Obama a sure winner?

[eternaltriangle]

A lot of people have been scoffing at the notion that Hillary Clinton is a stronger general election candidate than Obama. However, for a number of reasons, Clinton's case is strong, and it is Obama that is by far the weaker candidate.

Why is this the case? After all, Obama wins over independents, shouldn't that make him stronger in a general election? The notion that independents decide general elections is misstated. After all, if you are a typical Nader voter, you're an independent, just as if you were a fan of the Constitution party. It is people in the middle of the political spectrum, moderates, that decide elections, not independents (moderates may often be independents but that isn't always true). Moreover, Obama has done well with independents that vote in the Democratic primary - not necessarily reflective of independents in the nation as a whole. Clinton does better among moderates across most exit polls - in Pennsylvania she won moderates by 20 points, in Ohio by 14 points and in Texas by 2 points (my point isn't that she always wins sweeping majorities of moderate voters, but that she is at least as competitive with Obama on his supposed strong-point - winning the center).

Secondly, Clinton appeals to women, as she would be the first ever female president. Women tend to be Democrats, but not as overwhelmingly as young people or African Americans - Obama's two main constituencies. Kerry won the female vote by 6 points, the black vote by 79 points and under-29 voters by 11 points. Moreover, Clinton appeals to unionized voters and Hispanics, which are strategically concentrated in swing states. The only category where Obama can convincingly appeal to swing voters is among affluent voters whose wallets want them to vote Republican, but whose hearts say its time for granola.

What do the numbers say? Every matchup poll since March has had Clinton and Obama performing essentially the same against McCain. Moreover, Clinton's vote is more efficient, because her support is concentrated in states that are usually swing states. To be president you need to win the electoral college, not the most votes. Lets look at the pollster.com average in some typical swing states (and some that have been discussed by either McCain or Obama as part of a "50-state strategy"* - I have included a (K) to indicate that Kerry won the state:

McCain vs. Clinton/McCain vs. Obama
(K)Pennsylvania: Clinton + 2.5%/McCain + 3%
(K)California: Clinton + 7.9%/Obama + 8.4%
(K)New Jersey: Clinton + 2.6%/Obama + 1.5%
(K)Minnesota: McCain + 2.5%/Obama + 11.4%
(K)Wisconsin: McCain + 2.5%/Obama + 4%
(K)Michigan: McCain + 5.2%/Obama + 1.3%
(K)Massachusetts: Clinton + 15.9%/Obama + 2%
(K)Oregon: Clinton + 2.5%/Obama + 9%
(K)Washington: McCain + 1%/Obama + 5.3%
Missouri: McCain + 2.2%/McCain + 12.9%
Nevada: Clinton + 4%/Obama + 3.5%
Iowa: McCain + 7.1%/Obama + 4.9%
Arkansas: Clinton + 13%/McCain + 23%
New Mexico: McCain + 2%/McCain + 5.8%
Texas: McCain + 7%/McCain + 5.5%
Florida: McCain + 2.8%/McCain + 11.4%
Ohio: Clinton + 5.4%/McCain + 2.3%
Virginia: McCain + 17.8%/McCain + 9.1%
West Virginia: Clinton + 5%/McCain + 18%
Colorado: McCain +9%/Obama + 3%

So what clear gains and losses would result from nominating Obama over Clinton, based on the polls today (the polls will change from today, but, we have no reason to expect they would change one way or the other on average, do we)? Because of greater uncertainty, lets look for cases that make a difference of more than 6 points in the polls (double the standard error on any given poll) between the two candidates, ignoring cases where a 6 point difference would not bring the Dems within 6 points of winning the state.

Obama runs 12 points better than Clinton in Colorado, 12 points better in Iowa and 8.7% better in Virginia (but still losing the state by a large margin). Winning Iowa and Colorado would add 16 electoral college votes that Kerry didn't win last time (not enough to win). Moreover, Obama runs 13.9% worse in Massachusetts, bringing McCain within 2 points of winning. MA is worth 12 electoral college votes. Not making the threshold is Obama's 5.5% worse performance in PA.

So for all his electibility, Obama does about as well as John Kerry.
Clinton does 8.6% better in Florida, 7.7% better in Ohio, 23% better in West Virginia, 39% better in Arkansas, and 10.7% better in Missouri. These states, which she brings into the tossup category, are collectively worth 69 electoral college votes. Clinton does weaker in Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan, collectively worth 53 electoral college votes.

[Kfbr]

Keep in mind most of these polls are being taken in the middle of a bitter primary and people in the Democratic party aren't over the "I won't vote for him/her if she steals the nomination".

A lot of people are saying I'd vote McCain over Obama/Clinton because he/she is a [whatever]. But in the end they'll pull through for the party.

edit: Not a democrat

[eternaltriangle]

Keep in mind most of these polls are being taken in the middle of a bitter primary and people in the Democratic party aren't over the "I won't vote for him/her if she steals the nomination".

A lot of people are saying I'd vote McCain over Obama/Clinton because he/she is a [whatever]. But in the end they'll pull through for the party.

edit: Not a democrat

I am not evaluating McCain's chances here, only the relative chances of Clinton or Obama. Of course, more voters say "I will vote for McCain if Obama wins" than say that if Clinton wins, so that would only weaken the incredibly tenuous "Obama is more electable" line that so many people have put forward.

The REAL divide is among Democrats in Obama states and Democrats in Clinton states. Congressmen and senators want the most competitive candidate for their state, and don't care about national results that much. In fact, a Democratic president might even be a bad thing for Democrats in congress, because the party of the incumbent presidents almost always lose seats in midterm elections, as they lose their honeymoon "sheen". Note that I said Clinton states/Obama states rather than red or blue. Clinton does well in certain kinds of states, while Obama does well in others - it isn't fundamentally a red-blue divide though.

[ShaiGar]

I find it quite amusing that people who vote for parties who are not Democrats or Republicans are considered Independents. They're clearly not, they want a party, not an independent.

[ChfMojoRising]

I actually wouldn't vote for either Hilary or McCain should Obama not make the general election. Waste of gas to drive out there. It'd be like rushing out to go decide on steering the govt. to communist Russia or nazi Germany. And if one of those two become president and things go way down hill, I think I'll jump ship to another country and keep an ear out for a revolution ;)

[SeaCzar]

I think the Democratic Party is in trouble, regardless of the eventual nominee. The Republicans will shred Obama to bits in the general election. If Clinton is the nominee, the Democrats will be alienating one of its largest and most loyal bases, African-Americans. While this will not start a stampede of African-Americans voting for McCain, the anger in the black community would be palpable and long-lasting if Obama is sent packing.

[meanlittlechimp]

I think the Democratic Party is in trouble, regardless of the eventual nominee. The Republicans will shred Obama to bits in the general election. If Clinton is the nominee, the Democrats will be alienating one of its largest and most loyal bases, African-Americans. While this will not start a stampede of African-Americans voting for McCain, the anger in the black community would be palpable and long-lasting if Obama is sent packing.

It's not just the African Americans, it's all the young voters who wouldn't even be voting, if it wasn't for the fact they believe Obama is not your typical lying politician.

Sad to say, but I think the Republicans are probably favored to win this now; with all the infighting in the Democratic Party - and the cheesy, but effective, negative campaigns Hillary ran. The Blue collar red neck Democrats don't want a black man for office, and that group might not be offset by the younger voters Barack is bringing in. 20% of those polled said race was a factor in picking Hillary and that is the supposedly liberal party, and those are just the ones that would admit to a pollster's face.

Maybe in another 10 to 20 years. Hopefully as the old people die off, America will become less racist (generational trends seem to support this).

Even more sad, is there was never a better climate for a Democrat winning office than now considering he current approval of the Bush administration and the majority of the country being anti-war. If the Dems ran a regular white guy like Gore or Kerry, they would have beaten McCain fairly easily today. A woman or a black man would have never had a chance in the previous elections.

Hillary is the tough president who can handle a 3am call? She was asleep while Monica was blowing Bill, gimme a break. Obama is the elitist president? He took a community activist job after law school getting paid less than a school teacher. He seems, by far, the person less motivated by money or power than the other candidates - yet he is the elitist because he got an education. Bush who is the true elitist who got everything handed to him and never had any real work experience before becoming governor of Texas. But because he's ignorant and can't speak well, rednecks in the red states can identify with him.

The voting public makes me sick.

[darkkodiak]

My take on this is that I think Obama will most likely win the Democratic nominee but will lose the general election up against McCain. My reason is just look at the people who are voting, most of them are old bastards who never look at the issue at hand even when it slaps them in the face and needs to die because they FAILED in leaving us a better world(the whole failing in leaving us a better world is just my personal opinion).

[Riverratt]

I don't understand WHY, the Democrats, pick such AWFUL presidential Candidates..

For example, you can write down Hillary's achievements on a napkin, and have room to spare..

I don't need a slip of paper to write down Obama's achievements, because I cannot think of ANY.. :thumbsdown:

Why did the not run Bill Richardson??? Who has WIDE appeal, and a list of achievements a mile long??

What does this say about the typical Democratic Primary voter??

I do not like John McCain, but his pinkie finger has more experience then BOTH, of the Democratic contenders combined...This is irrefutable fact.

[knock7]

I think ultimately the democratic party is going to tell them they have to be on the same ticket to get the nomination. I also think they are both determined enough to accept it.

[Rick]

At this point in time, as I see it, we have 3 choices - Hillary, Obama, and McCain.

None appeal.

This is the first time in my life that I've thought the whole country has gone insane and I need to leave.

Having said that, I expect that the election will come down to Obama versus McCain. Beyond that, I cannot predict.

The country is becoming more liberal, though, so I wouldn't be surprised with a Obama presidency.

[Monte314]

As I've thought about this, I've come to the conclusion that, while America is ready to HAVE a black president and/or female president, it probably isn't ready to ELECT a black and/or female president.

Despite what people tell pollsters, when they stand in a voting booth and stare down at that ballot, a lot of them are going to vote their fears and prejudices rather than the open-minded persona they show the world. Expect a big surprise in November....

[wolf]

I'm pretty sure McCain or a dark horse will win by default at this point.

[ShaiGar]

:(
I saw that thread and saw Osama.

[meanlittlechimp]

I do not like John McCain, but his pinkie finger has more experience then BOTH, of the Democratic contenders combined...This is irrefutable fact.

He has a lot of experience supporting the idiotic ideas of the Bush administration that screwed over this country. Amazingly, he hasn't learned from it, since he wants to stay in Iraq indefinitely, and is no different than the neocons in foreign policy, whatsover. All the people that hate Bush now and regretted voting for him, are now switching over to the candidate that supported the same fucking policies, that caused the current malaise. They don't get the policies control the country, not the NEW poster boy (but technically older by 10 years) to sell the SAME policies to the public, as new ones. You think Bush or Reagan actually wrote any policies?

These people don't vote by reading policies....... they vote on carefully sculpted press conferences, they vote on religion, race, who they'd have a beer with, fighting the bad guys so they don't follow us home, gun laws, lucky charms, and everything else that doesn't matter.

See, where Obama has more experience is....... THINKING. He's far more intelligent than McCain could ever hope to be. I love your line, "this is irrefutable fact!!!" You remind me of this haughty ISTJ bible teacher I once had, quoting the bible. Ss like facts, Ns can see nuance and theories. Don't mean to insult ISTJs. I personally know at least two incredibly bright ones that would put most Ns to shame.

McCain is freakishly superstitious and believes in all sorts of other dumb shit. McCain still thinks Vietnam was good idea, he still thinks the invasion of Iraq is a good idea. He still probably thinks the civil rights act was a bad idea (even though he won't admit it now). He wants to increase defense spending, by borrowing even MORE money from the Chinese. He just sticks to the same dumb shit in the face of all reason and logic and no matter what new information arises. He's one of those assholes that won't concede an argument and can't learn from mistakes. He has that anal rectitude that his fans love.

Give me a smart guy over the experienced dumb guys every time. Bush has more experience being President than either of the candidates; maybe he should be president again :idea:!

Actually, some of you probably would vote for him again, if you could. But since you obviously favor McCain, can you tell me how this experience has paid off in his policy ideas?

[Riverratt]

He has a lot of experience supporting the idiotic ideas of the Bush administration that screwed over this country. Amazingly, he hasn't learned from it, since he wants to stay in Iraq indefinitely, and is no different than the neocons in foreign policy, whatsover. All the people that hate Bush now and regretted voting for him, are now switching over to the candidate that supported the same fucking policies, that caused the current malaise. They don't get the policies control the country, not the NEW poster boy (but technically older by 10 years) to sell the SAME policies to the public, as new ones. You think Bush or Reagan actually wrote any policies?

These people don't vote by reading policies....... they vote on carefully sculpted press conferences, they vote on religion, race, who they'd have a beer with, fighting the bad guys so they don't follow us home, gun laws, lucky charms, and everything else that doesn't matter.

See, where Obama has more experience is....... THINKING. He's far more intelligent than McCain could ever hope to be. I love your line, "this is irrefutable fact!!!" You remind me of this haughty ISTJ bible teacher I once had, quoting the bible. Ss like facts, Ns can see nuance and theories. Don't mean to insult ISTJs. I personally know at least two incredibly bright ones that would put most Ns to shame.

McCain is freakishly superstitious and believes in all sorts of other dumb shit. McCain still thinks Vietnam was good idea, he still thinks the invasion of Iraq is a good idea. He still probably thinks the civil rights act was a bad idea (even though he won't admit it now). He wants to increase defense spending, by borrowing even MORE money from the Chinese. He just sticks to the same dumb shit in the face of all reason and logic and no matter what new information arises. He's one of those assholes that won't concede an argument and can't learn from mistakes. He has that anal rectitude that his fans love.

Give me a smart guy over the experienced dumb guys every time. Bush has more experience being President than either of the candidates; maybe he should be president again :idea:!

Actually, some of you probably would vote for him again, if you could. But since you obviously favor McCain, can you tell me how this experience has paid off in his policy ideas?

Well now...that post was 6 paragraphs LONGER than Obama's resume, you know the paper where he lists his accomplishments. :rolleyes:

[rwyatt365]

It's been a very long time since the American public has had a "clear choice" when it comes to a Presidential candidate. The last several elections have often been characterized as the choice of "the lesser of two evils" - this one is no exception. Within the Democratic Party, the choice between Hillary and Barak is problematic; the idealistic newcomer vs. the determined politico. Either compared to McCain is equally, if differently, troubling.

Personally, I prefer thoughtful contemplation (even if unexperienced), to ruthless power-mongering, or superstitious prattle.

As I've thought about this, I've come to the conclusion that, while America is ready to HAVE a black president and/or female president, it probably isn't ready to ELECT a black and/or female president.

Despite what people tell pollsters, when they stand in a voting booth and stare down at that ballot, a lot of them are going to vote their fears and prejudices rather than the open-minded persona they show the world. Expect a big surprise in November....
Sad, but true. The American public are habitual, and pathological liars when it comes to public displays of opinion. Most will resort to what is "acceptable" when queried rather than profess an unpopular opinion.

Monte, I agree - America professes it is ready for "something completely different", but when their back is up against the wall (or, against the polling booth curtain), they will "go conservative" every time.

[Dreamer]

It's not just the African Americans, it's all the young voters who wouldn't even be voting, if it wasn't for the fact they believe Obama is not your typical lying politician.

He is not a typical politician,he is a professional one!

[Riverratt]

I can deal with inexperience...if they admit it...

But what irks me to know end, is hearing Obama talk about all his experience and all the "Change" he will bring, but his track record on "change" is NON-existent..

He is not running as an outsider, he is running as an experienced "change" candidate..

Than you have Hillary, when asked about experience mentions Bill...:thumbsdown:

WOW, lets see, my wife as a ICU/Trauma Charge Nurse, and we have been married for 12 years...does that mean, when you get into a car crash, you want ME, to take care of you in the hospital?? After all, I have been MARRIED to a Nurse, so certainly that gives me "experience"

*Groan*

All this talk of their experience, does not look good for both of them. They need to talk about other things..

Like the fact that 45% of voters say that "they will NEVER vote for Hillary Clinton under ANY circumstances.

Like the fact, that Obama was raised a Muslim, attended madras's, has yet to win a federal election (was appointed to his senate seat), and calls a pastor that chants "god damn America" a close spiritual advisor. A wife that brainlessly runs her mouth incessantly..... My gosh...the list goes on and on...

Why could not the Democrats, pick a palatable canadate? Like Bill Richardson, or Mark Warner?? Where did this "bunch" come from??? :thumbsdown:





Riverratt added to this post, 3 minutes and 7 seconds later...

He is not a typical politician,he is a professional one!


He is a professional SPEAKER, more than anything....Hell he even has them passing out in the stands...

That should scare the HELL out of folks. Charismatic speakers tend to be terrible leaders, and some times, charismatic leaders end up killing millions.

Also, note, if you listen to his speeches, he says so much, but their is very little "substance".

[the human iPod]

This is kind of an obscure question, but if all of the candidates were to randomly die in car accidents or the like, what would happen?

[Aronnax]

This is kind of an obscure question, but if all of the candidates were to randomly die in car accidents or the like, what would happen?

Guys who wear tinfoil hats while editing their blog about the connection between the CIA, aliens and the British royal family would scream in triumph because they had more proof for their theories.

Then the Democratic and Republican parties would nominate new candidates and the election would move forward as usual.

[lordrrr]

American democracy is rigged. McCain will win hands down. There's no use making a fuss about it all.

[Fej]

Whats up with you guys? I see that a lot of you don't support Hillary Clinton who supposedly is an INTJ. Why the contradiction?

[zhangxy]

I think Hillary will be the Democratic candidate, though no one really knows. I prefer her over Obama. I think she's slightly more competent.

[meanlittlechimp]

I think Hillary will be the Democratic candidate, though no one really knows. I prefer her over Obama. I think she's slightly more competent.

Huh? it's almost statistically impossible for Hillary to win.

[Tsuru]

Whats up with you guys? I see that a lot of you don't support Hillary Clinton who supposedly is an INTJ. Why the contradiction?

Uh, contradiction? She's a horrible person with horrible ideas. Her having the same personality type as me doesn't qualify her to be the president of the USA. (And on a tangent, I think she's an ENTJ).

She's a pandering, lying, authoritarian snake who would hand the election over to the republicans and go against the voters' wishes (read: attempt to win by super delegates) rather than lose. A machine politician in every sense of the word.

[Riverratt]

She's a pandering, lying, authoritarian snake who would hand the election over to the republicans and go against the voters' wishes (read: attempt to win by super delegates) rather than lose. A machine politician in every sense of the word.

Yep...I can't wait to see the Democratic National Convention.....I wonder if they will turn the dogs and fire hoses on them??

[Antares]

Uh, contradiction? She's a horrible person with horrible ideas. Her having the same personality type as me doesn't qualify her to be the president of the USA. (And on a tangent, I think she's an ENTJ).

She's a pandering, lying, authoritarian snake who would hand the election over to the republicans and go against the voters' wishes (read: attempt to win by super delegates) rather than lose. A machine politician in every sense of the word.

I wouldn't say I know all her ideas (I don't like browsing through speeches where I can just summarize most of them in one sentence), so can you tell me in simple point form? For example, where does she stand on educational systems? War in Iraq? Gay rights? Abortion?

[SongofSeptember]

Antares--to answer your questions:

Clinton originally supported the Iraq war. Lately, however, her plan is to deauthorize the war. She has urged Bush to act quickly--and if he does not, she will if she becomes president.

Obama has opposed the war since the beginning. That is to say, 2002.

As for gay rights, Clinton "opposes gay marriage but supports civil unions between members of the same sex". I see that as kind of self-contradictory.

"Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage always has been, between a man and a woman." -- Hillary Clinton.

Clinton is against abortion. She's working to reduce the number of abortions in America. She says she is "pro-choice but not pro-abortion".

On education... okay, it's pretty long to summarize.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Antares]

Antares--to answer your questions:

Clinton originally supported the Iraq war. Lately, however, her plan is to deauthorize the war. She has urged Bush to act quickly--and if he does not, she will if she becomes president.

Obama has opposed the war since the beginning. That is to say, 2002.

As for gay rights, Clinton "opposes gay marriage but supports civil unions between members of the same sex". I see that as kind of self-contradictory.

"Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage always has been, between a man and a woman." -- Hillary Clinton.

Clinton is against abortion. She's working to reduce the number of abortions in America. She says she is "pro-choice but not pro-abortion".

On education... okay, it's pretty long to summarize.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Then it would seem strange for me to ever considering supporting her. Yes, I like her feminist styles, but what you've mentioned, I cannot stand. I think Ron Paul or Obama would be the one for me. I'm sort of tired of Obama raving on about 'change'. Although Ron Paul is a republican, he's a libertarian and is very open on most issues.

[SongofSeptember]

I agree--I'm glad that a woman is finally running for president, but I don't like her positions on many of the current issues. On the other hand, I do support Obama.

Not that it would make any difference--I am Chinese, hold an Australian passport, merely attend an American school, and yet I know more of American politics than I do of China's or Australia's. ><

[Antares]

I agree--I'm glad that a woman is finally running for president, but I don't like her positions on many of the current issues. On the other hand, I do support Obama.

Not that it would make any difference--I am Chinese, hold an Australian passport, merely attend an American school, and yet I know more of American politics than I do of China's or Australia's. ><

I'm glad a woman is running too. Now I'm just waiting for an open non-religious person to run. I'd welcome that. Even though Obama is statistically likely to win, it was predicted by several analysts that Edwards actaully had the best chance against McCain :yuck: (now I DO have a problem if he wins)

[zoophilia]

I think people are generally referring to moderates with the word "independents."

[merid]

If you are not an Obama supporter, don't you think that he is being smug by posturing a victory. In most respects he has been successful through circumstance, why is there reason to be smug?

[anselansel]

Obama is a fraud. He is like McGovern. A fantasy iof the left that will be smashed in the light of day.

[antisocial one]

I wish to all forum members from USA good luck (it looks like you will need it from what I see).

[Antares]

Obama is a fraud. He is like McGovern. A fantasy iof the left that will be smashed in the light of day.

Proof?

[Riverratt]

Proof?

All the proof you need is..

A, the fact that he has the most LIBERAL voting record in the US Senate... :thinking:

B, Can you name a SINGLE accomplishment he has made??:undecided: This from an candidate, that is running on his experience...

C, Somehow, during his speeches, he tends to talk a lot, and not say very much all at the same time...especially when he was called on the carpet about his honored spiritual advisor...:thumbsdown:

D, The fact, that he only got his senate seat because "Star Trek Voyager's Six of Nine's husband is a freak, and stepped down from HIS senate seat in shame...Mr B Hussein Obama, was appointed in his place...He has yet to win, any federal election...

[dsday]

A, the fact that he has the most LIBERAL voting record in the US Senate... :thinking:

Why is that bad? Big W has arguably had one of the most conservative records in the past several decades. If we can survive one extreme, why not flip to the other for awhile? It certainly isn't the worst thing in the world.

B, Can you name a SINGLE accomplishment he has made??:undecided: This from an candidate, that is running on his experience...

You probably could Google it... It isn't that hard...

C, Somehow, during his speeches, he tends to talk a lot, and not say very much all at the same time...especially when he was called on the carpet about his honored spiritual advisor...:thumbsdown:

I think that is the definition of political speeches though. Most politicians rarely say much in my opinion.

D, The fact, that he only got his senate seat because "Star Trek Voyager's Six of Nine's husband is a freak, and stepped down from HIS senate seat in shame...Mr B Hussein Obama, was appointed in his place...He has yet to win, any federal election...

I fail to find anything that backs that claim up. In his Wikipedia page, it clearly says that he won his seat through popular election. When was he ever appointed to any political seat?

And emphasizing his middle name is a repetitive bore of the masses. Why does anyone really care that it is a Middle Eastern name? As far as names goes in this country, I would think that someone should be more afraid of "Clinton" or "McCain", since we all know very well their past transgressions and missteps.

[SongofSeptember]

Accomplishments (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

More on Obama. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

And another. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

As for his name, hello, people, that is the most ridiculous argument I've EVER heard.

I hate to give this example, but:

"What's Montague? It is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. ...
What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet; ..."

[Riverratt]

LOL, he is bound to have signed SOME legislation as a senator...

Watch as a US Senator, WHO supports Barack Hussein Obama, falls flat on National TV, when asked about his "accomplishments"

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

As for his name....LOL, if it is not a problem, why worry about it....after all, it was good enough for his Muslim father to give it to him... Who said anything was wrong with it??

As for the "Liberal" positions...I am a FIRM believer that it is an individual, that makes this nation great, NOT the government. GWB, is/was a very liberal president, he is NO conservative.

This nation needs a Libertarian president.

Here is how Obama got his senate seat...I was close, but I was wrong, he did win an election, "Seven of Nine" actress Jeri Ryan was still integral to what happend...He did win against a deeply flawed "replacement" candate.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.(Senate_candidate)

[SevenOfSpades]

If Obama wins the nomination, the Republicans will most likely be victorious after tearing him to shreds, especially due to the Hamas endorsement. Chaos could very well follow.

If Hillary wins the nomination, let alone the presidency, 'chaos following' would be mandatory and not probable.

[SongofSeptember]

If Obama wins the nomination, the Republicans will most likely be victorious after tearing him to shreds, especially due to the Hamas endorsement. Chaos could very well follow.

If Hillary wins the nomination, let alone the presidency, 'chaos following' would be mandatory and not probable.

Interesting.. what makes you say that?

[ssrprotege]

Antares--to answer your questions:

Clinton originally supported the Iraq war. Lately, however, her plan is to deauthorize the war. She has urged Bush to act quickly--and if he does not, she will if she becomes president.

Obama has opposed the war since the beginning. That is to say, 2002.

As for gay rights, Clinton "opposes gay marriage but supports civil unions between members of the same sex". I see that as kind of self-contradictory.

"Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage always has been, between a man and a woman." -- Hillary Clinton.

Clinton is against abortion. She's working to reduce the number of abortions in America. She says she is "pro-choice but not pro-abortion".

On education... okay, it's pretty long to summarize.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Thank you! I now know some other aspects of Hillary. I wouldn't say gay marriage and civil union are the same thing, but why not allowing both?
I realize it was good that I didn't initially support Hillary in the beginning; and what Hillary Clinton does sound like Stephen Harper, a hard-core right-wing Canadian prime minister (but hides that he is hard-core). That's certainly scary.

"pro-choice but not pro-abortion": what kind of stance is that, really? It's somewhat contradictory. It restricts the choices. Abortion should be only allowed in specific circumstances. Sounds like she won't even allow in "specific circumstances."

I will say on immigration, I prefer Hillary's policy to Obama's; Obama sounds a bit naive.

But the decisive reason I hate to support her is in debates. I find it hard to stand her attitude during the debate. She is rather like a policy-shooter with little desire to 'embrace' Americans (which Obama really does, and I admire him for that). She says her strength is health-care system, and she looks so self-absorbed by 'her' own policies. Just she looks rather acting, desperate that she really wants votes, ultimately power. She was even rude to the moderator (see the Ohio debate in YouTube).

She got a loan again, recently. It's a cross-section to see how excellent she is at managing money. On the other hand, most of donations for Obama's campaign are less than $100. What does it suggest?

Obama has 1962 delegates, just 63 delegates away from becoming a nominee. I hate to see the Democratic Primaries taking too long. They won't even have time to prepare themselves to defeat McCain (McCain prepares himself well, I assume). Hillary should accept defeat and stop holding grudge against people who do not support her.

[Colette]

I see the OP is a month old now. EternalTriangle, play this broadcast to yourself 5 times and then come back and tell us Hillary can win ;)

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Aronnax]

This nation needs a Libertarian president.


Don't hold your breath on that one.

[Antares]

Don't hold your breath on that one.

Sad. I'd have loved to see Ron Paul in office. If I were American, he'd be my first choice.

[SongofSeptember]

Thank you! I now know some other aspects of Hillary. I wouldn't say gay marriage and civil union are the same thing, but why not allowing both?

...

"pro-choice but not pro-abortion": what kind of stance is that, really? It's somewhat contradictory. It restricts the choices. Abortion should be only allowed in specific circumstances. Sounds like she won't even allow in "specific circumstances."


Sorry, I meant to say "I find that rather contradictory" under abortion, but I moved things around and it ended up under the wrong section.

[SevenOfSpades]

Interesting.. what makes you say that?
Obama's lack of experience, and association with some entities who have preached hate towards America, namely his reverend and especially the endorsement from one of Hamas' chief political advisors would, or at least should, seriously cripple his campaign. Add to that the fact that he has published two books in recent years, yet has not made his thesis papers available for public perusal. In fact, aside from this and his attempts to distance himself from his reverend and lean closer to the current policy regarding Israel seems out of place given the strong ties needed when being a member of a particular church, and the fact that Hamas has endorsed him and not Clinton, both of whom plan on evacuating American soldiers from Iraq. His speeches are eloquent and uplifting, but lack clarity. Personally, I find it more than a tad suspicious since he's worked hard to create a spotless public image after emerging from nothing, but it's probably more than enough ammunition that the Republicans would need.
McCain becoming president would essentially be a case of 'new face, same policies'. The desperation for change felt by a large number of people would not passively fade; repetition of policies could make it grow worse.


With Hillary Clinton, however, she seems to occupy a middle ground and scrape up the votes of as many remaining demographs she can, especially the votes of women. She's not only employed some dirty tactics in her campaign against Obama, but her policies seem watered-down by liberal standards. Her stance on abortion is vague, but very well may please some women who can't make up their mind on the issue and would rather take a perceived safer option.
By merely being another Clinton, she wouldn't be of favour amongst anyone who don't want the position of President to seem to be inheritable. If she's conveyed anything in the past year, it's that she believes that she's owed the presidency, which proves her to be more of a greedy hypocrite than anything else.
Defying odds somehow and continuing to tread the middle ground and please neither side when President would not work too well.

But that's just my speculation.