I believe this is my first strictly political post in the LR. Also, I tend to briefly glance at the other political posts in the LR so I may not be fully comprehending what I’m getting myself into, but I have a question.
This article states that Hillary has a double digit lead in the polls over Obama. Why is that? Is it because Hillary has better name recognition since she has been in the public eye for the last 15 years now? Is it because of having a minority presidential candidate, most people will pick a white woman over a black man? Is it because of her ties to Bill Clinton? I just don’t understand why Hillary is a better choice than Obama.
Since it is pretty obvious, I’m a big supporter of Obama. Mainly because I just can’t stand Hillary. I don’t want to go into the reasons why, but even with my bias, I would like to hear from the Hillary supporters why they like her over Obama?
First I’m of the opinion that polls today are so completely biased and even purposefully manipulated that they are near meaningless. In the last several elections you have major discrepancies between polls and several instances that voting day was completely different than the polls suggested.
Call it a conspiracy if you will but I think ALOT of people are just polling to get a reaction. In this case people are showing “HillDog” in the lead to get the Obama base motivated…seems to be working.
Obama is, so far, the media’s sweetheart. He’s getting massive good press and as far as I can tell not many people are Hillary supporters. About the only possible situation is that Hillary has greater exposure, but I’m having a very hard time believing that at this point especially with all of the media. Couple that with Obama’s phenomenal fund raising prowess and you start pointing back to my afore mentioned conspiracy theory.
Basically, IMHO, Hillary is pretty much unelectable and greater minds than I have said that. Going back to my “conspiracy” theory. I’m guessing that Hillary will be leading ever so slightly right up until the actual primaries…but Obama will win by a landslide. I’m also guessing a similar pattern will follow for the presidential election unless the Republicans can gain some traction with a candidate.
I am not a Hillary supporter by any means, but I am curious why someone would support Obama for President. Is it his four years in the Illinois State Senate that you think qualifies him to be the leader of the free world? Maybe it was his work on children’s health care there that makes you think he is the man to keep America safe.
Now he seems like a decent enough guy, and if he went home to Illinois for a few years, became governor or took some serious job, maybe he would prove himself to be a serious candidate. As it is, his only function seems to be to make John Edwards look like a heavyweight, who in turn makes Dan Quale look like, well, Bill Richardson, Rudy, McCain or even Hillary Clinton.
Being “supported” has nothing to do with issues now days…geeez. It’s how you look on TV. How “Hip and Cool” you are and finally how much you promise to give away.
Obama is a well spoken, good looking, black person that is “Cool”, “Hip” and would allow a good portion of America to vote away some of their “White guilt”. Absolutely nothing to do with issues.
OTOH I’m strongly of the opinion that experience means nothing in politics, except years of learning “how to play the game”. Doesn’t take years of political experience to know how to make a decision. In fact the system was not intended for people to be “career politicians” but for people to serve and go back home to their REAL JOBS.
I haven’t seen any sign that more experience in holding political office makes a candidate more qualified to be President. Could be just the opposite. Just sayin’
You have some good points, but I just wanted to mention something. Yes, the media loves Obama and greater minds think that Hillary is unelectable. However, how many lesser minds does this country have? That’s the scary thing about all of this is that I believe that all of the uninformed voters prefer Hillary because of a) they’ve know who she is and b) Obama sounds too much like Osama. Just my opinion though.
I’ll state this point blank: having a track record is no indication of how good or how bad a person will be at leading the free world. Look what people think Dubya has done to this country which is indicated by his approval rating. Someone can do a lot of things in the Senate or the House and then be a lousy President. Or someone with little experience but is a natural born leader can do good things with little prior experience. Unfortunately, with the Office of the President, I think experience should be thrown out the window. Actually, lack of experience should be thrown out the window. Look at Dubya, though. He has a proven track record of screwing shit up and he still got elected. Why? Because people could relate to him. Seriously, the election is a popularity contest and all you have to do to get elected is not piss too many people off, don’t be that controversial, and be likeable. Also, it isn’t like a single person is running this entire country. What Obama will likely do if he is elected is select a good group of advisors and other people to fill his Cabinet and that can make up for his lack of experience.
I’ll admit that I don’t think Obama has a very lengthy track record, but I think that he has the potential to do good things as President.
I have said this for 4 years: Hillary is electable. Bill does not drag her down at all.
Your typical liberal could hardly believe how popular Bush was when he was popular. They thought, “How could anyone like this bozo and that creepy, grumpy, constantly-serious Cheney? (the real president)” And “All their ties to oil and big business, Enron, Halliburton etc: Imagine!” No one cared about all that and the Bush Admin was quite popular until about 2 years ago. Now their popularity is shot, for many reasons.
All Conservatives and Republicans seem to feel the exact same way about Hillary. They think: “How could anyone like her? She is so power hungry, wants so bad to be a populist, etc.” … Its dangerous to think this way: Hillary is more popular than many think. And Clinton ended his term quite popular with the general public. Sure people were upset for a while during the Monica/Impeachment circus, but Clinton left office liked by maybe even a slim majority of the electorate?: I doubt will happen with Bush. People forget that.
And the best the Repubs have to offer is slimy Rudy and slick Romney. The next 6 months will be interesting.
As I read your post, it makes me think I should run for president. Now that is a scary thought.
It is pretty clear from your post that you have no idea how difficult it is to make decisions with large responsibilities because of their large impact, probably because you have never made a substantive decision yourself. The responsibilities I wrestle with in business grind me up as they grind up most with any authority. My biggest decisions would get lost in the rounding of one matter that crosses the president’s desk one day.
Obama has shown nothing that demonstrates either the ability to handle such responsibilities or even the ability to grow into such responsibilities. JFK’s inexperience gave us the Bay of Pigs and nearly a nuclear war in the Cuban Missile Crisis. He had the ability to grow into the job, so at least when the crisis came caused by his earlier follies, he had learned how to handle it. Bill Clinton had a similar situation, starting his presidency off with gays in the military and leading his party to defeat in 1994 for the first time in 40 years. He too had the capacity to grow into the job, moving from questions about his relevency in 1994 to a dominating political presence.
I guess you want an entertainment president. Personally, I prefer one who can actually handle a nearly impossible job. I don’t much like the idea that he is always the least knowledgable when he sits in a room with advisors.
Laughing about the"issues." All the Democratic candidates are identical on the issues. Lose the war ASAP, blame it on Bush. Make the world safe for abortions and research on human embryios. Raise taxes. Increase domestic spending on healthcare. Open the borders. Get more people dependent on a growing government. Make sure God is a four letter word in public. Search for someone to whom to surrender in all matters of international conflict. Let Iran get the bomb and spread it through the Middle East. Expedite genocide in Iraq, blame it on Republicans. Let moderate regimes fall in the Middle East. How am I doing?
If you can identify any substantive issue difference between Obama and Clinton on any subject, I will be very much surprised.
The biggest thing about Hillary is that it would really piss off the Republicans if she was POTUS. After 8 years of GW, pissing off Republicans is very appealing to the Democrat base. As an Independent who despises the crap of both parties, I am scratching my head wondering why it has to either be a Bush or a Clinton.
I don’t know how many times I have heard people say “I may vote Democratic this time, as long as they don’t nominate Hillary”. IMHO, it’s the Democrats election to lose and nominting Hillary is a good way to blow it. Though I could be wrong, with the monkeyfuck GW has made of things, maybe any Democrat could get elected.
Plus, let’s be honest here, who in the hell wants to hear that shrill, bitchy voice of hers for the next 8 years?
“I don’t much like the idea that he is always the least knowledgable when he sits in a room with advisors.”
Actaully this doesn’t bother me too much. I really don’t expect any single individual to be the brightest in the room on all aspects of running a country. I just don’t think it is possible. You can always see strengths and weaknesses in presidents that broadly break out to domestic vs foreign issues, and much depends on thier backgrounds and educations. I wouldn’t expect a great economic thinker to be as competant at military strategy.
What I do expect is that the president is bright enough to know how to choose their advisors and how to listen to them. There is nothing to be gained by appointing toadies that will only tell you everything you do is good. Likewise, you don’t want to spend your time in antognistic ventures either. A good president should be able to listen to several points of view, weigh the merits and faults of each point of view and try to come up with a direction forward. I have many friends in Texas, since we have a large corporate office there. In the run up to 2000 when I was asking them to explain some of Bush’s appeal, they all said he was very good at working all sides of the political spectrum to come up a good working solution. Today, almost to a man, they are very disappointed in the intractiblity and one sided views that generally characterize this administration.
I don’t know how the above comments really apply to any of the candidates currently, other than time in office in a positon of authority gives the public a chance to really look at how well they work in the reality of the political system. Unfortunatley, the longer you are in the system, the more strikes you can have agaisnt you in a campaign.
I don’t know if one is necessarily better than the other, but I know that with Bill in her corner, Hillary is going to have a tough campaign to beat. Say what you want about the man, but he definately knows how to run a successful campaign. Hillary may not be dazzling us, but Billary knows how to win elections.
i’m liking hillary more and more, and think she leads because she comes across with such confidence, intelligence, and poise. obama can be articulate, but at the end of what he says i still have no idea what he stands for. he seems weak; and that comes from his body language, and his style…
hillary is a genuis at the podium, especially against competition. with one smile, head nod or facial gesture she can totally discount what anybody else says. she appears to be very presidential; and she delivers her messages directly with strength, it is obvious she is a leader and obvious what her platform is.
Hillary is not a genius at the podium, and she is not obviously a leader, either. She is obviously an incredible politician, and does obviously have an incredibly impressive political machine behind her. I think she’s going to eat Obama’s lunch, personally.
i don’t disagree with what you say, except i do find her to be an exceptional speaker and she is great at the podium (especially with other political flunkees on stage with her, she just outshines them).
by leadership, i mean by the way she carriers herself; and the way she extends power and poise through body language, etc. (not necessarily her voting record or anything like this)
the bottom line is people believe what they see. she acts like she already has the job; and it works for her.
