a question for Democrats

[biittner77]

If Clinton wins the nomination, what will you do? It seems like a lot of people here prefer Obama.

 

I have sort of a mirror image of this problem. I'm not sure if I trust Huckabee or Romney. Guliani seems like he's fading. McCain is not very conservative but is perhaps the most electable. Therefore, I'd have a difficult choice to make between say Huckabee and Obama. Thus I'm curious how the other side feels.

Edited January 9, 2008 by biittner77

[daske17]

After eight years of a Republican administration, it's time for a change in philosophy. I'm not keen on a Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton monarchy but given the Republican options, it's the best we have.

[Sammy Sofa]

3rd party.

[UK1679666180]

Weigh my options as I would any candidate. Right now, I have her as my 2nd choice behind Obama.

 

Her stances are more than likely similar to mine compared to any conservative candidate, espec. Huckabee.

[Roast]

Well, this really depends on who the Republican candidate ends up being.

[imb]

Maybe it's because it was like 8 years ago, but I don't remember, even though I knew then that I wouldn't be a big Bush fan (that's what she said), feeling the kind of dread about GW that I do about Huckabee.

 

He doesn't really have a chance, does he?

[TruffleShuffle]

i would vote for hillary if i knew that bill would be pulling the strings, but i know that wouldn't be the case

 

i'd vote for her over most republicans, but i'd vote for mccain over hillary. probably not romney and definitely not huckabee.

 

in other words, i have no idea how to answer. i'd vote republican if it was one guy, and grudgingly vote for clinton if it is most other choices.

[XZero771679666304]

If Clinton wins the nomination, what will you do? It seems like a lot of people here prefer Obama.

 

I have sort of a mirror image of this problem. I'm not sure if I trust Huckabee or Romney. Guliani seems like he's fading. McCain is not very conservative but is perhaps the most electable. Therefore, I'd have a difficult choice to make between say Huckabee and Obama. Thus I'm curious how the other side feels.

 

 

None of the Republican probables are at all acceptable to me.

 

I like Obama more, but in the end I think Hillary is far more electable, due in no small part to her husband, whose presence would be a real boon to her presidency.

 

I can't really see any situation where I wouldn't vote Democrat. The Republican candidates are all jokes.

[XZero771679666304]

i would vote for hillary if i knew that bill would be pulling the strings, but i know that wouldn't be the case

 

i'd vote for her over most republicans, but i'd vote for mccain over hillary. probably not romney and definitely not huckabee.

 

in other words, i have no idea how to answer. i'd vote republican if it was one guy, and grudgingly vote for clinton if it is most other choices.

 

I don't think Bill has to pull any strings to be a real presence, especially with regard to foreign relations. He is still very well respected globally, and a Clinton White House may be the best chance we have of rebuilding some of the reputation the current administration has destroyed.

 

Again, I really like Obama, but I fear the Republicans can successfully bring him down on the basis of his lack of experience. This will be the decisive issue with him. Plus there are other factors that many will unfortunately consider that may keep them from voting for him when November 2008 rolls around.

 

I just believe that Clinton has a better shot in the final vote. I also fear that Obama attacking Hillary may be really counterproductive to the DNC cause. Prior to the last month or so, I was thinking about how strong Obama would be in 2012. I am scared that the groundswell of support for him will fade down the stretch, leaving the DNC without a really strong candidate and vulnerable to even the pitiable array of Republican candidates. I just want the Dems to take the White House, regardless.

[biittner77]

I like Obama more, but in the end I think Hillary is far more electable, due in no small part to her husband, whose presence would be a real boon to her presidency.

 

His presence could also very easily undermine her presidency. I have a hard time believing that Bill Clinton is going to sit in the backround and stay out of his wife's way. Regardless, there will always be questions about how much influence he has over policy decisions.

[Derwood]

The worst democrat is still better than the best republican ;)

[XZero771679666304]

I like Obama more, but in the end I think Hillary is far more electable, due in no small part to her husband, whose presence would be a real boon to her presidency.

 

His presence could also very easily undermine her presidency. I have a hard time believing that Bill Clinton is going to sit in the backround and stay out of his wife's way. Regardless, there will always be questions about how much influence he has over policy decisions.

 

Again, I don't think this would be a bad thing.

 

If Bill Clinton ran again right now, he'd win easily. Aside from far-right nut jobs who consider tomcatting around to be a worse offense than flushing your country down the toilet, most still respect him for the job he did running the nation. No sane person can honestly say they prefer things now to the way they were 10 years ago. Will Hillary's election turn back the clock? Probably not, but people will associate Bill and Hillary with better times, and for good reason (remember when the biggest worry the country had was Bill's sex life?). And as petty as that sounds, it will make a difference. People are fickle, and are swayed by their feelings and perceptions more often than not.

 

I also think he would be a great diplomatic asset. Having maybe the most internationally liked and respected U.S. ex-president as the first husband has to be a net benefit.

[XZero771679666304]

The worst democrat is still better than the best republican ;)

 

I know you say this in jest (sort of), and 6 years ago I would have just laughed.

 

But we must have a philosophical change in our government soon or we're all in deep doo-doo.

[Derwood]

The worst democrat is still better than the best republican ;)

 

I know you say this in jest (sort of), and 6 years ago I would have just laughed.

 

But we must have a philosophical change in our government soon or we're all in deep doo-doo.

 

agreed, but i'll take Clinton's "status quo" over Romney's

[rawaction]

Hilary because of Bill. Don't like her. Love him. Republicans are stupid. Though, I did like McCain until a few months ago.

[biittner77]

If Bill Clinton ran again right now, he'd win easily. Aside from far-right nut jobs who consider tomcatting around to be a worse offense than flushing your country down the toilet, most still respect him for the job he did running the nation. No sane person can honestly say they prefer things now to the way they were 10 years ago. Will Hillary's election turn back the clock? Probably not, but people will associate Bill and Hillary with better times, and for good reason (remember when the biggest worry the country had was Bill's sex life?).

 

I can't say I agree with any of this though I really don't want this to turn into another political war so I'll respond this way:

(for the bolded part)

9/11 changed everything. If people associate the Clinton's with the "good old days" then they are in for a very very big disappointment. They can't magic away terrorism. Bin Laden etal. are not going to turn themselves in and start loving America just because we have a new president. We have problems now that didn't exist back then. Clinton's track record for dealing with terrorists was less than spectacular.

 

I won't argue the culpability of Bush regarding our foreign policy. But i disagree that his shortcomings automatically translate to every other Republican.

 

Finally,

 

I don't want Bill Clinton to be co President and it has nothing to do with Monica Lewinsky.

 

I am definitely better off now than I was during the Clinton administration.

 

Statements like the worse Dem is better than the best Rep. -or vice versa- are narrow minded and foolish. McCain for instance is much better than Kucinet (sp?), Obama is definitely better than Romney and Huckabee.

[Banedon]

Hillary's speech last night made me feel slightly better if she got the nomination. Obama and Edwards are still above her in my mind though.

[Banedon]

McCain for instance is much better than Kucinet (sp?)

 

Disagree. How can you know McCain is better if you don't even know Kucinich's name?

[XZero771679666304]

If Bill Clinton ran again right now, he'd win easily. Aside from far-right nut jobs who consider tomcatting around to be a worse offense than flushing your country down the toilet, most still respect him for the job he did running the nation. No sane person can honestly say they prefer things now to the way they were 10 years ago. Will Hillary's election turn back the clock? Probably not, but people will associate Bill and Hillary with better times, and for good reason (remember when the biggest worry the country had was Bill's sex life?).

 

I can't say I agree with any of this though I really don't want this to turn into another political war so I'll respond this way:

(for the bolded part)

9/11 changed everything. If people associate the Clinton's with the "good old days" then they are in for a very very big disappointment. They can't magic away terrorism. Bin Laden etal. are not going to turn themselves in and start loving America just because we have a new president. We have problems now that didn't exist back then. Clinton's track record for dealing with terrorists was less than spectacular.

 

I won't argue the culpability of Bush regarding our foreign policy. But i disagree that his shortcomings automatically translate to every other Republican.

 

Finally,

 

I don't want Bill Clinton to be co President and it has nothing to do with Monica Lewinsky.

 

I am definitely better off now than I was during the Clinton administration.

 

Statements like the worse Dem is better than the best Rep. -or vice versa- are narrow minded and foolish. McCain for instance is much better than Kucinet (sp?), Obama is definitely better than Romney and Huckabee.

 

You may be, but you're in the minority. The country as a whole is in worse shape that it was 10 years ago, and there is no valid argument to the contrary. Our national reputation is in the toilet, the dollar is in trouble, our troops are dying for essentially nothing, etc.

 

And as far as terrorism goes, Bush has only made it worse. It's not macho, but the only real way to win "the war on terror" is to stop giving these psychos an excuse. Sure, there will always be those who don't need one, but that doesn't make it a good idea to throw fuel on the fire.

 

I think a lot of people are under the impression that we are safer today than we were on 9/11, but that is a falsity. There are far more terrorists today than there were then, and that has everything to do with what this administration has done. Every second we are in Iraq is a boon to recruitment efforts of terrorist organizations. And every stupid and arrogant thing Bush does makes nations on the fence more sympathetic to their twisted cause.

 

 

And the worst dem is better than the best rep is silly, and I wasn't advocating it. But I see little from any of the Republican probables that lead me to believe they would change a whole lot. They have to pander to the same demographic that Bush and Co. do. If the current situation were less dire, I wouldn't be taking so extreme a position. But because the current administration has been such an apocalyptic disaster, I think the country needs something as close to a 180 degree turn in policy as is possible.

 

John McCain may be the only Republican I would even consider voting for, and he is a lesser choice than Clinton or Obama.

[Derwood]

I am definitely better off now than I was during the Clinton administration.

 

 

you are in the minority

 

btw, my "worst Dem over best Rep" was sorta joking. sorta.

[jersey cubs fan]

The country as a whole is in worse shape that it was 10 years ago, and there is no valid argument to the contrary.

 

There are actually several valid arguments to the contrary.

[Banedon]

I can't say I agree with any of this though I really don't want this to turn into another political war so I'll respond this way:

(for the bolded part)

9/11 changed everything. If people associate the Clinton's with the "good old days" then they are in for a very very big disappointment. They can't magic away terrorism. Bin Laden etal. are not going to turn themselves in and start loving America just because we have a new president. We have problems now that didn't exist back then. Clinton's track record for dealing with terrorists was less than spectacular.

 

Myths Debunked: Clinton Didn't Fight Terrorism

 

Clinton’s most public response, of course, were the cruise missile attacks of 1998, directed against Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and the Sudan, following the terrorist bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

 

Operating on limited intelligence -- at that time, Pakistan, Uzbekistan and Tazikistan refused to share information on the terrorists whereabouts inside Afghanistan -- U. S. strikes missed bin Laden by only a couple of hours.

 

Even so, Clinton was accused of only firing missiles in order to divert media attention from the Lewinsky hearings. A longer campaign would have stirred up even more criticism.

 

So Clinton tried another tack. He sponsored legislation to freeze the financial assets of international organizations suspected of funneling money to bin Laden’s Al Qaeda network -- identical to orders given by President Bush this month -- but it was killed, on behalf of big banks, by Republican Senator Phil Gramm of Texas…

 

In 1998, Clinton also signed a secret agreement with Uzbekistan to begin joint covert operations against Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan’s Taliban regime. U.S. Special Forces have been training there ever since, which is why the Pentagon was immediately able to use Uzbekistan as a staging area for forays into Afghanistan…

 

Clinton targeted bin Laden even before he moved to Afghanistan. In 1996, his administration brokered an agreement with the government of Sudan to arrest the terrorist leader and turn him over to Saudi Arabia. For 10 weeks, Clinton tried to persuade the Saudis to accept the offer. They refused. With no cooperation from the Saudis, the deal fell apart.

 

I'm sure you can just as easily find a web page that says exactly the opposite, but it surely isn't as clear-cut as you presented it that Clinton was "less than spectacular" against terrorism.

 

Bush has given the terrorists all the backing they've needed by instituting politics of fear. And terrorism can't magic away the Iraq war, which had nothing to do with terrorism.

 

I would say Bush has been "less than spectacular" against terrorism. 9/11 was tragic. But it was the Bush administrations reaction to 9/11 that changed everything.

[jersey cubs fan]

I would say Bush has been "less than spectacular" against terrorism. 9/11 was tragic. But it was the Bush administrations reaction to 9/11 that changed everything.

 

 

9/11 changed a lot of things. Nothing "changed everything". Clinton gets unfairly criticized for how he handled terrorism, the fact is it wasn't until 9/11 that America was ready to do much of anything to fight terrorism.

[CubinNY]

The country as a whole is in worse shape that it was 10 years ago, and there is no valid argument to the contrary.

 

There are actually several valid arguments to the contrary.

I'd like to read even one.

[Vanilla Ice]

I'd only vote Republican if McCain and Clinton got the nominations, I trust him much more than any of the other politicians, I just don't like his platform. I just can't vote for Clinton, I don't trust her at all and agree with Edwards and Obama much more, escpcially Edwards.