a question for Democrats

[biittner77]

This has been a very interesting discussion.

 

It seems to me that except for hardliners on either side the last 3 elections have been lesser of 2 evils decisions. It would be really nice if both sides could come up with candidates that are judged on their own merits and ideas rather than party lines.

 

I'm hoping that the race becomes McCain vs. Obama since those 2 I believe are the best options from either side.

[TruffleShuffle]

Again, I really like Obama, but I fear the Republicans can successfully bring him down on the basis of his lack of experience.

 

i must have missed all that experience that dubya picked up while not holding political office until 1994.

 

 

i'm glad obama is running now. after the 2004 election i became convinced that it's advantageous for a senator to run for president as quickly as possible. if you stay in congress for 10-20 years there will inevitably be votes that look bad in hindsight, or votes that end up being reversals of previous positions. hence the republican attacks on kerry, who was certainly not a poor candidate for lack of experience. if republicans manage to bring down obama, that will mean that their radio and tv network is just too powerful, and they can pretty much bring down any candidate for any reason. but i don't think that is the case.

[TruffleShuffle]

This has been a very interesting discussion.

 

It seems to me that except for hardliners on either side the last 3 elections have been lesser of 2 evils decisions. It would be really nice if both sides could come up with candidates that are judged on their own merits and ideas rather than party lines.

 

I'm hoping that the race becomes McCain vs. Obama since those 2 I believe are the best options from either side.

 

i never considered clinton to be a "lesser of two evils." i consider him a good leader with generally good policies, who happened to have some pretty significant flaws in his personal life. i don't want my president to be raping high schoolers or sodomizing dogs, but i don't expect him/her to be perfect either.

[Banedon]

i never considered clinton to be a "lesser of two evils." i consider him a good leader with generally good policies, who happened to have some pretty significant flaws in his personal life. i don't want my president to be raping high schoolers or sodomizing dogs, but i don't expect him/her to be perfect either.

 

Agreed. I never thought of Clinton's elections that way. I'd say the last 2 were definitely "lesser of two evils" elections though.

[TruffleShuffle]

i never considered clinton to be a "lesser of two evils." i consider him a good leader with generally good policies, who happened to have some pretty significant flaws in his personal life. i don't want my president to be raping high schoolers or sodomizing dogs, but i don't expect him/her to be perfect either.

 

Agreed. I never thought of Clinton's elections that way. I'd say the last 2 were definitely "lesser of two evils" elections though.

 

oh yeah... last one was definitely a turd sandwich vs giant douche.

[biittner77]

i never considered clinton to be a "lesser of two evils." i consider him a good leader with generally good policies, who happened to have some pretty significant flaws in his personal life. i don't want my president to be raping high schoolers or sodomizing dogs, but i don't expect him/her to be perfect either.

 

Agreed. I never thought of Clinton's elections that way. I'd say the last 2 were definitely "lesser of two evils" elections though.

 

oh yeah... last one was definitely a turd sandwich vs giant douche.

 

I voted enthusiastically for Clinton the first time. I stood in line for almost an hour to vote for him. I voted grudgingly for him the 2nd time. I wanted change but could not bring myself to vote for Bob Dole. So for me the last 3 have been lesser of 2 evils.

[biittner77]

Again, I really like Obama, but I fear the Republicans can successfully bring him down on the basis of his lack of experience.

 

I'd be more concerned about the Clinton's bringing him down than the Republicans. If Obama can survive the nomination process he can probably take anything the GOP can come up with. It's not like they can accuse him of "not being black enough" and his lack of experience in the senate is probably an advantage for reasons mentioned earlier.

 

The real worry for Obama is the Clintons and what they can dig up on him and the lengths they they will go to discredit, humiliate or blackmail him.

[seanimal]

Again, I really like Obama, but I fear the Republicans can successfully bring him down on the basis of his lack of experience.

 

I'd be more concerned about the Clinton's bringing him down than the Republicans. If Obama can survive the nomination process he can probably take anything the GOP can come up with. It's not like they can accuse him of "not being black enough" and his lack of experience in the senate is probably an advantage for reasons mentioned earlier.

 

The real worry for Obama is the Clintons and what they can dig up on him and the lengths they they will go to discredit, humiliate or blackmail him.

 

You're more worried about the Clintons than the people who gave us Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and "Vietnam scrambled McCain's brains"? Odd.

[Sammy Sofa]

Again, I really like Obama, but I fear the Republicans can successfully bring him down on the basis of his lack of experience.

 

I'd be more concerned about the Clinton's bringing him down than the Republicans. If Obama can survive the nomination process he can probably take anything the GOP can come up with. It's not like they can accuse him of "not being black enough" and his lack of experience in the senate is probably an advantage for reasons mentioned earlier.

 

The real worry for Obama is the Clintons and what they can dig up on him and the lengths they they will go to discredit, humiliate or blackmail him.

 

You're more worried about the Clintons than the people who gave us Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and "Vietnam scrambled McCain's brains"? Odd.

 

Yes, because the Clintons have outplayed THOSE people twice, and those attacks hinged on the Republicans having a truly viable candidate to rally around. Bush, unfortunately, provided that in both of his elections from his name alone.

[biittner77]

What you're forgetting is that the Clinton's get to go first. I would also argue that the Swiftboat stuff probably didn't change anybody's mind about Kerry. I actually read Unfit for Command predisposed to not liking Kerry and came away unimpressed with the case against Kerry.

[swordsman]

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.

 

Nice to see the politics of fear is getting good use on both sides of the aisle. :wink:

[XZero771679666304]

Again, I really like Obama, but I fear the Republicans can successfully bring him down on the basis of his lack of experience.

 

I'd be more concerned about the Clinton's bringing him down than the Republicans. If Obama can survive the nomination process he can probably take anything the GOP can come up with. It's not like they can accuse him of "not being black enough" and his lack of experience in the senate is probably an advantage for reasons mentioned earlier.

 

The real worry for Obama is the Clintons and what they can dig up on him and the lengths they they will go to discredit, humiliate or blackmail him.

 

 

If the Clintons don't, you can bet your ass the Republicans will, and probably worse. And besides, it's not as if Barack has been totally congenial in his tactics. Actually, Hillary's tact has been far more civil up to this point, though that may have to change in light of recent events. But that's politics.

 

I don't think that anything will have to be dug up on Obama. He has gotten by largely on his considerable charisma and his platform, but as we wind down the road, people will start to question his lack of experience. Personally, I don't think it's that much of an issue, but I am not so naive as to think most others feel the same way. My concern is that Obama will damage Hillary enough to win the nomination, leaving Obama as a lame duck candidate because of his lack of experience, and letting some joker like Huckabee or Giuliani into the White House.

 

I was looking forward to Obama in 2012 because I just don't think he can win this. I believe Obama and Clinton are better than any of the Republican probables, but that Hillary is the one who has a real chance in the general election.

 

If you don't mind me saying, you seem to have an unnatural amount of vitriol for the Clintons. I don't know why, and that's your prerogative. But I think it's wrong to dismiss the power that the Clinton name will hold for most voters when they step into the polls in November 2008. They (mostly he) is still enormously popular in nearly all demographics, excluding the far right and possibly the rich.

 

The numbers I have seen (albeit not recently) indicate that if Bill could run again, he's likely win in a landslide. It's not Bill running, but Hillary is no idiot herself, and a lot of people want to see Bill associated with the White House again.

[Banedon]

I was looking forward to Obama in 2012 because I just don't think he can win this. I believe Obama and Clinton are better than any of the Republican probables, but that Hillary is the one who has a real chance in the general election.

 

I honestly think that you underestimate the Bush/Republican backlash out there right now. I think that's what is getting young voters and other folks that don't typically vote out to the polls. I genuinely believe that the Democratic Primary is the real race this year. I don't think a Republican can win the general election. Maybe I'm being naive or hopeful, but it's the feeling I get.

[XZero771679666304]

I was looking forward to Obama in 2012 because I just don't think he can win this. I believe Obama and Clinton are better than any of the Republican probables, but that Hillary is the one who has a real chance in the general election.

 

I honestly think that you underestimate the Bush/Republican backlash out there right now. I think that's what is getting young voters and other folks that don't typically vote out to the polls. I genuinely believe that the Democratic Primary is the real race this year. I don't think a Republican can win the general election. Maybe I'm being naive or hopeful, but it's the feeling I get.

 

 

Yeah, I may be. Call it tempered optimism after I thought the same thing in 2004.

[Post Count Padder]

Not a huge Hillary fan, but may vote for her depending upon who gets the Republican nomination. And I also like Bill.

[frostwyrm]

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.

 

History won't be nearly as kind to Bill Clinton as Democrats would like. He didn't create the tech boom/bubble and the resultant huge windfall in capital gains taxes and he didn't cause the collapse of communism and the resultant peace dividend. China and India were still years away from being the oil-swilling job-stealing economic behemoths they are now, the Euro was not yet a strong competitor for the dollar, and nobody had heard of bin Laden. The 90's presented easily the single most favorable set of circumstances any president has had since the 1920's. All Clinton had to do was not screw it up. I'll give him credit for that. By contrast, Bush has been dealt some horrible cards, but he's found ways to make bad situations worse than they needed to be, so I'll say Clinton was a better president, but Clinton was also a much much luckier president.

[hardcorecubfan]

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.

 

History won't be nearly as kind to Bill Clinton as Democrats would like. He didn't create the tech boom/bubble and the resultant huge windfall in capital gains taxes and he didn't cause the collapse of communism and the resultant peace dividend. China and India were still years away from being the oil-swilling job-stealing economic behemoths they are now, the Euro was not yet a strong competitor for the dollar, and nobody had heard of bin Laden. The 90's presented easily the single most favorable set of circumstances any president has had since the 1920's. All Clinton had to do was not screw it up. I'll give him credit for that. By contrast, Bush has been dealt some horrible cards, but he's found ways to make bad situations worse than they needed to be, so I'll say Clinton was a better president, but Clinton was also a much much luckier president.

 

Exactly, good post.

[Banedon]

History won't be nearly as kind to Bill Clinton as Democrats would like. He didn't create the tech boom/bubble and the resultant huge windfall in capital gains taxes and he didn't cause the collapse of communism and the resultant peace dividend. China and India were still years away from being the oil-swilling job-stealing economic behemoths they are now, the Euro was not yet a strong competitor for the dollar, and nobody had heard of bin Laden. The 90's presented easily the single most favorable set of circumstances any president has had since the 1920's. All Clinton had to do was not screw it up. I'll give him credit for that. By contrast, Bush has been dealt some horrible cards, but he's found ways to make bad situations worse than they needed to be, so I'll say Clinton was a better president, but Clinton was also a much much luckier president.

 

I realize that I'm nitpicking a single point out of this, but this just isn't true. The US believed that Al Qaeda and Bin Laden were behind the 1993 boming of the WTC and the 1998 bombings of 2 embassies.

 

How can Republicans question Clintons's response to Bin Laden, if nobody had ever heard of him?

[jersey cubs fan]

History won't be nearly as kind to Bill Clinton as Democrats would like. He didn't create the tech boom/bubble and the resultant huge windfall in capital gains taxes and he didn't cause the collapse of communism and the resultant peace dividend. China and India were still years away from being the oil-swilling job-stealing economic behemoths they are now, the Euro was not yet a strong competitor for the dollar, and nobody had heard of bin Laden. The 90's presented easily the single most favorable set of circumstances any president has had since the 1920's. All Clinton had to do was not screw it up. I'll give him credit for that. By contrast, Bush has been dealt some horrible cards, but he's found ways to make bad situations worse than they needed to be, so I'll say Clinton was a better president, but Clinton was also a much much luckier president.

 

I realize that I'm nitpicking a single point out of this, but this just isn't true. The US believed that Al Qaeda and Bin Laden were behind the 1993 boming of the WTC and the 1998 bombings of 2 embassies.

 

How can Republicans question Clintons's response to Bin Laden, if nobody had ever heard of him?

 

Yes, "nobody" goes too far. The public is one thing, but people knew of Bin Laden.

[seanimal]

I think most people who read the news in the 90's knew who Bin Laden was.

[Derwood]

I think most people who read the news in the 90's knew who Bin Laden was.

 

yep, he was the guy we helped train and arm so that Afghanistan could fight off those pesky Russians

[OleMissCub]

I think most people who read the news in the 90's knew who Bin Laden was.

 

yep, he was the guy we helped train and arm so that Afghanistan could fight off those pesky Russians

 

No, I knew him as the guy who killed hundreds of people in US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and killed several US Sailors on the USS Cole.

[Derwood]

I think most people who read the news in the 90's knew who Bin Laden was.

 

yep, he was the guy we helped train and arm so that Afghanistan could fight off those pesky Russians

 

No, I knew him as the guy who killed hundreds of people in US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and killed several US Sailors on the USS Cole.

 

that too, but my part was true as well

[OleMissCub]

I think most people who read the news in the 90's knew who Bin Laden was.

 

yep, he was the guy we helped train and arm so that Afghanistan could fight off those pesky Russians

 

No, I knew him as the guy who killed hundreds of people in US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and killed several US Sailors on the USS Cole.

 

that too, but my part was true as well

 

I doubt anyone in this country other than people in intelligence or people who followed the Afghanistan conflict ad nauseum knew who Osama Bin Laden was before he started being an international terrorist. People knew who the Mujahideen were, etc., but not Osama specifically.

[Sammy Sofa]

I think most people who read the news in the 90's knew who Bin Laden was.

 

yep, he was the guy we helped train and arm so that Afghanistan could fight off those pesky Russians

 

No, I knew him as the guy who killed hundreds of people in US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and killed several US Sailors on the USS Cole.

 

that too, but my part was true as well

 

I doubt anyone in this country other than people in intelligence or people who followed the Afghanistan conflict ad nauseum knew who Osama Bin Laden was before he started being an international terrorist. People knew who the Mujahideen were, etc., but not Osama specifically.

 

Osama was basically a nobody in the Soviet/Afghanistan outside of some money he pumped into it. He had next to know combat/frontline experience.

 

That said, his stature was very noticeable well before the Cole or the African embassy bombings.