Barack or Hillary ? (job, approval, democrats)

[radraja]

dynimagelv - that scenario couldn't happen, because she couldn't choose Bill as her running mate.

The candidate can choose anyone they want as a running mate, so long as that person also fits the qualifications to run for president. As Bill has already served two terms, he doesn't fit the qualifications.

If anything, I think she'd choose Edwards.

[Julia B.]

Pink--

Are you thinking of writing to them via their respective Senate offices? Just wondering...

If you're trying to sort out facts from lies or misrepresentations of the truth or info presented out of context, try FactCheck.org.

I've found this site to be very helpful in my research about the truth of the candidates (and other people 'n' stuff). What's reliable about this site is that it's completely nonpartisan and nonprofit, and funded by the Annenberg Foundation. A bunch of professional brainiac wonks do all the research and, of course, cite their sources and the context of the information.

Anyway, happy hunting!

[Golfinnova]

Originally Posted by Julia B.

Hey, Golf!

I posted about my caucus experience on the "Anyone caucusing at Keller MS" link.
I'll add here that there were glitches that had to be worked out--including the problem of precinct workers who couldn't project their voices, even with a megaphone! (I'm fron NJ, where no one has that problem...hee-hee.)

I appreciate what you're saying about Hillary. Before I comment, please know that I'm not out to convince any Dem or anyone voting Dem this time about who to vote for. I've stated (in comments in the SUN and elsewhere) that I believe people will be voting their hearts, regardless of attempts by others (party hacks, unions, and other organizations or individuals) to force their vote. I don't think anyone's freedom of choice should be inhibited.

From my own personal minor experience (Dem. committeewoman in my ward) in politics, in Jersey City, NJ, I can say that the respective party machines are ruthless and powerful...mainly thru the apathy of the voting populace. So a Dem who's worked his/her way thru the machine would have to be pretty tough by nature to have gotten anywhere. And in NY-NJ, you have to be a strategist, too. Pols are always "positioning" themselves. (I think this party-machine stranglehold is coming to an end, but that's fodder for another post!)

To us in NY or NJ in those post-Clinton-administration days, it was no surprise that the Clintons would choose to settle in New York State. They knew that, overall, they'd be accepted there and would not be derided over the Lewinsky affair (btw, I edited Monica's mother's book on the Three Tenors, shortly before that whole affair came to light). So what looks like carpetbagging to a lot of the country wasn't viewed that way by the majority of New Yorkers (and Jerseyites). (Hey, even the Duchess of York has stated that she feels more accepted in New York )

I obviously can't speak for Hillary, but I can tell you how I interpret that "35-year" bit. She's 60 years old now. She's culling the experience of a lifetime, post law school, of working toward the public good, for causes like the Children's Defense Fund, and her political experience, which also includes having been first lady of Arkansas. If I, who am 52 years old, were running for office, I'd be touting my 28 years' experience--even longer if I go back to my days in high school--as an activist with results. To this I include my professional work experience, my life experience, and so forth.

She does pack quite the professional wallop, IMHO. I just don't get that she's in it all for herself. Every pol has to have a certain amount of ego drive, but really, she's subjecting herself to inordinate scrutiny and scorn and personal nasty invective. All for ego? Self- aggrandizement? How so? I can't help it, but when I watch her, especially in person, I see someone who is genuinely compassionate, passionate, and juiced to help out. And frankly, regardless of who gets the nomination, the hue and cry for change in the way things are done in DC has been too loud for any Dem to ignore.

With the people now beginning to breathe down the pols' backs on both sides of the aisle, I think we'll see plenty of change. (And, of course, everyone hopes it's the change that they personally want to see happen.) For any Dems' legacy to stand out in the White House, they'll have to bend to the collective will of the people. Thanks, I think, mainly to Edwards and Obama, there's no going back.

That's all just IMHO.

Julia,

Thank you for a well-thought response I concur with you that whomever becomes the next President must be able to get things in DC turned around in a hurry. We're not at all happy with Bernanke who seems confused and is being reactive not proactive to the hints of recession.

I'm sure you saw the political cartoons in today's paper. While I am not a sexist in any way, I do fear that with Hillary as President she will let her emotions get the better of her during moments of crisis. The office and the world has changed since her husband was CIC, and we as a nation can not fall back into the days of Jimmy Carter. Our enemies worldwide will not hesitate to jump on us if we portray ourselves as weak.

What concerns me about having a Republican as President is that things will not change with the Dems in control of congress again. McCain is the most centrist candidate who seems the most viable to reach out to both parties to get things done IMO.

It seems that Edwards is done, and it looks like he'll be the running mate of either Obama or Clinton.

[olecapt]

Originally Posted by Golfinnova

Julia,

Thank you for a well-thought response I concur with you that whomever becomes the next President must be able to get things in DC turned around in a hurry. We're not at all happy with Bernanke who seems confused and is being reactive not proactive to the hints of recession.

I'm sure you saw the political cartoons in today's paper. While I am not a sexist in any way, I do fear that with Hillary as President she will let her emotions get the better of her during moments of crisis. The office and the world has changed since her husband was CIC, and we as a nation can not fall back into the days of Jimmy Carter. Our enemies worldwide will not hesitate to jump on us if we portray ourselves as weak.

Jimmy Carter? As opposed to the idiot elected by the Republicans to the Presidency twice? The world has changed? Because a clever set of bad guys pulled off a minor massacre? Therefore we attack those who are also opposed to the Islamic Extremists? Likely successfully having created yet another extremist state?

I guess if push comes to shove I would prefer weak to idiot.

That does not imply that Hilary is weak. She is not. In fact she may be too dominant for optimum government.

What concerns me about having a Republican as President is that things will not change with the Dems in control of congress again. McCain is the most centrist candidate who seems the most viable to reach out to both parties to get things done IMO.

It seems that Edwards is done, and it looks like he'll be the running mate of either Obama or Clinton.

The only way I can see a Republican President is that we are all hopelissly daft and there is no hope. Eight year of disaster and we give them another chance? My God...how can we seriously consider such an outcome?

Hilary in 2008. Obama in 2016.

[PinkString]

Originally Posted by Julia B.

Pink--

Are you thinking of writing to them via their respective Senate offices? Just wondering...

If you're trying to sort out facts from lies or misrepresentations of the truth or info presented out of context, try FactCheck.org.

I've found this site to be very helpful in my research about the truth of the candidates (and other people 'n' stuff). What's reliable about this site is that it's completely nonpartisan and nonprofit, and funded by the Annenberg Foundation. A bunch of professional brainiac wonks do all the research and, of course, cite their sources and the context of the information.

Anyway, happy hunting!

Thanks for the site Julia. But I cannot find the answers I want on there.

[Golfinnova]

Originally Posted by olecapt

Jimmy Carter? As opposed to the idiot elected by the Republicans to the Presidency twice? The world has changed? Because a clever set of bad guys pulled off a minor massacre? Therefore we attack those who are also opposed to the Islamic Extremists? Likely successfully having created yet another extremist state?

I guess if push comes to shove I would prefer weak to idiot.

That does not imply that Hilary is weak. She is not. In fact she may be too dominant for optimum government.



The only way I can see a Republican President is that we are all hopelissly daft and there is no hope. Eight year of disaster and we give them another chance? My God...how can we seriously consider such an outcome?

Hilary in 2008. Obama in 2016.

Capt,

LOL, I agree with you that Bush has been a buffoon especially his handling of Katrina, and how he has that "deer caught in the headlamps" look whenever presented with a new challenge. My wife wanted to jump through the TV the other day and strangle Bernanke with his "we might be going towards a recession, and the housing market will continue to struggle for another year" speech. Tell us something we already didn't know genius!!!!

I don't know if I would call 9/11 a "minor massacre" given that the after-effects are still being felt after 6 years with over 800 first responders having to retire early or die as results of cancer breathing in all that dust after the towers fell. A great piece on the HBO show Postmortem with Dr. Baden hit on several police officers that got cancer as a result of working at ground zero, one died at 38 and the other had cancer all throughout his left lung.

Even with that, Carter makes Bush look like FDR. He was so inept with the economy and foreign relations. His only claim to fame was brokering the deal between Sadat and Begin. Absolutely the worst person to have the office, never should have been more than an ambassador, IMO.

Here is my question, can Hillary actually do this without Bill's influence? Right now he's having to fight Obama while she stands on the sidelines. What's going to happen when as President Hillary gets word that Kim Jong-Il is firing up his reactors in defiance of NATO. Will she act? Will she send Bill as emissary to try to get him to stand down? Or will she do nothing and turn on the water works. I just would like to see her be a true leader, and as of yet it hasn't happened.

[olecapt]

Originally Posted by Golfinnova

Capt,

LOL, I agree with you that Bush has been a buffoon especially his handling of Katrina, and how he has that "deer caught in the headlamps" look whenever presented with a new challenge. My wife wanted to jump through the TV the other day and strangle Bernanke with his "we might be going towards a recession, and the housing market will continue to struggle for another year" speech. Tell us something we already didn't know genius!!!!

I don't know if I would call 9/11 a "minor massacre" given that the after-effects are still being felt after 6 years with over 800 first responders having to retire early or die as results of cancer breathing in all that dust after the towers fell. A great piece on the HBO show Postmortem with Dr. Baden hit on several police officers that got cancer as a result of working at ground zero, one died at 38 and the other had cancer all throughout his left lung.

Even with that, Carter makes Bush look like FDR. He was so inept with the economy and foreign relations. His only claim to fame was brokering the deal between Sadat and Begin. Absolutely the worst person to have the office, never should have been more than an ambassador, IMO.

Here is my question, can Hillary actually do this without Bill's influence? Right now he's having to fight Obama while she stands on the sidelines. What's going to happen when as President Hillary gets word that Kim Jong-Il is firing up his reactors in defiance of NATO. Will she act? Will she send Bill as emissary to try to get him to stand down? Or will she do nothing and turn on the water works. I just would like to see her be a true leader, and as of yet it hasn't happened.

The Lady sleeps with the best presidental advisor of all times. If she wants to work the hell out of him I think it a great idea. If you remember that Rhodes scholar has certain skills.

I would think her use of Bill Clinton as an attack dog is brilliant. Who better? And who is better at it. Remember we would elect this guy President again in a minute if he could run.

I don't care whether she tears up or not...it is will she kill the bastards if needed? She can do it through the tears. I don't mind.

I would classify 9/11 as a few percent of Viet Nam worse case. A crime of large scale but of little global import. We probably do vastly more harm by mis-directing resources in response than the actual harm done by the terrorists. The proper response was bury the dead and go about our business. This insanity that we can protect an open and free democracy against such attacks without giving up the open and free is bewildering.

[XFILESMULDER]

Originally Posted by Julia B.

Frankly, I think the administrator should delete your ignorant post, but you have a right to express your opinion, even if it does lack an iota of credibility.

If you knew the definition of communism, you would know that it's idiotic to attempt to label Sen. Clinton as such. And tell us why and how you know she is "man hating" and how that would be relevant if she were. And on what grounds do you accuse Sen. Obama of being a "black Hitler"? I think you trivialize the Holocaust and disrespect everyone who suffered through it when you thoughtlessly cast such aspersions.

You offer nothing to advance an intelligent discussion of the candidates. In the end though, your hateful and baseless invective diminishes only you.

First of all i couldn't care what you thought of my post . because its liberals like you that cant handle the truth. Sen. Obama belongs to th black nationalist church which has racist ties thats a fact. Hes no different then David duke who was a Klansman .as far as Hillary goes this evil woman has lied made disparaging remarks about men hopefully neither of these two candidates win the presidency our this country will be in serious trouble.

[jfkIII]

Originally Posted by olecapt

The Lady sleeps with the best presidental advisor of all times.

Yes....but who is Bill Clinton sleeping with?

[jfkIII]

Originally Posted by XFILESMULDER

First of all i couldn't care what you thought of my post . because its liberals like you that cant handle the truth. Sen. Obama belongs to th black nationalist church which has racist ties thats a fact. Hes no different then David duke who was a Klansman .as far as Hillary goes this evil woman has lied made disparaging remarks about men hopefully neither of these two candidates win the presidency our this country will be in serious trouble.

You mean worse trouble than this country is in right now?????