOT going to seal the democratic nomination one way or another. Unlike the general election, delegates are not assigned all to one candidate based on the state total (for the democrats, anyway. Republican rules are different). The exact formula varies by state, but the delegate assignment is roughly proportional to the number of votes.

Personally, I'm leaning towards Obama myself. He seems principled and energetic, and I like his principles. Clinton seems a bit more cynical. I think he'd have a better chance against McCain. McCain won't bring out the republican base; Hillary Clinton will.

Policy wise, though, I think they're similar enough that I wouldn't mind either of them in the white house.

Re:For once my vote counts! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22290810)

"McCain won't bring out the republican base; Hillary Clinton will"

While I can't disagree with that, I think you might under estimating the population of closet biggots. I live in tennessee where the attitude is not toned down and while many here (mostly republican) would be very unhappy if Hillary Clinton was elected, the issue is more about not allowing a woman or a black to be president, and they will vote in record turnout to prevent it.

The conservative (anti woman/black) right has been able to sway the previous 2 elections, I suspect they will this time as well. If they can't convince people to vote their way, they will just steal it again somehow.

Combined ticket is probably a mistake (4, Insightful)

ktappe (747125) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290428)

I've not decided which of the two to vote for, but I do agree with something I heard John Grisham say last week: That having them pair up for a "super ticket" would probably be more negative than positive. Any voters who would not have voted for a woman AND any voters who would not vote for a black would BOTH be turned away and McCain would slide into the presidency.

Re:Combined ticket is probably a mistake (0, Redundant)

AbsoluteXyro (1048620) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290610)

That would be incredibly sad, and show to the rest of the world just how narrow minded the American people are. I hope that doesn't come to pass.

Re:Combined ticket is probably a mistake (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22290778)

I think that particular cat's already out of the bag, dude.

Re:Combined ticket is probably a mistake (5, Insightful)

sayfawa (1099071) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290892)

This whole election's outcome will be based on peoples' prejudices. What does America dislike the least:
a) women
b) old people
c) funny religions
d) blacks

Douglas Adams had it right: (5, Funny)

Liberaltarian (1030752) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290444)

"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."

Obama (1)

seanfast (980924) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290450)

Nothing particularly bad to say against Hillary, I just think Obama has the kind of younger, fresher perspective we need in the White House.

..and just to note before this gets out of hand, a political pundit (might have been Bill Maher, but don't quote me on that) had a good quote about so-called "Hillary Haters". You know them, they are a select group of people, Democrat & Republican, who just love to bash her and make it publicly known how much they hate her. His quote was something along the lines of "there's nothing about Hillary that warrants hatred from any group. Whether you'd vote for her or not, she hasn't done a single thing to be hated so badly by some people. If you 'hate' Hillary Clinton, there's something wrong with you."

Just thought I'd throw that in there before this gets messy.

Re:Obama (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22290860)

One time I said I was the best-looking and smartest man on earth. I didn't back it up at all. For some reason, nobody believed me - but Bill Maher seems to have done a similar thing and people quote him. How does he do it?

To clarify: why, precisely, does he think she's done nothing worthy of my hate? That's just stupid. Don't fucking quote him anymore, OK? He's stupid, and by parroting his words, you make yourself look stupid.

Re:Obama (1)

seanfast (980924) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290962)

Immature irrational people like you make me thank god the electoral college is in place.

Re:Obama (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22291150)

See, you're still doing it. I assure you I am neither immature or irrational. I merely pointed out, admittedly rudely, that you are parroting a stupid, stupid man, saying a stupid, stupid thing. I could make the argument that you're a much less rational person than I for honestly believing Hilary's done nothing worthy of hate - but I don't think that's actually the case, so I won't. Hilary's raised God only knows how many millions of campaign dollars - you think that's because she's an honest woman doing what she thinks is right to represent the American people, or because she's whored herself out to corporate and special interests like every other fucking national politician in the last half-century? I hate her, and there's nothing wrong with that or with me.

Re:Obama (2, Insightful)

sigzero (914876) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290936)

Hillary is just plain frightening. She isn't a democrat. She is a socialist. Did you read her latest interview? "Garnish wages of workers who refuse to buy health insurance..." Your money isn't your money until the government says it's your money. That is her line.

Re:Obama (3, Insightful)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 6 years ago | (#22291112)

I actually don't think that's that bad of an idea. In principle, maybe. In reality...

What happens now if someone doesn't buy health insurance? They go to the emergency room and get treated anyway. Other people end up paying for it in the form of higher hospital costs.

Obviously, the pure capitalist solution would be for hospitals to just refuse people who don't have money. I'm not necessarily against that idea either, but I doubt it'd ever fly.

So if Bob doesn't want health insurance and our choices are:
A) Bob is forced to pay for health insurance or
B) I'm forced (effectively) to pay for Bob's health insurance

I'll pick A over the B we have now.

Re:Obama (1)

fictionpuss (1136565) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290984)

"there's nothing about Hillary that warrants hatred from any group. Whether you'd vote for her or not, she hasn't done a single thing to be hated so badly by some people. If you 'hate' Hillary Clinton, there's something wrong with you."

Both Hillary and Bush falsely claimed Florida as a victory. It's the win-at-all-costs urge which makes me doubt her integrity, which reminds me of the same political games and tactics that got the country in the state it is now.

You get immature drum-beaters on both sides of the house, and there is a sense of urgency, of course there is. But to label it as hate, and to smear it on Obama supporters, that's just time-wasting distracting FUD.

Re:Obama (5, Interesting)

malevolentjelly (1057140) | more than 6 years ago | (#22291136)

I half-way agree. I am pro-Obama, but I think I have every reason to hate Hillary. The fact of the matter is that we've got a republican in the democrat field looking to cock-block progress by using a well-known "democrat" name.

If Hillary wins the nomination, it will be impossible to have a real progressive democrat president for four years. If she wins the presidency, then it will be impossible to have a real progressive for eight years.

Imagine another eight years of Bush politics. Remember, Hillary is pro-censorship, security, war, executive power, and secrecy. I think she's more like Bush than McCain.

It all comes down to... (5, Interesting)

monschein (1232572) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290464)

Who can win against a white male - a black man or a white woman?

Re:It all comes down to... (5, Funny)

Liberaltarian (1030752) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290634)

What makes you think that the GOP will nominate a whi-- *looks at the GOP field*

Damn. Fair enough.

meh (3, Informative)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290466)

I personally don't like even Obama OR Hillary...but, if forced between the two, I would choose Obama first. Hillary is a slight bit psycho, and her husband (in my opinion) isn't quite the sharpshooter he once was...Obama may have some "appease the masses" opinions, but at least he has a solid head on his shoulder.

Hillary is just plain frightening. It's a shame that the first woman to really have a chance at the white house is a total lunatic.

Re:meh (1)

monschein (1232572) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290888)

There's no doubt it will be a hard choice for most voters, but there may be some assurance with Hilary. We don't know how Obama will be in office, but you can bet that Hilary will be just like Bill. If you liked Bill, you'll probably like Hilary. But there's a chance Obama could be a hell of a lot better.

Re:meh (5, Insightful)

airship (242862) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290930)

She's not a lunatic - she's a cold, calculating machine politician. We don't need another Clinton or Bush in the White House. Enough of the dynasties.

Obama is naive, compassionate, charismatic, and idealistic - just the kind of change in leadership this country needs.

Re:meh (3, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 6 years ago | (#22291084)

Obama is naive, compassionate, charismatic, and idealistic - just the kind of change in leadership this country needs.


Like I said. I don't really agree with some of his political policies, but he does have a good head on his shoulders...that accounts for alot.

Re:meh (1)

Jon_E (148226) | more than 6 years ago | (#22291032)

i agree .. ruling governments defined by oligarchies are typically skewed towards family agendas - last time i checked the constitution we were still a democratic republic so i guess it'd be nice to see the people make more informed choices around diversity instead of basing their decisions on family screen time or the gossip column

Re:meh (3, Interesting)

yuriyg (926419) | more than 6 years ago | (#22291076)

Hillary is a slight bit psycho

Hillary is just plain frightening

a total lunatic
Time and time again I hear this said about her, without ANY proof/examples/logic/etc. behind it. Can you please explain yourself, or is this post just a troll?

obama@google (5, Informative)

Deanalator (806515) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290492)

Someone posted part of this clip last time, where Obama talks at google about the future of technology. This is the full 64 minute clip, complete with Obama's joke about sorting algorithms :-)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=m4yVlPqeZwo [youtube.com]

Re:obama@google (5, Funny)

00_NOP (559413) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290590)

Yes, but does he use emacs or vi? That's what we want to know!

There is no such thing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22290494)

As modern-day Presidential Candidates go.... voters are stuck with choosing the greater of two evils, none of which can be called "Best". No sane and educated person would subject themselves to the rabid and vicious environment that is the USA Presidential Election process. Candidates certainly aren't doing it for the $$, so why are they running?

Hillary and Obama (5, Funny)

Random BedHead Ed (602081) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290536)

Please keep discussions limited to talk about Hillary and Obama.

Let's be consistent: you meant Clinton and Barack.

Re:Hillary and Obama (5, Informative)

pierced2x (527997) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290676)

Hillary consistently refers to herself as 'Hillary', not 'Clinton' (go to her website, or see any of her campaign swag). The same goes for Obama. I see nothing wrong with calling them their preferred campaigning name. I am especially tired of the people that say Hillary is being 'disrespected as a woman' because she is called by her first name. Let it go already.

Re:Hillary and Obama (1)

sammy baby (14909) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290864)

I think that's a tic people use to keep it straight between Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton. Pity it can have the effect of a diminutive, because I suspect it's not deliberate for a lot of people.

Re:Hillary and Obama (1)

SilentBob0727 (974090) | more than 6 years ago | (#22291078)

Mods: *whoosh*

Great summary of Hillary (4, Informative)

arkham6 (24514) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290554)

"She is highly intelligent, has real experience and is an attractive candidate. But she is terrified to act on her beliefs. In fact, she seems so conditioned by what she sees as political constraints that one can barely tell where her beliefs begin and where those constraints end."

Re:Great summary of Hillary (4, Informative)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290738)

one can barely tell where her beliefs begin and where those constraints end

I don't know. Sometimes she says what she really thinks. Just yesterday, she talked about garnishing the wages of people who don't buy health insurance. Now that's letting her colors show.

Re:Great summary of Hillary (1)

arkham6 (24514) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290812)

Sorry, she said what?

Re:Great summary of Hillary (4, Insightful)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290994)

Sorry, she said what?

That's right, you heard me [yahoo.com] .

all I know (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22290572)

All I know is I don't want a woman or a nigger running for President.

My election prediction (-1, Troll)

sgtron (35704) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290636)

It will come down to the Muslim vs. the Mormon. And unfortunately I suspect the Mormon will edge out the Muslim by a slim margin.

But if you're a Democrat you should still probably try your best to support the Muslim.

Re:My election prediction (2, Informative)

SportyGeek (694769) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290750)

Obama is not a Muslim. Just thought I'd clear that up for you.

Re:My election prediction (1)

lucifig (255388) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290790)

I dont' get this. Are you trying to be funny? Black != muslim.

Re:My election prediction (3, Funny)

timster (32400) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290794)

I'm sorry, but I wasn't aware that there were any Muslims in the race. Are you referring to Mike Gravel? I haven't really done any research on him.

Provenance and Iraq. (5, Interesting)

Average (648) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290638)

Policy differences between Clinton and Obama? Minor.

Leadership?

I worry about provenance with Clinton. Why was she the head of the Healthcare task force? A recognized health expert? A well-known elected official? Wife of a guy who got 43% of the vote? That 'mandate', plus too much secrecy, doomed a not-so-bad health care plan and has cost us a lot of jobs and bankrupt Americans in the last 14 years.

Then again, why was she on the board of Wal-Mart? We mention that (well, she doesn't mention on her website that she was the first female board member of America's #1 retailer). But, why? Was she a business expert? Run a corner store? Worked her way up from the mailroom? Was she the wife of the governor of Wal-Mart's home state?

Obama has taken every step. He's sprinted to the top, no doubt. But, he's gone from knocking on doors in the projects to fighting a political machine in his district to convincing both rural and urban Illinois to inspiring a generation. No shortcut.

Not to say she's been a bad senator. But, the Iraq vote is very troubling. Only six Senators are on record as checking in to the locked room to read the full (96 page) intelligence report. Yes, it was full of lies. But, John Edwards *did*. Clinton? McCain? Neither. They believed.

And thinking of Iraq. The *only* way out of Iraq is to offer a new deal to the Iraqis. Clinton? The wife of a man whose crippling sanctions and annual bombing runs caused a whole lot of misery and entrenched the regime? Sure, from here we can say the sanctions were a good thing. But, for the man on the street who lost a child to deprivation? We need a president who is not connected to that legacy.

Re:Provenance and Iraq. (1)

DeanFox (729620) | more than 6 years ago | (#22291106)

...doomed a not-so-bad health care plan and has cost us a lot of jobs and bankrupt Americans in the last 14 years.
Clinton doomed the health care plan? Get this... I actually blame the people that stopped it. So what if she didn't jump up and down on one leg and rub her tummy while patting her head.

It was a solid plan. Would have saved those 14 million bankruptcies. She didn't "dress it up" enough so it's her fault? Sorry, I ain't buying it. I'm putting the blame on those who actually killed it.

-[d]-

Important (3, Insightful)

PolarBearFire (1176791) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290640)

I like Obama, only because we need a President with a new last name. There's no scientific way to determine who would be the best president, but we need someone with new perspectives. Or at least not jaded enough to try new things. They're all politicians so everything they do will come under my inspection but so far the only two candidates that fit closest is Obama and McCain, IMHO. Still haven't made up my mind how to vote tho. Anyway, on to the flamebait stuff, the democratic logo is horrible, looks like a mutated dog.

I'm not voting... (1)

TheThiefMaster (992038) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290714)

...but that might be because I'm not American and not in America.

I'm not sure that I'd vote anyway, both parties seem as bad as each other.

Obama (1)

PowerEdge (648673) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290736)

I'll vote for him if McCain or Huckabee gets the nomination on the GOP side. I will never vote for Hillary.

If new york and california pull for (2, Insightful)

kevgaxxana (1197617) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290842)

Obama, hillary may as well drop out. Those two states are her states, and if she losses them, that should serve as a wake-up call that even her own people don't want her as president.

Agent of change (1)

castlesteps (1231378) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290876)

The U.S. needs some dramatic change. The current administration has created a steady decline in foreign relations, economic stability, and domestic freedom. To facilitate this change the U.S. needs someone who has a different political background. Barack Obama is young and inspirational. He is different from the typical politician. Although either candidate would be a breath of fresh air, Obama seems to be the most committed to change. Clinton has similar attitudes to the majority of top politicians. The agent of necessary change is Obama, who will represent a new image for the U.S.

Haven't we had enough of dynastic Presidencies? (2)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 6 years ago | (#22290992)

One of the consistent objections to the Bush candidacy was that, but for the last name, he'd be a failed oilman and a mediocre ball team owner.

Apply that same logic to Hillary: But for the last name, she'd be a name partner at the Rose law firm, teaching Womens Studies on the side.

Somehow, Hillary wants us to believe that cohabitating with someone, having sex with them (at least once that we can be sure of), and accompanying them on overseas trips has allowed her to absorb Bill's experience by observation and osmosis. Riiiight.

I actually want to see a Constitutional amendment barring anyone of any blood or marital relation to a Federal office holder from holding a Federal office. I'm tired of seeing Dodds, Clintons, Bushes, and Bonos in the system. These people are poisoned by their proximity to the political system, and should not be allowed to participate at that level.

Digital/Tech platform (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22290998)

Obama earned my vote based on his Internet/Technology policies. All the other canidates (especially the other party) want to destroy freedom online to protect us from the evils of the Internet. Obamas plan is the only one that isn't lip service, and provides a basis for progress, not the regress we've been seeing in the latest series of bills for control of the internet.
Geek the Vote [popularmechanics.com]

From the old Italy, I hope Obama (3, Interesting)

andreabondi (1106587) | more than 6 years ago | (#22291014)

Hey everybody, I'm from Italy, and I'm following with great interest your vote. Well, situation here isn't very good, we're approaching elections for the second time in 2 years. The last competition was between the 69-years old Romano Prodi and the 72-years old Silvio Berlusconi. Now Berlusconi is going to be candidated for the 5th time since 1994. Here things doesn't change. I like Obama because he's young and can be a change in the biggest and most important country in the world...

Obama sez no guns, Hillary sez no games (1)

b96miata (620163) | more than 6 years ago | (#22291046)

I don't think either of them would make a good president. Hillary's a name and nothing else. She's done nothing to convince me she'd be a competent leader, even compared to the likes of GWB. I still never regained any trust for her after she magically became a new yorker. Obama seems to have a better head on his shoulders and actually have some principles, but he's got dreams of disarming the populace, and doesn't even have the balls to come right out and say it.

Time for a peacemaker (1)

davmoo (63521) | more than 6 years ago | (#22291064)

Obama and Clinton are both competent and capable leaders. But thanks to the buffoon currently holding the office of President, the first and biggest job of the new occupant will be to unite the citizens and repair the fractures created and damage done by Bozo W. Bush. And there is so much anti-Hillary rhetoric going on (mostly by anal-retentive conservatives who think its bad that Bill lied about getting some pussy but its okay that GWB lied to start a war), that I don't think she can be that peacemaker.

No trust (1)

Flash0424 (1231554) | more than 6 years ago | (#22291068)

I'm amazed at the amount of contradictory comments from Hilary. I can't believe that the news media isn't picking up more on this...One example is from the Florida primaries...It is wholly unfair that their delegates don't count, and she continually commented on the fact that she'd do everything she could to get their delegates counted!! (Which I don't disagree with at all, by the way)...The problem with this kind of comment is that it flies in the face of her earlier comment about the Iowa primaries, and that their delegates should be removed from the count. Kind of weird that she only wants to count the delegates in states that she wins!!

Warning: Post from a conservative (2, Interesting)

the computer guy nex (916959) | more than 6 years ago | (#22291094)

Can someone explain to me the real differences in these candidates? I've been following the primaries and I still can't find one issue where they actually differ.

Barack (5, Interesting)

Edward Ka-Spel (779129) | more than 6 years ago | (#22291126)

Chances are, despite growing up Republican, I will vote democrat this election no matter who it is. Bush ran the republican party into the ground. But not all candidates are created equal.

Hillary is a strong traditional candidate. She is carrying out a textbook campaign. She appears to me to be very power hungry and is willing to do whatever it takes to win, but sometimes you want that in a president. I think she would make a decent/good president. I really didn't like Bill Clinton as president, but compared to Bush, the 90s look like the golden years.

Barack, though, is something different. He looks like he is honestly and thoughtfully trying to do what is best for the country. He tries to understand the issues, think through the issues, and come up with the best answer to the issue. That is something very rare. I noticed in the California debates that Hillary would say "this is my answer, it's the best! Your idea is dumb!" Barack would say "I have considered your idea and think that this would be the result of your idea, so I have another idea that doesn't have the disadvantage your idea has." He is the only candidate I have seen that actually thinks an idea through. Everybody else (Republican and Democrat) seem to just throw ideas out that sound good, without thinking about it. Obama has the potential to be one of the top presidents ever. (He may fail of course, you never know...)

I have been voting since 1992, and this is the first time I ever had a candidate that I wanted to win, as opposed to picking the lesser of two evils. (of course, I haven't voted for the winning candidate yet...)

disgusting (1)

hemna (205532) | more than 6 years ago | (#22291132)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080203/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp_31 [yahoo.com]

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to garnish the wages of workers who refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans.

Clinton has not always specified the enforcement measures she would embrace, but when pressed on ABC's "This Week," she said: "I think there are a number of mechanisms" that are possible, including "going after people's wages, automatic enrollment."
How this country has degraded to these types of people is insane. First we have GW spying on citizens and now Billary wants to steal more of our money is nuts. What happened to the constitution here people? This country was formed to get away from government control of the citizen's lives, now we are allowing it to slowly erode away in the name of "progress". wtf.
  There is nothing in the constitution that says the government must be the provider for all. We're all turning from citizens of the state, to wards of the state. It's total government control, fascism or socialism, it's all the same...we have no freedom.

Obama, for now (1)

peach4964 (1232864) | more than 6 years ago | (#22291160)

Well, right now I'm leaning toward Obama but that's just a vote against Clinton (Bill, that is :))
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>