Lets talk politics! (Demo version)

[Primera Espada]

Here's something fun I thought I'd do.

I don't support any of the democratic candidates for the 08 election.

SO

I thought I'd open a debate about the 2 most interesting ones, Obama and Clinton. Since I am not likely to vote for either, I can at least offer opinions that are not slanted towards either candidate.

First up, the challenger
Barack Obama http://www.barackobama.com/

Some of his views:
Diplomacy over military action.
His general views seem to indicate that he hates military force, and will avoid it if at all possible. He even said that military response, if America is DIRECTLY attacked would be secondary to recovery plans. This is a very hot button topic, but at the very least he has been consistent in this stance.

He is not supportive of gay marriage. I am not sure if he's against it, or simply not for it. Even his website seems to shed no light on the topic

Immigration: He wants tighter borders, but moreso than that, he wants to make it tougher for illegal immigrants who are already IN the country. Punishing people for hiring them, rewarding legal immigrants for military service, making it faster for immigrants to gain citizenship.

Obama is big big big on fighting poverty, considering it to be the root cause of so many other problems. In fact, I would say that is the focus of his campaign currently.

Obama takes an interesting stance on abortion. He feels that abortion should be an option, but also believes that we need to do everything we can to eliminate the reality of it. He feels that arguing the less than 1% of cases is foolish, as those are often situations that the mother cannot control. Instead, he argues that women who do decide to have an abortion should only have one after discussing it with their doctors, family, and clergy. He wants to reduce teen pregnancy (which, by the way, is at a record low allready). He also voted to try and increase funding for family planning services, and expanding sex education.

He also supports embryonic stem cell research (feels this is pretty self explanitory)

Though the public is quick to label Obama as "the black candidate" he steers clear of it. He is generally disconcerned with comments about how well he relates to the black american populace.

Now onto the incumbent (of sorts), Hillary Clinton http://www.hillaryclinton.com/

She was a first lady who was generally seen as aspiring to be the most politically active first lady ever while her husband was in office. Her health plan generally embarassed her to the point that crushed her attempt. However, after her husband was out of the spotlight, the captured the senate spot in New York and gained widespread democratic support.

She wants to elevate the middle class, making affordable health care available, changing minimum wage (as of today, minimum wage is at 5.85, this time next year will be 6.55, this time 09 it will be 7.25, so she's talking about increasing it more than that, which would probably go into effect in 2010) and creating more mid-level jobs.

Hillary is not afraid to use military force, though she believes military force should be used short term. She voted for the Iraq war, but after it went on longer than she intended, she turned against it, demanding the removal of troops. This ambiguity has cause some uncertainty as to her military stance. However, she has said that if America is attacked again, swift, clear, immediate retribution is required.

She supports gay marriage, and is actually frequently involved in gay and lesbian orginizations.

Hillary seems adamant about supporting pro-abortion stances, even go so far as to claiming insidious attempts by right wing republicans to attack such rights. Hillary places a large emphasis on women being treated like 2nd class citizens in America, claiming to be a Champion for women.

The biggest obstacles for each:

Obama: His middle name (hussein) his upbringing (exposure, though not exclusively, or even majorly, to islam), his race, his inexperience

Hillary: Her marriage to Bill, her history of supporting the war in Iraq, her inability to relate to the average woman (due to her more masculine demenor & mentality), her exposure (she has been in the public eye longer than any other candidate at her experience level, due to bill).

Either way, it sounds like we'll have a revolutionary democratic candidate.

[Zelos]

i dont have much of a liking for any of the Democratic candidates :/ and i think that Obama and Clinton are far too extreme to make a decent president unless we want to head down the path of socialism... which i do not agree with.

i watched the youtube debates on CNN a few nights ago and i forget what the question was, but both Hilary and Obama said that they would have women register for the draft as well as men o_O Hilary is for equality of men and women, but i think her ideas of "equality" are taken a bit too far there >.< and i dont support the idea of the draft in general while these two both appear to be for it. theres not too many political issues i care strongly about, but im sure as heck not supportive of going into the military against my will.

even though im not big on the other Democratic candidates, i hope Obama and Clinton dont make it past the primaries.

[Primera Espada]

well, honestly, there's very little chance that the 3rd major candidate, edwards, will get the spot.

As for the draft thing, it's kinda funny, cause niether one of them favors any military action that would USE the draft. Methinks the women registering for the draft is a way of saying "women are just as good as men in the army"

Publicity stunt, IMO, and mostly harmless.

[experimentchoco]

Okay, I don't think I take to any of the democratic canidates either. Honestly, I don't see any of them to be strong enough for presidency.

Also, I don't think that Hilary has a problem with being feminine and all that crap. That's just a big fat excuse for someone not to vote for her. It's the same thing with Obama's "blackness". HE'S HALF BLACK, HALF WHITE. But even THAT shouldn't make someone not want to vote for him. I swear, voters these days.

I find them to be completely irrational, annoying, and prejiduce.

I think you could also expand on the other leading canidates to give others a better view of the democratic "team".

[Primera Espada]

actually, hillary's femininity problem relates to her getting the female vote, cause they view her to be fake, cause she does say that she's feminine, and a model woman (a champion of women, as she puts it on her website).

So that's an actual issue, not just a "reason for someone not to vote for her"

and obama having not experienced what the typical black person in america experiences does, in fact, lower his ability to relate to them. However, he's not particularly trying to (as oppossed to hillary)

And I'm also not saying any of those are good reasons, just, ya know, reasons.

If someone who actually knows more about the minor candidates wants to post something, go ahead. I just didn't see a point in it.

[Zelos]

Methinks the women registering for the draft is a way of saying "women are just as good as men in the army"

Publicity stunt, IMO, and mostly harmless.

it probably wont be very harmless to them because, imo, that would be a major turnoff for voters and they wont vote for them in the primaries :/ and theyre so flip-floppy, they may say that they arent going to take military action as of now but they could be lying about that to try and gain favor.

who can really tell, though >.<

[experimentchoco]

actually, hillary's femininity problem relates to her getting the female vote, cause they view her to be fake, cause she does say that she's feminine, and a model woman (a champion of women, as she puts it on her website).

So that's an actual issue, not just a "reason for someone not to vote for her"

and obama having not experienced what the typical black person in america experiences does, in fact, lower his ability to relate to them. However, he's not particularly trying to (as oppossed to hillary)

And I'm also not saying any of those are good reasons, just, ya know, reasons.

If someone who actually knows more about the minor candidates wants to post something, go ahead. I just didn't see a point in it.


Okay, I do admit that taking that title can damage Hilary some. I don't think she can have the right to that title either.

True that he didn't grow up as the average black man, but I'm glad he isn't trying to take the title as the face of black america. But I do support his goal to reduce poverty. One reason why I would probably vote for him rather than for Hilary. But sadly, I'm not of age yet.

[Primera Espada]

Zelos, you bring up a VERY interesting point.

A lot of people forget that a politician's job is twofold, one, to represent his constituants, and two, to represent his party.

Combine that with the fact that the president's job is to represent the ENTIRE COUNTRY, and you can get conflicts.

You get people who, once in office, change their minds.

But that's because, remember, VERY few presidents actually get 51% of the vote. If you think about it, the president usually represents more people who DIDN'T vote for him than did.

So some times, in the interest of pleasing the majority, a president much change what they planned to do back when it was just pleasing more than anyone else was pleasing.

[Marionette]

I haven't done enough research and have to go to class...like right now. But on the Clinton not being feminine enough...seriously, what? I'm sure in some areas that can be the majority view among the women, but living in the Midwest, I seriously can't find someone who would feel that she's that far from an "average women". Maybe it's just that she is trying to relate more to the middle class women, which would make it more of a class thing.

[Zelos]

Maybe it's just that she is trying to relate more to the middle class women, which would make it more of a class thing.

im a middle-class female and of all the candidates, Clinton is the one i understand the least and dislike the most .-. so if thats her goal, shes doing a lousy job at it. i know quite a few feminists who would like to see a woman become president, but they dont want it to be Hilary. theyre willing to wait for the next one to come along.

[Marionette]

I don't know if I like Clinton or not, I don't know enough about her - or any other candidates. My point was just regarding her demeanor...the way she looks and acts is as the lady next door as they come; and what kind of mentality would you call "masculine"?

[Shinrin]

Not american so im not going to set myself into there personallities till a president is decided.
Still it's strange how few partys there are in usa.
Here in a country of around 6 million theres atleast 15 political partys at the elections to chosse from, but usually it's just 2-3 primeminister candidates where the other partys point at hte one they'd prefeer.

[Primera Espada]

Shinrin, there are a lot of political parties in the US, but some of them only exist in certain states.

I mean, you have a country of 6 million, the US is a country of 300 million.

So by the time all the states agree on candidates for the president, they've cut away many of the parties that just don't have enough support.

As for the hillary thing, Hillary represents the upper class woman the most. Small family (just 2 daughters, so that's less children than the average) her financial background is far from middle class, not to mention she's a woman who's been removed from much of that area for years (when's the last time she lived in a place that was even near middle class, the 80s?)

It's usually hard for any politician to appeal to the middle, or lower classes without immense charisma, or a personal history prior to, and at the start of their political career, since politicians themselves are not really middle class citizens.

But, if you don't believe that these are issues that can and are effecting voters, just do a search for hillary clinton and try and find anything discussing the hurtles she faces.

you'll find plenty of info.

[Marionette]

Ok, that I understand. That's definitely an important determinate of a politician's career, considering most of them will be upper class. But what does masculinity and femininity have anything to do with it (and I'm not saying being a woman doesn't give her more difficulties, it's just that saying that she "looks like a man" when she obviously doesn't isn't a legitimate strike against her)?

[Shinrin]

So there's more then 2 partys in the parlament?

Not just R & D?

That would be good

[Primera Espada]

List of national political parties (some political parties are state-only)
Democratic Party
Republican Party
Libertarian Party
Green Party
Constitution Party

Other parties who are multi-state, but are not yet in enough states to, if winning all of those states, win the presidential election

* American Centrist Party
* America First Party (2002)
* American Fascist Party
* American Heritage Party (2000)
* American Independent Party (1968)
* American Party (1969)
* American Patriot Party (2003)
* American Reform Party (1997)
* Centrist Party (United States) (2006)
* Christian Freedom Party (2004)
* Christian Falangist Party of America (1985)
* Citizens For Reform Party (2005)
* Commonwealth Party
* Communist Party USA (1919)
* Expansionist Party
* Freedom Road Socialist Organization (1985)
* Independent American Party (1998)
* Jefferson Republican Party
* Labor Party (1995)
* Marijuana Party (2002)
* National Nihilist Party (1988)
* National Socialist Movement (1974)
* New American Independent Party (2004)
* New Union Party (1974)
* Peace and Freedom Party (1967)
* Pacifist Party of America (2007)
* Personal Choice Party (1997)
* Populist Party of America (2002)
* United Fascist Union (1996)
* Prohibition Party (1867)
* Reform Party of the United States of America (1995)
* Socialist Action (1983)
* Socialist Alternative (1986)
* Socialist Equality Party (1953)
* Socialist Labor Party (1876)
* Socialist Party USA (1973)
* Socialist Workers Party (1938)
* United Citizens Party (1969)
* Workers Party, USA
* Workers World Party (1959)
* Working Families Party (1998)
* World Socialist Party of the United States (1916)
None of these have significant weight on a national scale yet, though.

In the past, we've had other parties, the whig party, the bull-moose party, etc, who have come and gone with the times.

Also, Marionette, a lot of people don't want a woman running for president if she's just going to act like a man. A lot of people who want a woman in the white house want someone who will act LIKE a woman. That's one of the reasons women have such a hard time reaching that level of political influence. Some support them for getting where they are, regardless, and others disapprove of them turning their backs on their femininity.

I'm not saying those are *legitimate* reasons not to support her. Just that they are *actual* reasons some don't.

[Marionette]

Again, my question is what's "acting like a man"? Just by looking at her she obviously doesn't look/act like a butch who dresses like a teenage boy - for me she look like my friend's mothers - maybe one of my slightly more well off friend's mother.

So what is the "femininity" would be preventing women from entering politics? I know that this isn’t a legitimate strike against her and I’m not saying that this is what you are saying, I’m just not really getting when she acted like a man – and maybe exploring the issue a bit.

[Primera Espada]

Hillary's hair has gotten progressively shorter, particularly once she was no longer first lady. Her haircut now IS very butch. It's very short, and though still clearly a woman's cut, it's about as masculine a woman's cut as you can get.

SHe also wears suits a lot, instead of outfits more feminine. Her color of choice for clothing tends to be black these days (compared to blue when she was first lady, and when she was starting her career as senator) and when she wears a feminine outfit, like the pink jacket she wore in the debates the other day, even her opponents noticed, and commented on it (some positive, some negative, not that it mattered).

She rarely wears earrings anymore, and when she does, they're small and unnoticable. In fact, her jewelry in general has followed a similar pattern.

This is something quite deliberate on Hillary's part, mind you. She *wants* to appear less feminine. In acting more masculine, she can appear to be more strong willed (something she prides herself on) and it also helps prevent people from thinking "oh that's just bill's wife." However, that does also lose some voters for her.

It's a *common* political strategy, to shape your personality to what the public needs or wants as a leader. However, Hillary's in a position few have to worry about, where some feel betrayed by her shift.

Hillary isn't cross dressing or anything, she's not scandalously acting like a man, but she's definitely in the more masculine section of her gender.

Not just in her appearance, but in her actions and her political views. She's taken aggressive military stances, downplayed some of her previous, more "motherly" concerns in lieu for presenting an authoritative, powerful image for herself.

A lot of people don't want that sort of woman in charge. A lot of people who support the notion of a female president do so because they feel a woman would be more compassionate, understanding, and less prone to solving things with violence. Hillary has isolated herself from those views in order to win the larger voting block, men.

Unfortunately, this may be an upset, as the 2004 election showed more middle class women voting than before, with the vast majority of them voting republican.

If she is going to play to the "champion for women" as she calls it, she needs to represent women. She needs to act more like the average woman. However, she's probably banking that she relates more to a specific number of women who she can cause to swing their political views, forgetting that she may lose some in the process.

It's a political gamble, every candidate has at least one, and this is one of Hillary's. Gulianni for the republicans, for instance, is gambling with his liberal support of gay marriage and abortion rights. Hillary is hoping people will not hold Bill against her, and hoping some men will soften to the idea of a woman president if she presents herself as a stronger woman.

[ShuiMei]

I'm mostly absorbed in the world of Canadian politics, so I'm not going to act like I know a lot about American politics, I don't, but I just wanted to add my two cents on this subject.

I can see where you're coming from Primera; however I don't think Hillary's actions should be condemned or written off as unfeminine. I can perfectly understand why Hillary isn't dressing in a "feminine" way, as female politicians, when they do dress in what is perceived to be "feminine" get a lot of media attention, and not necessarily the right kind. Hillary strikes me as a woman who would rather the press talk about her policies than what kind of shoes she was wearing, and that's exactly what could happen if she did bring a lot of attention to the way she dresses.

I doubt anyone here knows who she is but Belinda Stronach is/was a female politician who ran for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada and she caught a lot of this kind of attention. She is a very pretty and glamourous woman, comes from a wealthy background and this was not overlooked by the press.

The media would make comments about her Gucci shoes or Louis Vuitton handbag, headlines about her leadership candidacy read things like "Blonde Ambition" and when she crossed floors to sit with the Liberal Party, they said things like "Blonde Bombshell." All sorts of completely irrelevant things were noted by the media, like when she got a new haircut or dye-job, the different colours of suits she would wear instead of really focusing on what she was saying. That I thought she was rather vacuous in terms of idea and policy is beyond the point, the point is that women in politics, in the spotlight of the public eye, do experience this kind of close media attention.

It comes as no surprise to me that Hillary would not want to bring this sort of attention towards herself. That you said when she did where a feminine outfit that her opponents noticed it and publicly commented on it, positive and negative, is evidence that this is the kind of thing that could/would happen to her if she did dress in a more glamourous way. She has plenty of experience in public life, I'm sure she knows first hand how the media treat women in the spotlight, I view her actions as her trying her best to avoid that kind of unnecessary attention. I'm not saying I agree with her actions, but I can't say, despite my own superficiality, that were I in her position, and given her experience, that I wouldn't be compelled to act similarly.

Being a woman in politics is a difficult thing, the characteristics people feel to be "feminine," compassion, nurturing, conciliatory can also be skewed to be weakness and indecisiveness. Moreover, if you display characteristics like confidence and strength, people view it as aggression, intimidating and authoritative. She's in a hard position, and although I may not agree with her what I know of her policies and politics, I admire her for pursuing an arena so heavily dominated by men.

Personally I find it kind of offensive that it's "unfeminine" and "masculine" to not be dressing in skirts, dresses, and bright colours, accessorizing with jewellery and possessing long hair, and I'll be the first to admit that by those standards I'm probably "hyper-feminine" when it comes to my appearance but I think it's sexist to view those who don't fall perfectly in line with this superficial conception of "femininity" as masculine. Our perception of gender is a social construction, I'm sure Hillary is perfectly capable of wearing pretty clothes and compassion, but it's no fault of her own that the political arena can be unforgiving and critical of those who possess either.

[Primera Espada]

if you're offended by american views on gender roles, then I don't suggest going to america.

And I'd like to point out, these are not *MY* views.

I was stating the views that have been expressed about Hillary by the public.

I personally disagree with all the democratic candidates, so I have no investment in which one gets the nomination. I just find the battle so much more interesting than the republican one, where the man I support the most is running behind and has little chance of winning the nomination, let alone presidency.

[ShuiMei]

I don't think Canada and the United States don't differ all that much, of course there are some great differences between the two countries but there are also many similarities. Canadian media is completely saturated by American culture. We grow up watching much of the same television shows, listening to the same music, reading the same magazines and other such, so our perceptions of society and culture can and will overlap.

Regardless, I doubt the standard of femininity being defined by long hair and skirts is one that all Americans ascribe to, certainly there's some who ascribe to it, but I'm sure there's also people who can see it's about as socially acceptable as the notion that a woman's place should be at home. I think any progressive woman would see this idea of "femininity" to be offensive, out of date and especially narrow minded. My impression of Hillary is that of a fairly progressive woman, I think she too would not prescribe to this notion of femininity either, nor do I think that as a public figure she should bend to this kind of narrow public criticism. After all, what is the "right" way for a woman to behave?

Anyway, if it sounded like I was attacking you I apologize, I wasn't exactly clear if those were your criticisms or "the public's," I just wanted to share the possible reasons and/or explanations for her alleged lack of femininity.

[Primera Espada]

the problem is that some people see "progressive" women as abusers of the system. People wanting to get power for themselves. When we have examples of women who have attained much of what hillary has, without compromising their roots (the fact that Hillary HAS changed to be more masculine and etc is clear). It's certainly not like Hillary is the first woman to ever run for presidental nomination of her party before either.

What you see as "progressive" others see as "rejecting" the values of the average woman.

which is why the female population is so split over hillary, partisan politics aside.

[Marionette]

ShuiMei said it better than me, but still:

Hillary's running for the presidency of the United States, of its men and women, not just of its women, so of course she has to appeal to men as well. And her political stances (whether I agree with them or not), is suppose to have her taken seriously as a president without maximizing the issue of her gender.

And any women with a professional career would know, if you want to be taken seriously in any field other than the entertainment industry you need to follow the dress code: which means subdued colored suits an no flashy accessories (and I heard from a fashion commentator somewhere: women's hair should be shorter as they grow older). That's the dress code for both sexes, it's just when women follows it they are accused of trying to be a man (when they don't they won't be taken seriously - its kind of a lose/lose situation).

This paradox extends to her political stances as well: people want an authoritative (she is the head of the nation), powerful and strong-willed (all are things I disagree that women shouldn't be) leader, period. What some people traditionally perceives as "feminine" qualities, are exactly things that prevents them from being in power.
the problem is that some people see "progressive" women as abusers of the system. People wanting to get power for themselves. When we have examples of women who have attained much of what hillary has, without compromising their roots (the fact that Hillary HAS changed to be more masculine and etc is clear). It's certainly not like Hillary is the first woman to ever run for presidental nomination of her party before either.

What you see as "progressive" others see as "rejecting" the values of the average woman.

I don't agree that she is more "masculine", I think she is trying to be more neutral so people wouldn't focus on her gender more than what she actually says. She isn't they first woman to run, she's just the first one that had a chance. And the fact you keep on saying that those view are from average womenofthe1800s doesn't makes it true.

[Primera Espada]

I'm sorry.

I guess all that criticism of her not acting like a woman is just made up?

I mean what do you want me to say, it doesn't exist? People don't have those opinions?

[ShuiMei]

I don't think that we're saying those criticisms are fake, that they don't exist, clearly they do, but I think what Marionette and I agree on is that those criticisms are narrow-minded and rather sexist; therefore, one shouldn't pay them too much attention.

I don't find these kinds of criticisms to be legitimate concerns, people may very well feel that way, but as both a female and a progressive, I think it's nonsense. I previously likened these criticisms to the mentality that "women should stay at home," the idea that a woman should be dressing in fanciful clothing and behaving "femininely" (read: nonaggressively, concillatory) is equally outdated, and while there are still people who feel this way, that doesn't mean that Mrs. Clinton should pay such comments any heed.

I don't find her behaviour or apperance to be unbecoming of a woman, to be unfeminine, that a neutral wardrobe palette and strength are "masculine" for those who do, I think they have a very narrow and harmful perception of gender and politics. As a public figure I would hope Hillary would have the good judgement not to bend to these outdated concepts of gender. There very well may be such criticisms and people who prescribe to those ideas but what's better as a public figure, to challenge these narrow, stereotypical ways of thinking or to bend to archaic, sex-based criticism?

Moreover, someone tell me, what are the "values" of the "average woman"? Better yet, someone tell me what the "average woman" is like, I would very well like to know! Are their values centered around superficiality and materialism? The colour and cut of the clothes that they wear and the quality of the accessories they wear with them? Is what makes a woman feminine determined by the length of her hair, or how passive and nonaggressive she can be?

Who defines what is feminine? Is it the women themselves or the men that have long "owned" and controlled them, not to mention the patriarchial societies that they've created and that much of the world lives in? I do not know, but what I do know is that what makes a woman a woman is not long hair, a-line skirts and meek behaviour, it's not what makes a leader a leader either.

[Primera Espada]

womanly values tend to be the good traits associated with women. Nurturing, caring, sympathetic, intuitive, emotion-based, group oriented, sociable.

A lot of those words were used to describe Hillary's husband, ironically, rather than her.

Would it help if I just said left brained and right brained, since the average woman is dominated by one, and the average man dominated by the other?

[Marionette]

Actually, those are good traits if you say they are. To be "emotion-based", acting on institution, is a neutral term generally. But if you want to be hired for jobs that pays well and more importantly: give you decision making power (let's say...presidency?), easily swayed by emotions is not a favorable trait to have. Therefore it is discriminating and sexist.

And no, that's not just how women are (and please don't say that our brains aren't made for it, it's BS and offensive), that's how some people would like them to be. The fact that Clinton is criticized for not following those false stereotype proves how much women are pressured, still, to be like that. So the fact that there are women who live that stereotype shouldn't be a surprise and doesn't really explain anything substantial about women in general; the fact that so many women don't live within that limitation despite oppositions though, does. (Again, I agree with everything ShuiMei says and I'm just adding to it.)

[Primera Espada]

having a trait that makes you unfit for the job is not discriminating nor sexist o.O

And some people *WANT* a president who can be appealed to emotionally. Just because you don't think it's a good trait for the job doesn't mean others don't.

And it's not offensive to say men and women's brains are wired differently, it's fact. Ever heard of Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus? There's actually a clinical condition for a man born with a brain that is wired like a woman's, though the effects of which are still up for debate, as it is pretty uncommon.

You seem to be thoroughly confused. THe gender roles are not limitations. They are not something that Hillary could chose to obey, but decides to be MORE than. That's awefully disrespectful to the millions of women who chose to act, think, and feel in a way that represents AND creates that generalization.

Just because you don't believe in those values, you shouldn't make the assumption that others wouldn't believe in those values if they had a choice. They all have a choice, a lot of people CHOSE to have those beliefs and traits because they feel they are good traits to have.

A lot of people who want a woman president want one because she would be different than a man, not because some sort of obligation to imply equality through electing someone based on gender. That's why Hillary is criticized by some people, because she is far from the woman presidential candidate they all hoped for, she's not much different from the male candidates.

In particular, her military minded foreign policy reminds a lot of people of George Bush' (and the fact that, until recently, she did support the war) which means more of the same stuff. She hasn't established herself as different enough from her male counterparts in order to grab people's attention as a worthy female candidate.

Or rather, to grab SOME people's attention. Some people do feel she's made enough of an effort though. Generally, however, the majority of those people are within her own party, or at least on the left side of the political spectrum, which means very little, as a presidential election is usually won by swing voters (like the large number of new female voters (aged 30-50) who voted for George Bush in 2004, surprising everyone)

Mostly, I am confused by your assumption that the generalized associated descriptors for women are limitations, negative stereotypes, etc.

Remember, a stereotype is not inherantly bad, nor unfounded.

[Cara]

@Primera Espada

The thought that women are all nuturing and social is not unfounded, but we have our aggresive sides.;) Don't make sweeping generilizations. We can be aggresive, unsocial, and umsympathetic. Maybe it seems women are ALL nuturing/ patient because women TRY to be those things because they're considered normal and attractive.

I find that stereotype insulting because that's not who I am.

[Primera Espada]

Cara, please reread my post, you seem to be very unclear on what my statements said.

I never said women are all nurturing and social, nor have an agressive side. I never said anything about all women, or what women are completely like. In fact, rarely said anything about what *I* thought at all.

[Cara]

womanly values tend to be the good traits associated with women. Nurturing, caring, sympathetic, intuitive, emotion-based, group oriented, sociable.

A lot of those words were used to describe Hillary's husband, ironically, rather than her.

Would it help if I just said left brained and right brained, since the average woman is dominated by one, and the average man dominated by the other?

>>. If that is not what you meant, then please clarify. I find the articulation of that sentence blurry.

[Primera Espada]

"womanly values tend to be"
could be rephrased as "values commonly associated by the puclic (in this case, ameica) with women, as oppossed to men"

THe comment about left and right brained, again, pertain to how the majority of women and men are. Men tend to (read: more than 50% of men, but less than 100%) have more brain activity on one side, where women tend to have more brain activity on the other.

http://www.usd.edu/~ssanto/brain.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateralization_of_brain_function
some info on the 2 sides of the brain, and their tendancies. It also points out how there are always exceptions to the rules (which is something a lot of people overlook in my statements, when I point out I am not discussing about ALL, rather just MOST)

Hope that helps.

[Cara]

Hope that helps.

That sounds condenscending, but thanks for the trouble anyway. >>;;;;;

[Primera Espada]

Hope that helps sounds condiscending??

I was always taught that was being polite o.o

[Cara]

.........O.O...................................... .Nevermind.

[Vizard_King]

A good topic. Frankly both genders have their good and bad traits. Nither is supirior to the other. And sometimes those traits are shared.
But we gotta ask ourselves, Why does a women's slap hurt more than a man's punch?

[Spartan27]

Getting back to the topic at hand, I have to say that I am fairly dissapointed in my fellow democrats. I am not a supporter of Hilary, to me she is the candidate that represents the corporations the most. This is someone who is heavily associated with major corporations especially the pharmaceuticals. She is also someone who will switch her positions on a dime if it will help her in any political arena. She just doesn't seem like someone who is that committed to helping the people of America. Now I am not some idiot who is going to say that I won't vote for her in 2008 if she is the demo's candidate, anything is better than four more years of republican control.

As for Obama, I think he is someone who could really be a leader for our country. One of the things that American politics has been lacking is leader who can transcend the boundries between race, class, and across party lines, I like to thing he could do that. He is smart, educated, while also having roots to a wide range of communities and classes, he knows the law, and perhaps most importantly he speaks fluently, with a percieved message of hope. For a long time this country has missed a leader who can inspire the public with their words, Obama can do this, most view his speech at the 2004 convention as one of the first truly great speeches at a convention, since Mario Cuomo's speech at the 1984 convention in San Francisco.

We also need a strong leader in the party, while I feel like Clinton can rule with a Iron fist, I don't feel as though she would introduce any measures that would reverse the very dangerous direction this country has been led down. We need someone who is going to have the courage to not only take the steps to roll back the Bush tax cuts, but to also roll back the Reagan tax cuts, This country still has not recovered from what Reagan did in terms of his increase in the military budget, as well controlling the political language of the times. It was in his reign that the word Liberal all of a sudden became a dirty word. With all of this said, I would personally vote for Kucinich, but since he has as much chance of winning, as say Hell freezing over, I would hope that Obama use the same vision he showed at the 2004 convention to persuade democrats into not buying what Clinton is selling, which is a corporate friendly white house, who looks out more for the interests of Nike or Pfizer than the interests of people truly in need.

if you read this thank you for reading a long post. I most likely didn't do as great a job as I could compiling my thoughts, but its what I had at the moment, if that makes since.

[manfan]

So.....is this debate about how good Hillary Clinton going to be as a President....or do women make a good leaders / bad leaders?

I was thinking of talking about communism, democratic, dictatocratic....which is the best country ruling system.:D

You can start another thread about that topic then. :)

- FH

[Spartan27]

Well I thought it was about who would make the best Democratic representive for President, but then it seemed to morph in to a discussion about women and whether they make good leaders, personally I don't think gender has anything to do with it, I personally don't like Hillary for her policies and her past transgressions over issues such as Iraq, has nothing to do with her being a women, for instance I think Nancy Pelosi is a fairly good speaker of the house.

[Primera Espada]

well you need to understand, one of the most important factors in "who would be the best democratic candidate" has to be addressing the fact that hillary is a woman, or that obama is black.

Hillary is just the frontrunner by a large margin, so more attention is paid to her.

That and there's more women in america than black people.

Ironically, your mentioning of Nancy Pelosi, she is often compared as an opposite to hillary (in both good and bad ways).

I don't think anyone is arguing that a woman can't be president, it's more of arguing "Is hillary a good choice to be the FIRST woman president"

[Spartan27]

Thank you for clarifying that, I think I may have rushed through some of the messages so that's my fault. You are right the fact that Hillary is a women or that Obama is black is a big deal. Personally I just don't like Hillary as I said, I don't think she would be a good president, really it has nothing to do with her being a women. When I think about I do wonder if subconciously I have a bias against her, I truly hope that's not the case, I would like to think that my support for Pelosi means that I have no biases.

[Rukia151]

I will admit this straight out, I am a republican leaning person. Now most of you probably hate me. I'm not a supporter of Hilary or Obama. Obama has potential, but is too inexperienced, and as bad as the foriegn situation is right now we need someone indefinately more experienced and who is willing to fight. Hilary I don't like because she is just totally and completely fake, and says everything she can to get elected.

I personally am leaning toward Rudy at the moment. He seems to be in the middle enough that he can get deals done, and perhaps even be able to make the push to get things DONE in congress. If you want to talk for who'd be the best female canidate for president, and would also be the best African American IMO is Condoleezza Rice. Too bad she has no interest in running. :(

[earthforge]

I support Hillary. That is because of many reasons:

1) In a laughable sense, we need a women to clean up this mess.

2) Hillary was a primary support in Clinton's term. If I recall my history, that was the best time America had in the world. Except some Americans hated our advancement into things that increased our involvement (ie Clinton got US into the International Criminal Court.)

3) No conservatives are going to be elected. Just like in Margaret Thatcher's time, Bush has disgraced the Conservative party.

4) Hillary is not fake. She just has experience in these political agendas

5) Hillary is the most conservative democrat, which is good. She then won't be too left-wing by focussing on everything but economy. She will consider the people's needs, and run the economy well.

6) I share the worry of many other African-Americans (I'm not one, it's just a survey result.) Obama would probably be assasinated.

[Vizard_King]

Rudy all the way!
As with Hilary, I think the Lovely miss Ann Coulter (author of "If Democrats hade brains they'd be Republicans" and other fine books) puts things into prospective with Hilary's "Experiance"
"Talking with your husband does not count as experience"

Earthforge- What mess? Late time I checked we were kicking Evil's Ass.
But the main reason i don't support Hilary isn't because I don't like her, I actually respect her in some aspects, but because I don't think we are ready for someone like her to become president.

[earthforge]

EEH?!

It was damn conservatives who got America into this mess in Iraq! We are not winning, we are losing. This war is supposed to not exist. Or country's men and women are DYING there! The body counts are over the scale! If you want clarification, look here:

American Deaths:
Since war began (3/19/03): 3876 3181
Since "Mission Accomplished" (5/1/03) (the list)

3737

3073
Since Capture of Saddam (12/13/03): 3415 2875
Since Handover (6/29/04): 3017 2548
Since Election (1/31/05): 2439 2285
American Wounded Official Estimated
Total Wounded: 28530 23000 - 100000


Ann Coulter is disgusting. She just spits trash at the liberal party. Has she done anything to change are country? No. She has given me no reason to go conservative. She just acts like a whore in my eyes. It makes me happier I'm a democrat.

Brings up my favorite quote ever:
"I don't hate America, I just hate Americans."

Pretty much I hate Americans for putting Bush in office.

[Vizard_King]

Wow, you are really Patriotic, aren't you?
Yes, many brave men and women have died.
That's what happens in war. Even Good guys die.
But you gotta ask, How many Terrorists have been kill or taken prisoner? How many lives have those brave Soldiers saved?
As bad and as heartbreaking as War is, Good things do come from it.
For example, We captured and killed a Dictator who literally got lessons from Hitler.
How many attacks on American soil have their been sense 9/11? None that I know of, but if you know of any, please let me know and give me a link to a news site that is reporting it.

Which brings me to something my Wold War 2 teacher said on the last day of school
"There is real evil in our world today. Modern day Hitlers and Stalins who hate everyone but themselves and want people who don't agree with them dead.
They are the kind of people who can't be reasoned with and who we are fighting now.
Would you want someone like Hitler to take charge in a small country and try and wipe you and everyone else you care about off the face of the planet?"

And please don't shot down ANYONE like that. I don't care if you like Ann or hate her. Calling her a Whore is going WAY too far.
Was I that disrespectful when talking about Hilary?

[earthforge]

Wow, you are really Patriotic, aren't you?

I love my country, as I said earlier

Yes, many brave men and women have died.
That's what happens in war. Even Good guys die.
But you gotta ask, How many Terrorists have been kill or taken prisoner? How many lives have those brave Soldiers saved?


NONE. Have we even found Bin Laden?! NO! That evil man got away with the murder of hundreds! And we haven't even caught him! He will ultimately be left off the hook for the death of millions.

And have you read about Haditha? Are own military are raping and killing innocent women and children! There is incredible corruption in the military, and let me tell you it won't end there! Our hired "mercenaries", or groups that Bush pays off to fight in Iraq, are just massacring everyone! And Bush pays his "mercenaries" even more than our own soldiers!

As bad and as heartbreaking as War is, Good things do come from it.
For example, We captured and killed a Dictator who literally got lessons from Hitler.

That wasn't our job in Iraq! That was never America's purpose. Our purpose for going to the middle-east was too capture Bin-Laden. Why in the seven hells do we have to meddle with Iraq? It's true he was evil, but he was just an excuse for us to do what ever the hell we wanted there. We INVADED Iraq. We didn't even handle the execution of Saddam correctly. Justice has been disarmed by the Bushies.

And finally, there is nothing romantic about war. It is long. And it is bloody. It is nothing more.

How many attacks on American soil have their been sense 9/11? None that I know of, but if you know of any, please let me know and give me a link to a news site that is reporting it.

How do we even know that they want to invade our country? For all we know, they might want to take up knitting! And security could never have been worse.

If you want to bring up Hitler, let me bring up this ever important quote from the play Judgement at Nuremberg:
"What matters if a few racial minorities lose their rights? It is only a passing phase...what was going to be a passing phase became a way of life."

What does it matter if Iraqis lose their rights? Answer that.

Which brings me to something my Wold War 2 teacher said on the last day of school
"There is real evil in our world today. Modern day Hitlers and Stalins who hate everyone but themselves and want people who don't agree with them dead.
They are the kind of people who can't be reasoned with and who we are fighting now.
Would you want someone like Hitler to take charge in a small country and try and wipe you and everyone else you care about off the face of the planet?"

I already said what I would say here earlier

And please don't shot down ANYONE like that. I don't care if you like Ann or hate her. Calling her a Whore is going WAY too far.
Was I that disrespectful when talking about Hilary?

Because she is disrespectful. She uses vulgarity to prove her points, and that is why she's a whore.

When it comes to politics, I get easily ticked off.

[Vizard_King]

I get pretty ticked off when it comes to Politics as well.
I also get pretty pissed when people get Hypocritical.
Again, I don't care if you hate her. Being Vulgar and calling her names and then saying she does the same (Which yeah, she does, but least she has a sense of humor. Alot of People are disrespectful on both sides, lets just leave it at that.)
Isn't that the definition of Hypocritical?

Sorry I can't respond to the other parts of your post. I gotta go. Hopefuly I can get on later today, if not than tommorow.
See you later. Nice debating with ya.

[earthforge]

No. Actually, I only see the conservatives doing such. If you compare FOX to CNN or BBC, FOX is nuts. They yell, slant, and scream at the liberal party. It is true that the opposite happens, but it's a matter of scale. Conservatives are incredibly vulgar.

I'm just pissed off with the administration. We are in a war for oil.

[Rukia151]

How are we in a war for Oil? I know personally a man in my class who served in Iraq and guarded the pipline, we don't get one drop of oil it all goes to the Iraqi people. Saddam was an evil man on scale with Hitler, we did go into Iraq with the goal of bringing him down. I've been doing research on Hitler and comparing American media from WWII to now.

1) The media does not support troops NEARLY on the scale that they did in WWII. All they're concerned with is the debate taking place here, and the body count. Never actually reporting the good we are doing in Iraq, like saving millions of it's own citizens lives every day. From terrorists, and by taking Saddam out of power we took down a dictator that tested out CHEMICAL WEAPONS on his own citizens. Why don't you look up how painful it is to die from a mustard bomb?

2) They are overwhelmingly negative and many stations are controlled by a few, sigular digits, big corporations and that causes a more narrow view of the world to be displayed.

Also just as an interesting fact some scholars believe that one of the reason's Hitler was able to gain power so easily back in the late 1930's was because the world was in a state of pacifism and instead of taking him out of control by force, they tried to explain to him how he was wrong, but the bottom line is Hitler was mentally crazy and unstable. He could not be reasoned with and had to be brought down by military and physical force. These terrorists have that same mentality. By being over in the middle east we're keeping them from coming over here. Proof of them wanting to attack us is not only in 9/11 but the previous World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the USS Cole Bombing and other attacks. We just ignored the warning signs until 9/11. I hope you actually read and comprehend my post and not just scan it and spit back the same arguments you've already stated.

[Marionette]

Rudy all the way!
As with Hilary, I think the Lovely miss Ann Coulter (author of "If Democrats hade brains they'd be Republicans" and other fine books) puts things into prospective with Hilary's "Experiance"
"Talking with your husband does not count as experience"

Earthforge- What mess? Late time I checked we were kicking Evil's Ass.
But the main reason i don't support Hilary isn't because I don't like her, I actually respect her in some aspects, but because I don't think we are ready for someone like her to become president.
Ann Coulter famously said a lot of things ("Blond haired blue eyed people would never be terrorists", "women shouldn't have the right to vote since they tend to vote Democrat", "Christians are perfected Jews",...oh, she also apparently doesn't like the Emancipation Proclamation that much either), quoting her serves the other side of the argument more than yours :D

Hillary Clinton has been a senator for years, and also Bill Clinton’s most trusted adviser (they just also happens to be married). Bill Clinton joked during his campaign that "vote for me and you get two for the price of one". And there's noting wrong with being a good politician (I think after Bush that people should understand that yes we do need our world leaders to be intelligent). It's just I'm not sure how good of a politician she is, good diplomats don't get caught saying different things to different people (I don't know if she did or not, just saying). But if she can get herself elected, than I guess she's good enough.

EIDT: just read everything below that post...anyways, I won't call her a whore because I don't know (if it's true though, those poor men!) I do consider her a racist and words out of her mouth idiotic.

If we are talking about the war, I think another thread should be started.

[Primera Espada]

while hillary does have more experience than obama, overall, she doesn't have much. Being first lady doesn't really count as experience.

That's comparing her to a lot of candidates who have decades, not simply years, of experience.

But does it matter *that* much? Honestly, her experience is long enough that she's known for it. That's all that's needed for a vote.

Oh, yah, anne coulter, if you wish to be credible, don't quote her.

[Spartan27]

If you are looking for experience than really neither Hillary or Obama would be the choice, as people such as Biden, Dodd, and Richardson have much more experience on the national and international scene. I actually like all three of these men, but they have as much chance of winning as hell freezing over.

I am more of a left wing liberal, I believe in things such as universal healthcare and the like, so obviouly Hillary isn't the demo for me, Kucinich is more in line with my principals.

As for Ann Coulter I wouldn't bring up a hate mongerer into any political discussion it just isn't right to portray conservatives as being like this despicable women.

Look also if you are going to argue that we took out Saddam because he was an evil dictator, then you have to understand there is a reason why we chose this one dictator instead of the many others that are out there. If we took this action against Iraq because we just wanted to bring freedom then I ask you why we haven't done the same in places such as North Korea, Burma, Sudan, Libya, as well as other countries, the reason is that Iraq has resources that we want. You say that the oil is going directly to the Iraqi people, this though is not entirely true since many of the if not all of the companies that are in control of the processing of the oil are American countries. Who do you think is profiting from the rebuilding of Iraq? Its American companies.

I also took a class on the rise of Nazi Germany, and yes many of the countries that tried to make peace with Hitler were naive to the danger that he presented, but here is the thing Hitler was in control of huge country that had the manpower and resources to make war with the rest of Europe. Do you really think Saddam was going to do the same? Here is a country that had done nothing since being decimated in the gulf war. He is a dictator, he wants to stay in power the last thing that he would have wanted was to be connected to a terrorist plot. He had no connections to Al Qaida, in fact he hated bin Laden. He had no WMDs, the programs that he had undertaken had long been dead, he wasn't going to do anything to us.

So to recap we went to war with nation that did nothing to us and was going to do nothing to us. Now we are in an occupation that we can't get out of, we are loosing troops everyday in a occupation that is going nowhere, not to mention all of the thousends of civilians that have been killed, not to mention all of the good will that we had throughout the world that we squandered when we went to Iraq. To sum it up, the decision to go into Iraq will be remembered in history as quite possibly the worst foreign policy decision in the history of the United States.

[Primera Espada]

....

what does the war in iraq have to do with the democratic candidates for the presidential election of 2008?

None of the candidates are *currently* the president.

moreso you're discussing the reasons for going into iraq....

why?

Seriously, everyone quit, or I'll ask the mods to come in and clean this all up. if you want a war debate, go start your own thread.

[Rukia151]

Well to be fair, once the canidate is elected they will have to deal with the Iraq war so their stance on it is important, but I agree about talking about the reasons for it. I'll stop.

[Vizard_King]

How are we in a war for Oil? I know personally a man in my class who served in Iraq and guarded the pipline, we don't get one drop of oil it all goes to the Iraqi people. Saddam was an evil man on scale with Hitler, we did go into Iraq with the goal of bringing him down. I've been doing research on Hitler and comparing American media from WWII to now.

1) The media does not support troops NEARLY on the scale that they did in WWII. All they're concerned with is the debate taking place here, and the body count. Never actually reporting the good we are doing in Iraq, like saving millions of it's own citizens lives every day. From terrorists, and by taking Saddam out of power we took down a dictator that tested out CHEMICAL WEAPONS on his own citizens. Why don't you look up how painful it is to die from a mustard bomb?

2) They are overwhelmingly negative and many stations are controlled by a few, sigular digits, big corporations and that causes a more narrow view of the world to be displayed.

Also just as an interesting fact some scholars believe that one of the reason's Hitler was able to gain power so easily back in the late 1930's was because the world was in a state of pacifism and instead of taking him out of control by force, they tried to explain to him how he was wrong, but the bottom line is Hitler was mentally crazy and unstable. He could not be reasoned with and had to be brought down by military and physical force. These terrorists have that same mentality. By being over in the middle east we're keeping them from coming over here. Proof of them wanting to attack us is not only in 9/11 but the previous World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the USS Cole Bombing and other attacks. We just ignored the warning signs until 9/11. I hope you actually read and comprehend my post and not just scan it and spit back the same arguments you've already stated.

I applaud you on your research. Glad to see someone else sees a comparison from the War in Iraq to WW2.
You are now my best friend.

I myself am ignoring the Media in general because they are so negative and are only reporting the bad things that happen. My Cousin has a Husband who is a Marine, I get News from the Front from him and his fellow Marines.
Things are going really well over there. He can't even count how many of the Citizens are happy that they are over there helping them.

I find it funny how Hitler was so damn insane,yet brilliant (If you ignore the fact that he started a Land War with Russia. Dumbass....)

[Spartan27]

The reason why I made the comments about the war is that they were brought up before, so I was replying to them. I will stop if that is what you want, I do think it is relavent since the next president will have to find a solution to get us out of the god awful mess that has been created.

To those that are saying things are going well, tell that to the thousends that have already died both military and civilian, I'm sure they think things have gone great.

[earthforge]

How are we in a war for Oil? I know personally a man in my class who served in Iraq and guarded the pipline, we don't get one drop of oil it all goes to the Iraqi people. Saddam was an evil man on scale with Hitler, we did go into Iraq with the goal of bringing him down. I've been doing research on Hitler and comparing American media from WWII to now.

Yes. But again, what did chasing after Bin Laden have to do with Saddam? Let me use small words to illustrate the history of the war. In 2003, we entered Iraq (from Afghanistan, might I add, under a false pretense illustrated by our GLORIOUS leaders.) What was the American public told?

Iraq has "Weapons of Mass (easy to replace with math, heh) Destruction"

The world was with us that day we entered Iraq. And what did we do? Slaughtered every person in our way till we got to Hussein. We went about it not in a structured way like WW I or II. We just killed. Now we are hiring mercenaries to do our work since the mercenaries are cheaper to pay for

(BIG REASON: CONSERVATIVE PARTY LIKES TO SAVE MONEY.)

Wouldn't you say we saved a lot of money to not send out help to Hurricane Katrina victims immediately? Brownie did " a heck'uva job" saving money. He was a cheap-assed bastard in front of the country that say, and since he did it within the country he was removed from staff.

1) The media does not support troops NEARLY on the scale that they did in WWII. All they're concerned with is the debate taking place here, and the body count. Never actually reporting the good we are doing in Iraq, like saving millions of it's own citizens lives every day. From terrorists, and by taking Saddam out of power we took down a dictator that tested out CHEMICAL WEAPONS on his own citizens. Why don't you look up how painful it is to die from a mustard bomb?

Hell yeah. The majority of the media are against the war because look at everyone else in the world is saying: this war is nuts. We should pull out while we can, before another 1/4 of our pupulation dies for the most pointless cause in the world: a country that will, whether we like it or not, fall into civil war. Hussein kept his country together. He was able to keep it from falling apart, but he knew it would fall anyways. And the public was against Saddam. Eventually, he would have been overthrone by that public anyways. But that would take a while longer.

We americans are impatient. There was no threat from Iraq in 2003 because the UN held him down.

And what fricken' good are we doing in Iraq?! We mass-murder their citizens everyday! But isince the mercenaries aren't our military, so why should we worry?

This talk of "good in Iraq" makes me sick

2) They are overwhelmingly negative and many stations are controlled by a few, sigular digits, big corporations and that causes a more narrow view of the world to be displayed.

Uh, hello? Read the Mercury News, read the NYTimes, read EpochTimes! Each one is a well-known newspaper, and if they weren't proving the public's view, the public would yell and scream about it. I read newspapers, unlike you.

Channel 9 (the educational channel might I add,) though, has the best analysis on the war in the News Hour. Watch it sometime instead of channel 2.

Also just as an interesting fact some scholars believe that one of the reason's Hitler was able to gain power so easily back in the late 1930's was because the world was in a state of pacifism and instead of taking him out of control by force, they tried to explain to him how he was wrong, but the bottom line is Hitler was mentally crazy and unstable. He could not be reasoned with and had to be brought down by military and physical force.

Now let me tell you as a scholar my opinion. Hitler had the complete support of the German people. Why? The German's pride, as Byakuya might say it, had been tread on. This was through Europe making Germany tax it's people for the damages of the first world war. That caused resentment amongst the German people to form and made them perfect fodder for Hitler. Hitler than took this resentment, and focussed it on racial minorities in Germany. That way the German's would have something to spit on. The demo was when Jewish shopkeepers were forced out of Germany. That was a roaring success.

The rest of Europe were nearby and felt the shock immediately. America, as usual, was out in their own world. Europe fought against Germany, but it couldn't be brought down! It was only when America had the bombing when the American people woke up and joined the war.

But America was not instrumental in dealing with early Germany, so I find your reasoning adhock.

These terrorists have that same mentality.

For all you lurkers, let this be known:

You know any war is lost or will never end when it's againt "the terrorists."

Terrorism isn't a small concentrated group like Natzi Germany. It is everywhere. There is evil in the world, and there always will be. That's just a fact human's live with.

By being over in the middle east we're keeping them from coming over here. Proof of them wanting to attack us is not only in 9/11 but the previous World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the USS Cole Bombing and other attacks. We just ignored the warning signs until 9/11. I hope you actually read and comprehend my post and not just scan it and spit back the same arguments you've already stated.

EEH? :yell That was Bin Ladin , not Hussein! Bin Laden killed those people! If we wanted to get rid of terrorism, we would find him and try him in the international criminal court.

But we haven't even found him, so how can you say we've been doing a good job?

I will submit another post later on the current presedential debates. But the reason why Hillary is getting biased against is this: simple misogynistic behavior.

[Primera Espada]

THIS IS NOT A THREAD ABOUT THE WAR IN IRAQ!

If you want to discuss how a particular candidate proposes to resolve the issue, that's fine.

but talking about why we went in, if it was good, or bad, and all that is completely off topic!

[earthforge]

Sorry, I said I would post about the candidates next. But I needed to blow that gasket. :P

I support Hillary Clinton. Why?

Hillary was the backbone of the Clinton administration, not Bill. People say Clinton will be able to advise Hillary in the coming election. But it's the opposite way around actually, ggiven how smoothly the Clinton administration. I would give anything to have a peaceful era again. In the Clinton administration, science advanced and the borders were managed securely. Anmerica was beautiful then.

We need that time back again. America now is seen as easily manipulated and easily corruptible because we voted for what we wanted: we voted for an ultra-individualist president.

Obama is too young. Not to mention, I am afraid he would be assasinated. The fears of the african-american women are not unbased there. They are probably catching on to things.

The main reason for bias against Hillary is misogynism. It has rapidly increased in the past years (along with the rise of games such as Halo) and it couldn't be more prevalent today.

[Primera Espada]

o.O The clinton administration went smoothly? lol, now that's just silly.

Now, maybe compared to the bush administration it did, but shucks, I'm not even sure the nixon administration went less smoothly than the bush administration.

Not to mention you'll have a hard time saying that hillary was the backbone when providing no actual references.

And saying that the main problem people have with hillary is mysogyny? That's a *bold* statement, and pretty much says that everything brought up in this thread is a lie.

Are you prepared to back that statement?

I'm not even going to touch the thing about Halo, as I find it completely irrelevant.

[earthforge]

Actually, misogynism is extremely hightened nowadays. One of the major outlets is Halo or Assasin's Creed. Read the post below and read the comment (not mine, BTW:)

http://blogs.mediapost.com/gaming_insider/?p=78

Misogynism is everywhere. I personally ran into it at the science fair years back (not long ago, though.) I was snubbed at the science fair in favor of a twerp guy who built something that was antithesis to his purpose in mechanics and did not even work (best evidence they had was a tooth mark that could have been anything.) I won nothing and he won everyting that I would have won if this misogynism didn't exist.

When I visited NASA, as my brother had won an award to go there (his work was based on mine and I still recieved nothing) I talken to one of the judges of awards. She said to me thatI would have been given these awards I won, but the excuse to give them to the twerp was "we can't have two major winners next to each other."

I am not the first one to run by misogynism. A large number of women have ran into this bias. Clinton is no exception. She is a women, and conservatives want to use that to their appeal. It is the nutty idea that Hillary would be like a succubus. And that is the view of women. When we are in power, we are either thought as ground breaking byu a minority, and being seductive to a majority (using her femininity to win, dear lord.)

However, racial bias has almost disappeared from America. Which each new ethnicity entering AMerica, the younger generations see no different between a black and a latino. Yes they read about it. But do they care about the past anymore.

Now there are always racial bigots. But I don't see that as much as a problem for Obama than being feminine is to Hillary.

Hell yeah, I'm bold. Anything to break common misconceptions. I'll talk about the Clinton Admin later (tomorrow.) I'm busy.

[Llama]

I honestly like Bush better then Clinton but I'll save the explanation for a different thread since this is about who I'd vote for now and why.

The person I'd probably vote for is Mike Huckabee though he probably won't get the nomination.

He's a faith driven man, pro-life, supports the Veteran's Bill of Rights, wants every child to have a chance at a good quality education, new health care plan, lower and get rid of some taxes, try to make economy better, supports passage for the constitutional amendment that defines marriage, wants energy independence, secure our borders, wants to win the war in Iraq(And we are), will fight the war on terror, supports Israel, work on agricultural improvement, better crisis management, etc.

My kind of guy.

[Primera Espada]

I said I found the thing about halo as completely irrelevant, and so your long explanation of the increase of misogyny as evident in such games (which, reading that article, I cannot even see how you connected the two) is still irrelevant.

Your accusation is that misogyny is the primary reason people are against hillary, and you have yet to present anything to support that.

Lamma, your post is completely off topic. This is for the Democratic Candidates only, and Huckabee is a republican.

[earthforge]

@Llama: If you support him, you'll get a kick out of this article:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/12/18/huckabee-denies-son-mistreated-dog/

BTW, for the record Hillary and Bill did not support the Iraq War.

I'll just state this: It is easier for a black man to win the presidency than a white woman.

Barack faces little opposition. People may think that because he is black and because of his name he has faced more things then Hillary. But that is not true. Take it from a woman's perspective. Barack has the advantage of living in a globalized society. Different ethnicity is not something new to see. I have been living in this time in California, and if I see an Asian woman or Black man, I am not surprised. As a result, very little bigotry can be associated with Obama.

Allow me to explain. If a Conservative starts accusing Obama of being black, he or she would be rapidly attacked for being racist. Racism is disappearing, and a racist comment would be out of place.

But if Hillary got attacked for being a woman, it would not be out of place. She got attacked by many Conservatives earlier just because she walked a certain way.

And nowadays women are treated mainly as witches or succubus's. Yes, there are women like that. Ann Coulter is a prime example. But there are other women who have done good deeds, such as Clinton. Also, that impression of women is not used by only men. They are used by women such as Ann Coulter just because they envy her.

Let me use one of my experiences as an example. I presented at the science fair a year ago, proving a "scientific" published claim wrong. My rival was across frm me, presenting a piece of technology meant to attract sharks and according to a famous technologist, didn't even work. I had to present to the head of science fair, Heidi. She didn't even let me do my presentatin. In her eyes, I had already lost. Lost because I wasn't a male.

My rival got all of the awards and I got nothing. It was an awful shock. But I learned about the misogynistic time we live in.

For Clinton, it is no different. Just as it is no different to every single woman in America who has to endure this

[Rain]

*is contining a chat with earthforge from the US bleachers FC*

Earthforge- it isn't that i wanted to argue candidates necesarily (but we can:p) i just wanted to give my reasons.

im sure that obama will say things to help him get elected, but others (in both parties) have directly said one thing, then the opposite, then denied saying one of them. I haven't heard that from obama as of yet

it doesn't fill me with confidence to hear a candidate say something then refuse to admit when they're wrong. I feel that obama can admit to being wrong (to some extent, not completely) more than most candidates

[earthforge]

You "feel."

That is my issue. Obama supporters always talk about "feeling" a certain way, and never relying on facts of both candidates.

It is much like saying "today I feel like steak instead of meatloaf." But presidential candidates aren't food, and nor should they be treated as such. But this is the Obama's campaign selling point. It focusses on feeling like change, wheras the Clinton campaign focusses on solving current problems.

It's not Iraq that's at stake. I've heard plenty of people who just say "I want a candidate who will just get us out of Iraq." Yeah, but there is more at stake. Take the economy, for instance. It's floundering big time. And have you heard Obama even state how he could save it? No.

Obama's campaign is a form of ecstacy as well. Obama always says "your so depressing Clinton." And that's what people who like Obama want to say. They want to be assured everything is find and that the world is wonderful. Well, guess what -- the world is NOT pkay. Bush has officially f*cked up the entire country. Our economy is dying, and our society is decadent.

It never was a better year for diamond studded dog collars.

So I am waiting for the society to realize that "feeling" is going to get us the same president as Bush.

Their is also this mentality of do-er versus feeler. I have posted such similar in the IchiHime FC. The do-ers are the ones who do thing while the feelers are the ones who feel things. And feelers hate do-ers because they envy them.

Feelers also tend to be Gen-Xers. Because they hate boomers and hate gen-y's. It explains all of the regulations on the gen-y's so that no one can advance, and that boomers are not allowed to get a job at a poiint.

Obama backers also say that they need someone young. That's all bull. When a society starts judging people based on age, gender, and rac, it has gone too far. And it has definitely gone too far with Bush, so why should we dig ourselves into a larger hole.

Look at the qoute in my signature. I guaruntee that the society will become that way if we vote Obama in because the people 'feel' like change.

[Rain]

how is feeling any different from facts? a person would have to feel that the fact is relevant, or feel that the candidate can lead the country.

Nothing that any/either (since we're talking about obama and clinton) candidate has done is scientific proof that they can run a country. we have to feel that they can handle it, feel that they are qualified

Facts are important, but feeling is just as important

and on bush f-ing up the entire country, thats true, but its not completely his fault. the country elected him, the country allowed him to continue, the country passed the bills that lead to the country being so f-ed up, so its not right to simply blame bush

and i completely disagree with the do-ers and feelers comparison, but this isn't the place for that


with Obama's plan to save the country. I haven't heard his plan, and i've caught pieces of hilary clintons (honestly, i don't watch too many of the debates).

I agree with that, i wish it would be adressed more, but also whats said in these times isn't necesarily going to happen. what a plan for right now is may not help later on down the road.

IMO it comes down to how you feel each candidate can/would solve problems, and i just so happen to currently feel that obama would do better.

[Spartan27]

I will be perfectly honest about this, Clinton is a corporatist, as has been said in the debates she was a part of Wal-Mart that says enough, she started her career as a corporate lawyer, the Clinton goverment was the same one that instigated policies such as NAFTA, also during this time we began our expansion of free trade policies all over the world, these policies have contributed to the economic downfall that we are seeing, we need someone who is not named Clinton or Bush, we need someone who can bring a positive light to the Nation, Clinton is just a step backwards to the centerist policies of the 90s. While some would say that we found economic success I would counter by saying that many of the policies that are used today were actually started during Clinton's reign.

One of the things that I have heard from the Clinton camp is that she is the experienced candidate, I say what experience, she had 8 years being the First lady and about what? 8 years as a senator? That does not give the substantial difference that is claimed. I am not saying that she is the worst thing ever, just that Obama is the better person to help lead us in a new direction.

[Marionette]

how is feeling any different from facts? a person would have to feel that the fact is relevant, or feel that the candidate can lead the country.

Nothing that any/either (since we're talking about obama and clinton) candidate has done is scientific proof that they can run a country. we have to feel that they can handle it, feel that they are qualified

Facts are important, but feeling is just as important

and on bush f-ing up the entire country, thats true, but its not completely his fault. the country elected him, the country allowed him to continue, the country passed the bills that lead to the country being so f-ed up, so its not right to simply blame bush

and i completely disagree with the do-ers and feelers comparison, but this isn't the place for that


with Obama's plan to save the country. I haven't heard his plan, and i've caught pieces of hilary clintons (honestly, i don't watch too many of the debates).

I agree with that, i wish it would be adressed more, but also whats said in these times isn't necesarily going to happen. what a plan for right now is may not help later on down the road.

IMO it comes down to how you feel each candidate can/would solve problems, and i just so happen to currently feel that obama would do better.
The point of having a plan is to show that a candidate have substance and actually knows what to do, instead of just talking big (which I'm not saying that Obama is, I just think that he should empathizes substance more if he want to give out the message that he have just as much experience).

If you are making serious decisions like this, than it should be based on feelings that's backed with facts. Just like it might feel right just because you are choosing the first black president or the first women president and no other reason, I don't think that's how a decision should be made. I like both Obama and Clinton, I just don't agree with your opinion, because I think it’s highly dangerous to choose a leader just because he/she is charismatic and knows how to get a crowd railed up and emotional.

[earthforge]

how is feeling any different from facts? a person would have to feel that the fact is relevant, or feel that the candidate can lead the country.

Excuse me?

Feeling and do-ing are two seperate things.

And facts are found as a result of doing the research, not by feeling.

And my god, if it's a fact it's undisputable. If you disagree with the fact the sky is blue, I'm sorry.

Nothing that any/either (since we're talking about obama and clinton) candidate has done is scientific proof that they can run a country. we have to feel that they can handle it, feel that they are qualified

Gack.

That's what researching them is for. You just don't feel they are good. You research their records and look scientifically. Because that's the scientific way of doing it. And that requires work, so that's why do-ers are attracted to Clinton. Because they took the time to research.

Facts are important, but feeling is just as important

You have been reading a little too much manga I think. Feelings can be important in de

and on bush f-ing up the entire country, thats true, but its not completely his fault. the country elected him, the country allowed him to continue, the country passed the bills that lead to the country being so f-ed up, so its not right to simply blame bush

Well, having a democracy means that you can elect great people as well as dumbasses. You give them the freedom to vote for either and make the dumb or smart choice. And we elected an evil man. Yes, he is an evil man. Do you want me to go into detail about the torture and waterboarding that occured a couple years ago?

But I do blame him for sending people to die. It's disgusting. Completely disgusting.

and i completely disagree with the do-ers and feelers comparison, but this isn't the place for that

Why didn't you respond to me then?


I will be perfectly honest about this, Clinton is a corporatist, as has been said in the debates she was a part of Wal-Mart that says enough, she started her career as a corporate lawyer, the Clinton goverment was the same one that instigated policies such as NAFTA, also during this time we began our expansion of free trade policies all over the world, these policies have contributed to the economic downfall that we are seeing, we need someone who is not named Clinton or Bush, we need someone who can bring a positive light to the Nation, Clinton is just a step backwards to the centerist policies of the 90s. While some would say that we found economic success I would counter by saying that many of the policies that are used today were actually started during Clinton's reign.

There you go again, working off of a stupid belief that "I hate Clinton."

And I would like to tell you that during the time of Clinton, after the Clinton's the world had become better than before. We entered the International Criminal Court for instance. We started to take a step forward to world peace. And then we elected Bush, who took us back. Read my signature qoute.

One of the things that I have heard from the Clinton camp is that she is the experienced candidate, I say what experience, she had 8 years being the First lady and about what? 8 years as a senator? That does not give the substantial difference that is claimed. I am not saying that she is the worst thing ever, just that Obama is the better person to help lead us in a new direction.

Trying to keep my cool is difficult. I swear, between each post I have to tense up and release my anger.

Yeah, that's experience! That means a hell of a lot to the American people!

Now comes the belief that being old means your useless, and if you have experience you're thrown out.. My parents have been unable to get a job thanks to this stupid mentality. Once you hit 40 and your a woman, you can no longer be employed. Once you hit 50 and your a man, you can no longer be employed. This is from experience in the entrepuneer businesses. And trust me, it's hell in there.

Now, this directly stems from Gen-Xers trying to kick out the boomers. If you want to learn more, rewatch the Incredibles and think of Mr Incredible as the Boomer, Syndrome as the Gen-xer, and the kids as Gen-y's.

And tell me exactly why Obama will "lead us into a new aga."

[speedphantom]

No personal attacks please, I realise that politics is a sensitive topic with people from all sorts of political views but please be accepting of people's views no matter how much you may disagree with it.

Thanks for keeping it civil as you have.

[Unicorn]

I am not an American, however I'd like to speak from experience at living through 2 separate Australian PM elections (where in the 2nd election, Australia favoured a newcomer over the PM for 11 years).

Politicians have a bad habit of turning their backs on promises they made during their election campaigns. Election campaigns are carefully tailored (like a sales pitch) so that the public hears exactly what they want to hear. Once elected, its a different ball game which policies are put in place and which policies are 'amended' or 'shelved for later'.

Because of this, I sincerely agree with all those who state that 'feel' AND 'research' should be considered together, instead of just 'research'.

Further explanation: Historical research shows that the then-PM could do the work. However, the newcomer was seen and 'felt' as earnest and sincere. Then-current PM was seen and 'felt' as less so.

Also, I believe that the current campaigns being run are for the right to be shortlisted as a Presidential candidate, and it is not the actual Presidential elections?

[Rain]

earthforge- facts are undisputable, but whether a person accepts them are two different stories (just look at so many peope in these debate threads)

and on feeler vs do-er- they aren't opposites, a person can be both or neither, and thats why i disagree. A feeler makes choices by what they feel. the opposite is people who make choices by more facts/ideas and the such.

Do-ers are poeple who do something, no more, no less. they actually take action, their opposite is people who never take action.

People can't be classified as a feeler or do-er, they're only half the story


Marionette- i didn't mean choose a leader based on their charisma, i just meant that you can't choose one based on the 'facts" alone, because those may mean nothing. a president can elected based on what they say, then completely change their platform, it happens every time.

Unicorn- that last sentence i fully agree with. most of them don't care about being president, they just want to be in the list that has tried

[Spartan27]

Look when it comes to experience, Clinton does not have enough of it to say she has a substantial advantage, being First Lady is not experience, heck even when she did try to get something accomplished it failed significantly (Health Care), she became a senator in 2000, Obama became one in 2004 these people are not Joe Biden or Ted Kennedy yet Clinton acts as if serving 4 more years gives her the right to say that she has loads more experience, also Obama served in the Illnois legislature from 1996 to 2004, so its not like he doesn't understand the political process, he is though a Washington outsider which makes him much more appealing to a wider base of the public.

I don't understand by saying I don't like (not hate) Clinton is not a relavent opinion, I don't like the way her husband ran the country, I think he did some good things, but overall he was a republican light type President. I would like to see a change from what could potentially be a oligarchy type democracy.

Also when it comes to facts, one is that Obama has had a history of being a candidate and politician who can work with mulitple sides,he has a history of being a charismatic leader, this goes back to being a community leader, a Illnois State Senator, to holding the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic Convention. Clinton has a history of being a leader who makes people take a side against her or for her. If Obama is elected in my opinion he has a much better shot at redifining U.S politics, if has a shot at reshifting the political arena, if Clinton is elected it will inevitably go back to what we had in the 90s which is having Clinton straining against Republican backlash. If Clinton is elected or nominated that might be the only thing to unite the Republicans together in a effort to fight against Clinton.

I would also like to say that I am very happy that the Democratic party has mulitiple capable candidates, and I will be proad to vote Clinton if she wins the nomination, I would not hate her as a candidate, I just think Obama would be better.

[cheez]

I like both canidates but I like Obama more and I think he is more electable because as we've seen Obama has a better ability to attract independents and first time voters.

I like Hillary Clinton, and Bill Clinton did a lot of good things as president, but because her husbands presidency a lot of voters already have a preconceived notions about her both good and bad and those notions and ideas are going to be tough to over come during the election if she get the nomination. Obama is a relatively fresh face in Washingtion so voters especially independents and moderate republicans have less preconceived ideas about him.

On the experience question I think Spartan27 above explained it pretty well that there isn't much of a difference between them experience wise. However if the republican nomination is John McCain then I think he will be able to play the experience card much better against Obama than Clinton.

One thing I'v found interesting in this election especially on the democratic side is that all of the three main candidates all largely agree on the main principles like the Iraq war and health care which is something you more see on the republican side and rarely on the democratic. The main disagreements are on which candidate can carry out the principles better.

Off topic here
While I prefer Obama my favorite candidate was Dennis Kucinich but few people liked him. I will most likely vote for the democratic nomination who ever it is unless the republican nomination is McCain because he's the only republican running that I like.

[Spartan27]

cheez you are not the only one that would vote for Kucinich if he had a chance (btw have you seen his wife, total knockout, a bit creepy as well), you are right when it comes to experience, if McCain is the nominee then that becomes a issue, but it really shouldn't be in the Democratic primary.

[earthforge]

Speed: I agree. But I'm avoiding personal attacks, given I "insulted a member" by saying that if they don't believe the manga, they're arguments should be trashed [in pairing debate.] When I told my brother about that, he broke out laughing. But I am aware of how thin the line is. Thanks for posting.

Okay: allow me to go deeper into detail about feelers and do-ers.

Sorry guys. On Monday I have all day classes. Wednesday and Friday I am here late.

A do-er is a person who works. They know the real world can't tolerate failure on their part.

A feeler is just a person who does nothing. They don't even research. They just look at the candidates faces and begin saying well, Obama is more likeable.

And by god, how the hell in the world do you know he's likeable?! I doubt Obama-shippers will even get to meet him. So that is an unprovable statement. And that proves how much they feel over things.

Unicorn, the do-ers and feelers on this forum are a bit of a midpoint. It is much like left and right wing, feelers are slightly like do-ers but they are still considered do-ers.


Look when it comes to experience, Clinton does not have enough of it to say she has a substantial advantage, being First Lady is not experience, heck even when she did try to get something accomplished it failed significantly (Health Care), she became a senator in 2000, Obama became one in 2004 these people are not Joe Biden or Ted Kennedy yet Clinton acts as if serving 4 more years gives her the right to say that she has loads more experience, also Obama served in the Illnois legislature from 1996 to 2004, so its not like he doesn't understand the political process, he is though a Washington outsider which makes him much more appealing to a wider base of the public.

Being a Washington supporter?

Let me talk to you. Appealing to the people is not all what a president has to do. He has to present himself to the nobility or the rich. And Hillary's perfect for that.

Also, everyone in the White House is technically an outsider. Hillary went to Yale. Isn't that out of Washington?

I don't understand by saying I don't like (not hate) Clinton is not a relavent opinion, I don't like the way her husband ran the country, I think he did some good things, but overall he was a republican light type President.

Look, let me bring into public the definitions of conservative.

Conservative: Weak central government, strong military, weak market economics.

Look familiar?

But conservatives, like everthing in this world, aren't rotten to the core. Our GOP is, but not the supposed definition of Republican. There are some pro's to there philosophy.

So Clinton takes the pros, and applies them to the liberal philosophy. Yes, she is the most conservative president we will have, and that means she can handle the failing market.

So please, know that the world is grayscale.

I would like to see a change from what could potentially be a oligarchy type democracy.

Tch. Obama is one man. Isn't that an oligarchy right there? Now Hillary and her husband? That's manned by two. So don't contradict yourself.

Also when it comes to facts, one is that Obama has had a history of being a candidate and politician who can work with mulitple sides

You mean he appeals to everybody who walks up to him. I read this morning about a political analist who was a fervent Obama supporter. He said he walked in the door that way, and left as a Hillary supporter. Why? Because when he met Obama, Obama said the black slang for "the white man's pressing you down."

He's two-faced is what you mean. He appealed to the republican party by saying that some of their policies are good. And yes, that's appealing. How could you attract the conservative party even better without being conservative.

So actually, you're wrong. Hillary is more loyal and adapts some pros of the conservative defnition. Obama is less loyal because, rather then adapting knowledge, he praises the conservatives.

And if you don't believe me, then why has David Brookes suddenly supported him? (if you don't know this name, your supposed to know it.)

,he has a history of being a charismatic leader

WHO THE HELL CARES ABOUT LOOKS?!

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. In elementary school, books like that were read over and over again. You should know that one. I can even recommend some stories on that part.

But you are adapting one of the, a Spock says, "last major predjudice[s] of humanity."

, this goes back to being a community leader, a Illnois State Senator, to holding the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic Convention. Clinton has a history of being a leader who makes people take a side against her or for her.

Again, Obama becomes two-faced, and Hillary stands her ground.

I know her position. I know it well. Standing for what you believe in in front of masses should be admired.

If the klingons saw Earth as it is, they'd barf.

If Obama is elected in my opinion he has a much better shot at redifining U.S politics, if has a shot at reshifting the political arena, if Clinton is elected it will inevitably go back to what we had in the 90s which is having Clinton straining against Republican backlash. If Clinton is elected or nominated that might be the only thing to unite the Republicans together in a effort to fight against Clinton.

No. The republicans are falling out of grace. Read about Great Britain's history. It is a perfect mirror of ours. Thatcher screwed things over, and John Major tried to pivot the party, but it completely fell apart. To this day, the conservatives havn't been able to regain power.

The republicans will fight back, but it will be much more diminished than years back.

And I would be happy, if Clinton set things back to the way they are. then we can begin again, and not screw ourselves all over the again.

I hate marching morons (not referring to you referring to americans.)

You should probably read that science-fiction book. It is America.

I would also like to say that I am very happy that the Democratic party has mulitiple capable candidates, and I will be proad to vote Clinton if she wins the nomination, I would not hate her as a candidate, I just think Obama would be better.

I'm inverse. I don't want Obama to win the nomionation because the marching morons will just vote for the nomination.

I like both canidates but I like Obama more and I think he is more electable because as we've seen Obama has a better ability to attract independents and first time voters.

Read what I said about likability, please. And who are you to talk about likeable? You haven't met the guy, so please know your limits.

I like Hillary Clinton, and Bill Clinton did a lot of good things as president, but because her husbands presidency a lot of voters already have a preconceived notions about her both good and bad and those notions and ideas are going to be tough to over come during the election if she get the nomination. Obama is a relatively fresh face in Washingtion so voters especially independents and moderate republicans have less preconceived ideas about him.

First off: you don't even know what Obama will do. But there is a lot of forshadowing. Yet you are already voting for him?

You will have no idea, except by what he says.

OBAMA IS BUSH.

Yesterday, Bush said basically no to panic about the market clash. He said we should hope.

Now Obaama does the exact same. He says we should hope for change. Have we heard how?

On the experience question I think Spartan27 above explained it pretty well that there isn't much of a difference between them experience wise. However if the republican nomination is John McCain then I think he will be able to play the experience card much better against Obama than Clinton.

Hmm, interesting you bring it up.

I doubt that topic will be in the presidential debate.

However, the Iraq war will be on there. And if Obama is the nomination, McCain will wipe him out. Why? McCain advocates being in the Iraq war forever. And he will probably ask why Obama never voted for it. Obama will most likely say "I saw into his soul" or some Chimp-o-Matic Bushism. And McCain will total him there. All of his popularity will not save him there.

Not Clinton did vote for it. So she could respond that "it was a good idea at first, but degraded into uncontrolled violence."

Basically, Clinton can handlke McCain, but Obama can't. He whines at Clinton when she brings a valid point up. He can't do that with McCain.

And McCain, I have noticed, wants to be up against Clinton. I think he wants a nice man-yo-man fight, not man-pansy.

One thing I'v found interesting in this election especially on the democratic side is that all of the three main candidates all largely agree on the main principles like the Iraq war and health care which is something you more see on the republican side and rarely on the democratic. The main disagreements are on which candidate can carry out the principles better.

This is what I like. Instead of liberals becoming the pansy party, they are attacking hard-core issues.

However, I have already stated Obama is a pansy, so if we elect him we will become pansy's once again, and the republican party will seize the moment.

While I prefer Obama my favorite candidate was Dennis Kucinich but few people liked him. I will most likely vote for the democratic nomination who ever it is unless the republican nomination is McCain because he's the only republican running that I like.

Heheh. To qoute from Indesicion on the Daily Show, the guy who's slogan is "I'm wet and it's cold here"? :rofl

[Primera Espada]

I am quite surprised at the turn of events.

People in a democrat thread arguing against the idea of voting for someone based on impression and intuition? Impression and Intuition is usually what WINS the democrat an election. If the two candidates have a similar amount of pull, the democrat often wins because they are often the more appealing of the two, personality wise. They often seem more concerned, because the poor is usually their constituency. Appealing to the poor, the downtrodden, giving them hope, that's all about feelings. That's what wins elections.

The reason the democrats haven't been able to pull of victories in the past decade or so is quite possibly linked to the fact that they've put less emphasis on the poor, and more emphasis on the middle class as well as themselves. The republicans usually focus on the middle class, cause those are the "american family" types, who are often conservative out of necessity. The democrats have been working hard to steal this group from them, but alas, this means a lot of the poorer groups have started siding with republicans. I hear Hispanics vote republican in record numbers now, despite often being in the lower class due to how recently (first or second generation) they immigrated here.

That, I think, is the real difference between Hillary and Obama. Obama focuses on the middle class and the poor, Hillary focuses on the middle class and big business. There have been a lot of people who have pointed out that Hillary is one of the most conservative candidates, and thus is not the idea choice for the change she demands. However, the opposite of the same coin is said about Obama. While he is more liberal, there's little evidence that he *can* cause the change he talks about.

What does everyone think of the current ranking?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html

This is from a few weeks ago, now obama is leading in delegates, though I don't know about popularity.

Clinton has consistantly been on top, but obama has been consistantly growing in support. It's now really close, and with Obama getting more delegates this early on, it might prove to help bolster him.

Such a tight race.

[Spartan27]

I think that in the end Clinton is going to be able to pull it out, I think that her message probably has a wider base of support, the question I think in the end is who the white male is going to support, I think that Obama can appeal to the minorities, while Clinton appeals of course to women, the deciding vote than becomes white men. If these races were done one by one I think Obama could probably pull it out since he does better in gatherings and events, than he does on T.V. Because 22 states are going to be voting on the same day it cuts into his time to campaign in all of them, Clinton does a much better job on television and this will give her the win.

[earthforge]

I am quite surprised at the turn of events.

People in a democrat thread arguing against the idea of voting for someone based on impression and intuition? Impression and Intuition is usually what WINS the democrat an election. If the two candidates have a similar amount of pull, the democrat often wins because they are often the more appealing of the two, personality wise. They often seem more concerned, because the poor is usually their constituency. Appealing to the poor, the downtrodden, giving them hope, that's all about feelings. That's what wins elections.

Your right. And I'm just trying to say that isn't right. Giving them hope just isn't enough. You have to do something. But trust me here: Obama will DO NOTHING. On petitions he has always voted present, so what makes people think he's going to change?

Again, it's the marching morons.

The reason the democrats haven't been able to pull of victories in the past decade or so is quite possibly linked to the fact that they've put less emphasis on the poor, and more emphasis on the middle class as well as themselves. The republicans usually focus on the middle class, cause those are the "american family" types, who are often conservative out of necessity. The democrats have been working hard to steal this group from them, but alas, this means a lot of the poorer groups have started siding with republicans. I hear Hispanics vote republican in record numbers now, despite often being in the lower class due to how recently (first or second generation) they immigrated here.

I have no idea about family values.

But the reason why the conservatives rose up was because the liberals floundered. Thus Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Bush.

That, I think, is the real difference between Hillary and Obama. Obama focuses on the middle class and the poor, Hillary focuses on the middle class and big business. There have been a lot of people who have pointed out that Hillary is one of the most conservative candidates, and thus is not the idea choice for the change she demands. However, the opposite of the same coin is said about Obama. While he is more liberal, there's little evidence that he *can* cause the change he talks about.

Hillary being conservative, as I said earlier, is a bonus. This means she won't be totally liberal, which is pretty awful as well.

And the irony is that, according to the democratic herd sheet, Obama is far less loyal to the party. Because he is two faced. I'll repost my commens here because I have to get back to work.

Conservative: Weak central government, strong military, weak market economics.

Look familiar?

But conservatives, like everthing in this world, aren't rotten to the core. Our GOP is, but not the supposed definition of Republican. There are some pro's to there philosophy.

So Clinton takes the pros, and applies them to the liberal philosophy. Yes, she is the most conservative president we will have, and that means she can handle the failing market.

You mean he appeals to everybody who walks up to him. I read this morning about a political analist who was a fervent Obama supporter. He said he walked in the door that way, and left as a Hillary supporter. Why? Because when he met Obama, Obama said the black slang for "the white man's pressing you down."

He's two-faced is what you mean. He appealed to the republican party by saying that some of their policies are good. And yes, that's appealing. How could you attract the conservative party even better without being conservative.

So actually, you're wrong. Hillary is more loyal and adapts some pros of the conservative defnition. Obama is less loyal because, rather then adapting knowledge, he praises the conservatives.

And if you don't believe me, then why has David Brookes suddenly supported him? (if you don't know this name, your supposed to know it.)

What does everyone think of the current ranking?

Interesting. You've made my day a little brighter.

Such a tight race.

It sorta scares me as well. The democrats might tear there party apart after the elections. Why?

Well, if Obama is voted in, he will act like Bush. He might be able to pull our people from Iraq, but it won't be smooth. He also won't follow his promises, and like Bush, fall from grace.

If Clinton is voted in, the Obama backers might act nuts. See, from what I have seen, Obama backers typically say "if Obama doesn't win, I'm voting Huckabee!" or other crap like that. And at that point, Obama-shippers will break off from the party. It is much like in Britain when John Major tried to get the Conservative party back, it fell apart and split between the pragmatic view and the neo-con view.

So I am afraid of Obama-shippers.

Spartan27: Agreed. When Obama is not given a screen to read off, he flounders. Sadly.

But don't think all women are attracted to Hillary. Only working women. What made me anti-Obama to begin with was how Obama tried to get the woman vote. But he made the implication that women don't have to work in his speeches. And the women Obama supporters went "yay!"

If there is anything I don't want to lose, it's my ability to vote and make a career for myself. Too many people have tried to wreck it for me.

I do base myself on facts, but I do have a bad feeling that if Obama is voted in, women's rights will be diminished.

In some ways, it would be easier for a black man to win then a white women because the society is highly misogynistic nowadays.

[Spartan27]

I think its more due to Obama actually interacting with people more than it is reading off of a screen, that's what y