Race vs. Gender (a USA political thread)

Starrfall on 21/2/2008 at 00:02

Quote Posted by Fringe

Doesn't really seem like. By Hawaii's turn in 2004, the nominee had essentially already been decided, right? Voting in a meaningless election isn't really motivating for people to get out.

I think even if you factored for that it would be an impressive increase, but I don't care enough to try to actually work it out.

Although if I wanted to be condescending I'd question how meaningful ANY primary can be when you only get like .2 of a delegate.

JUST KIDDING HAWAII CALI GOT MUCH LOVE

Jennie&Tim on 23/2/2008 at 03:54

Quote Posted by Fringe

Doesn't really seem like. By Hawaii's turn in 2004, the nominee had essentially already been decided, right? Voting in a meaningless election isn't really motivating for people to get out.

What's been really amazing is the turnout in Democratic primaries compared to turnout in Republican primaries. Those kind of numbers say that the Republicans are already expecting to lose.

As they should.

I'm not sure they're expecting to lose, so much as not having any really good candidates which make people want to choose them. If I were a conspiracy theorist, then I'd say that the GOP knew no candidate of their had a hope in hell of being elected after G.W. and scraped the bottom of the pot for candidates they didn't care if they tarred with the losing brush.

Now that I think about it; I just said what you said, but took longer.

Me, I like Clinton because I think she's pragmatic and I prefer pragmatists to idealists any day. In his own awful way G.W. is an idealist. I don't want someone who follows their principles come hell or high water--it was one of the things I appreciated about Bill, that he would pay attention to what the public wanted done even if they changed their minds about it. Senator Clinton isn't Bill by any means, but I like her personality and grit more than I like Obama's glow; and I find their positions on most things to be close enough to be indistinguishable when you factor in what Congress will do to any proposals.

Starrfall on 23/2/2008 at 05:11

Pragmatic you say?

(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/22/AR2008012202614.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) Better Economic Plan, says Washington Post

(http://www.usaspending.gov/) Proponent of government transparency.

(http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120234937353949449.html) Better on health care, says Washington Street Journal

(http://www.womenforbarackobama.com/Obama_s_Record.html) Strong Record on Women's Issues

(http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/) Number one by the League of Conservation Voters

(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html) Other legislative accomplishments, including making Illinois the first state to require that police interrogations and confessions be videotaped.

How about ethics and open government?

(http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/opinion/15fri1.html&OQ=_rQ3D4Q26orefQ3DsloginQ26orefQ3DsloginQ26orefQ3Dslogin&OP=13a7d60aQ2FOVQ5DQ5COiQ51h8PQ51Q51MbObQ2AQ2AgOQ2AbOIEOQ51u414Q511OIE_P4IQ26Q7DMrD) Obama has released his tax forms, Clinton has not. (You'll need reg. or bugmenot for that one)

(http://obama.senate.gov/press/070621-obama_announces_3/) He's not afraid to release his earmarks, while (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/11/13/presidential_dynasties_can_add_layer_of_secrecy/) she's keeping things under lock and key.

(http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/1538) She voted against a ban on using cluster bombs in civilian areas.

How about the hypocrisy? You've got a fabulous recent example from just last night, when during the same debate she tried to scold Obama for "plagerism" she concluded with lines that appear to be lifted from either her husband of John Edwards?

Stitch on 23/2/2008 at 07:37

Clinton has run a mismanaged, negative, divisive campaign. Is this really who we want in charge of the country?

Obama has run a masterful campaign and inspired an unstoppable train that's going to take him straight to the White House. This is results, not just rhetoric, in action.

Assuming he doesn't forget that independents and disgruntled Republicans helped put him in charge, he's going to make one hell of a president.

aguywhoplaysthief on 23/2/2008 at 07:41

Starrfall: I don't think "pragmatism" in the sense that Jennie used it has much at all to do with specific positions on issues, but a deeper willingness to make greater compromises. Realistically, it's a difficult thing to judge since both Clinton and Obama have only had short Senate careers centered around propelling them to the White House. Obama has a longer state legislature record, but I'm not sure what his personality was like during that time. It would be interesting to know if he was a commited partisan, or worked for more common ground solutions at the time.

Starrfall on 23/2/2008 at 17:51

I'm astonished that there are people who think Hillary would be more willing to make compromises than Obama would be and I'd love to hear why they think that.

I could see how someone might think Obama would be more likely to try to talk you around to his point of view than Hillary but surely being talked into something is better than having things rammed down your throat, which seems to be the approach Hillary plans to take. (For example I don't know what the Illinois political climate was at the time but he got that videotaped interrogations through on a unanimous yes vote, and I'd guess that it wasn't without it's opponents) It's like Hillary has already forgotten that only part of the country supports her and becoming president won't change that.

Ko0K on 24/2/2008 at 22:52

Yeah, so Nader announced just now that he's running for Prez again, because he couldn't resist making things 'interesting' for the Democrats again. The sad thing is that most of his supporters don't even know what platform he's running on, other than that he's opposed to both prevailing parties. God bless America, eh?

BrokenArts on 25/2/2008 at 03:43

Anyone have a gun, shoot me now. Plenty in this forum lately.

june gloom on 25/2/2008 at 04:25

You think that's bad, Obama is coming to my college tomorrow. I'd skip classes because the traffic is going to be fucking INSANE, but I have a midterm I have to take :mad:

I'm probably going to end up just skipping my first class and going to take the midterm in the afternoon.

Stitch on 25/2/2008 at 16:06

So what do you do if you're trying to gain traction against an opponent that's all but clinched your party's nom?

If you're Hillary:

First, (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8V076CO0&show_article=1) you attack mailings from the Obama camp that question your recent backpedaling on NAFTA, taking the opportunity to (1) call such tactics Rove-ian, (2) liken Obama to Bush, and (3) chide your opponent with a stern "shame on you!" It should be noted at this point that the contents of the mailings are factually accurate and the only candidate who has engaged in the Rove book of smear is Hillary.

As if to underscore this point...

Secondly, (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/24/hillary-clinton-mocks-bar_n_88194.html) you openly mock Obama's message of hope and inspiration, despite the fact that this message has been embraced by a massive number of voters you hope to sway to your side.

Most would pound out those two and call it a weekend, right?

Not if you're Hillary, at which point (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8667.html) the circulation of smear photos depicting Obama dressed in Swahili Elder garb is traced back to your campaign.

Yeah, she's exactly what I look for in a leader!