Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I comprehended your question. What difference does it make?
When selecting a candidate to vote for the only thing that matters is the complete package vs the opposing candidate. Both Clinton and Obama were a better choice than McCain/Palin. Both Obama and Clinton are pretty close politically speaking. Clinton lost because she was out-campaigned, not because of her level of experience or her political positions vs Obama.
She lost because Obama dominated the youth and black votes because he connected better with them given his age and of course ethnicity.
Playing the sax on saturday night live or shooting baskets on the court connect you with youth voters. Young voters looked at Hillary like she was going to offer them some penny candy and show them pictures of her cats.
Both Hillary and Obama clearly proved to have better judgement than McCain when McCain selected Palin as his running mate.
Palin was a hail mary selection that McCain didn't want but when you are that far back in the polls.....whatcha going to do?
In fact, her selection was on the surface a good bit of game theory because if it works great because losing by a mile and losing by 10 feet are the same result.
Her selection was just a failed attempt based upon polling metrics to break lose Obamas stranglehold on youth and women voters.
Sad but true, so many bad decisions made in Washington based upon trying to jockey poll results.
It is a question that baffles many. Hillary Clinton was the golden girl of the democrat party in the 2008 election. She had been first lady, she had proposed universal healthcare under her husbands term as president and she was a senator from New York. But with all her alleged experience that she had that would make her president, according to democrats and the media, they decided to throw her under the bus for a inexperienced candidate who had zero executive experience making good policy, balancing budgets or even running a business. What was the true reason Hillary was thrown under the bus for a junior senator with zero executive experience?
Because the the Utopia Obama promised had unicorns with rainbows like Rainbow Brite, and Hilary's were just regular ones, with no accompanying rainbows.
It is a question that baffles many. Hillary Clinton was the golden girl of the democrat party in the 2008 election. She had been first lady, she had proposed universal healthcare under her husbands term as president and she was a senator from New York. But with all her alleged experience that she had that would make her president, according to democrats and the media, they decided to throw her under the bus for a inexperienced candidate who had zero executive experience making good policy, balancing budgets or even running a business. What was the true reason Hillary was thrown under the bus for a junior senator with zero executive experience?
The selection actually done through a process called "democracy".
That the inexperienced Senator Obama beat the more experienced, well-known Senator Clinton in the primaries is a testament to the campaign team he put together. Then that team went on and beat up on a Senator that had presidential campaign experience (although it really didn't show through) and a media sensation from Alaska; all the while with Senator Joe Biden on the ticket.
1. There is no such thing as the "Democrat Party'.
2. Candidates are chosen by voters. I think one of the decisive factors was that Obama had been right abou Iraq and Clinton was wrong. This is coupled with the fact that she never acknowledged that she had been wrong in supporting Bush's invasion of Iraq, which provided no assurance that she would not make the same mistake in the future.
3. I saw them as being pretty close ideologically--very moderate, neither one as liberal as I would like. I thought Edwards, because he made fighting poverty the heart of his campaign, had a lot to offer. Obviously he also had at least one glaring flaw so it was good that he wasn't our nominee.
This right here was why I wouldn't vote for her in 2008, and I won't vote for her if she is the nominee in 2016.
Well, that and the sense of entitlement that leads to dynastic politics.
I hate dynastic politics.
So what? He was elected. Twice, as a matter of fact.
Why did he win over Hillary?
It's simple. He was the right person for the times.
When I walked into a caucus on a cold, windy and bitter February night in 2008, I expected I would vote for Hillary. Democrats in Idaho are a real minority in Idaho; usually a caucus here draws 200 people at the max. I watched a big meeting room with a capacity of 750 fill up an hour before the doors were finally locked become stuffed to the rafters with over 1200 young voters in their 20's and 30's.
They all came to vote for Obama. For the only time in my life as a Democrat, I saw another thousand who were turned away because the hall could literally hold no more.
Just 2 weeks earlier, on only 72 hours notice, the Democrats in Boise filled up Boise State's Bronco stadium, the largest in the state with over 12, 000 young voters, all for Obama. The night then was just as bitter, and they had to turn away over 2,000 people there, but those folks got to listen to him in the parking lots.
That's why he won. Before the night was up, I saw where the winds of change were blowing, and voted for him.
I never expected him to be a 2-term President in 2008. But I was most happy to vote for him again. So did most of those young folks must have been happy to do so, too.
His terms are coming to an end, but the sea change has not stopped. In fact, all those motivated young folks have had 7 years to fine tune and expand the most excellent organization the Obama team built in 2007 and used once more to triumph in 2012. By 2016, we'll have even more registered and committed young voters than ever.
By 2016, Hillary Clinton will be a party elder. Do not mistake Democrats for Republicans. The Democratic party does not have a line of succession. And they know this is the 21st century, with it's own battles and challenges. Hillary will not run.
Do not expect executive experience vs. political experience to count anymore. If it did, Romney would now be the President. Statesmanship is not the same as business expertise or even old political expertise. The world is changing to fast now to cherish the old times. Why? Because they don't apply very much anymore.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
