Obama vs. Clinton: What Tips the Scales
Watching some Democrats kick around Mrs. Clinton has grown into a sad spectacle.
Hillary Clinton would make a fine president and I think all reasonable people know that. She would make a better president, offering more constructive policies protecting more Americans, than McCain could ever hope to. Her problem is that Americans, in any given election cycle, can become inflamed with a true passion for change that can only exist in a country like ours. She does not represent that change as well as Mr. Obama does. In spite of her superior capabilities in many areas, Obama would still move into the White House with more foreign policy experience than George Bush had when Bush and his brother stole the election in 2000.
Americans can put up with a lot. After these past eight years, they have proven that they can put up with more than anyone ever imagined. However, that cannot hold forever.
What Mrs. Clinton has that Mr. Obama does not have, Mr. Obama can get. What Mr. Obama has that Mrs. Clinton does not have, she can never get.
Which one is the best hope at defeating McCain, who sounds more like a Bush brother with every passing day?
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
What's scariest is that, in the end, it all boils down to..
Words..
Chosen both by the speakers and their sundry entourages
Words..
26 letters of our alphabet strewn precisely together in just such a way as to captivate the given audience of the moment..
Words.....
Stay tuned four years from now :: And, so, just how *did* our Victor follow through on their promised choice arrangements of said 26 letters..? :wink:
CindySue what pretty prose you have with the "words..." thing, unfortunately thats all you have. At least the politicians make sense, even if they are lying.
The scariest thing in the world = badly written poems attached to political blogs.
Obama has more than Clinton.
He has wisdom, you can't learn that. He has good judgment, you can't learn that. He has integrity, you can't learn that. He has mass appeal, you can't learn that. He has always been a conciliator, you can't learn that. He has a conscience, you can't learn that.
Your assumption Obama has to learn anything is laughable.
Clinton should have learned that she needed to stop voting for WARS. She voted for Kyl/Lieberman (Iran) after voting for the Iraq war.
Clinton should have learned that people want their constitutional liberties returned:
http://www
Clinton should have learned that being the candidate who has had more contributions from defense contractors, makes her look like a Neocon:
http://www
Clinton should have learned, that if you have most of the same backers as Bush; big oil, big pharma, HMO's, banking, telecoms, defense, etc, that makes her looks like she's not interested in changing anything, notably - corporate control of our Government.
Obama: Gladhanding Politics As Usual.
No wonder Super Delegates are switching to Obama - he bought and paid for them.
Obama gave 3-times as many donations to superdelegates than Hillary did.
Right after Obama's keynote speech in 2004, he started funneling big money into Super Delegates' coffers.
My question -- where did he get all that money dating back to 2005? Rezko?
Quote:
"Obama's political action committee has doled out more than $698,200 to superdelegates since 2005, the study found, and of the 82 who had announced their support for Obama, 35 had received donations for election cycles in 2006 and 2008 totaling $232,200. Since 2005 Obama has given 52 of the undecided superdelegates a total of at least $363,900
Clinton's political action committee has distributed about $205,500 to superdelegates, and only 13 of the 109 who had announced for her have received money, totaling about $95,000. Since 2005 Clinton has given a total of $88,000 to 15 of the undecided superdelegates.
http://www
They are not "donations
Well done, little Susan, run back to your Hillary-08 camp and report how good a job you're doing slandering Obama.
But you know what? It's not going to work. Obama is going to beat Clinton, so save your venom.
You know why he has so much more money? Because record numbers of people have contributed to his campaign. Because they believe, they are interested again.
Stick that in your conspiracy/lies machine and smoke it.
I am a Hillary Clinton Supporter , If however Obama wins the primary I would gladly support him. America cannot sustain another year under republican leadership.
Obama is young but with the help of veteran Democratic leaders like Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean and even the Clinton's Obama should do just fine getting our Nation back on track to Peace , Prosperity, Democracy and Justice.
I was NOT a Hillary supporter. I would have voted
for her had she become the nominee of the
Democratic Party.
McCain and his conservative friends ("my friends")
would continue the disaster we are already in.
Obama will not be a miracle-worker. Let us
give him all the support he needs from now
to November 4.
Incidentally, the racist Conservative attack
highlighting racism ("Hussein") and lack of
patriotism have already begun. It is 2004
all over again. Huffington Post comments are
where we can all find these attack.
Let us hold hands in our common response.
Alec, you sound like everyone else who told us not to worry about GWB in 2000. "What he doesn't have he can get"? We've all seen what inexperience and foolishness get us in a President. I think that your opinion is misguided because for 8 years we've railed against the stupidity and arrogance of a chief executive who came to the job with a thin resume of failure upon failure, but we gave it to him anyway. I don't think Obama is the wrong choice because he has no political experience, I think he's the wrong choice because he has no experience AT ALL. GWB was the governor of Texas. A little bit of research told us that position was largely titular, and required little work and no experience. Florida should not have mattered. We all know it was stolen. It was stolen because we allowed it to be stolen, because we thought it was more important to send a message to the party, than it was to maintain our position. We can't change the direction of the country from the outside in. For some reason we keep trying by sending messages to ourselves that we value cheap talk instead of experienced professionals. If you don't like Hillary personally that's fine. Do you think she cares? Should she? If you believe that she does, you flatter yourself. An inexperienced and anointed leader is what got us to where we are today. I had peace and prosperity under Clinton. I want that again. I have no faith in someone who has never led or built managed anything or anyone. We've all learned that lesson. Or maybe not.
By the way - big fan! I worked at GE corporate. I don't know how you got that patter down, but it's brilliant.
You said it. Romney and Clinton, the 2 best and most capable candidates. Who do they send us. A bummer and needs a cane. What did they ask Romney adn Clinton? Mormon and Monica. When will an American politician finally say "That's none of your MF business. "
No, they asked Mittens if he would shut down Guantanamo, and he said that he'd have 2 of them, the monster. And Clinton? "Couldn't have known that Bush would go to war with the AUMF"; what a tool!
"change from the outside in"? - And how, exactly, is a Senator of the United States (a fairly exclusive club of very powerful people, I think you can agree) outside of all power?
I understand that Clinton's campaign and press people have a job to do, and in that capacity rely on the susceptibility of people like you to swallow whoppers like this "experience" meme. But, seriously - a few years as a carpetbagger in Congress and many years of First Lady-dom do not great "experience" make.
And, by the way, your solipsism shows when you talk about "peace and prosperity under Clinton": when you add up all the sops to right-wing Repugs, and his devoted attention to corporate interests (including NAFTA - great help to American "prosperity" there, pal!), his administration seems something of a preparation for the present one. (And don't get me started about Iraq - Clinton sure as hell signed the Iraq Liberation Act!)
You said "We've all seen what inexperience and foolishness get us in a President.
How do you compare Bush's inexperience to Obama's??
That's like comparing idiotic apples to brilliant oranges.
Half the graduating class of the seventh grade could have done better than Bush. And so far, Obama is a man of brilliance in words and actions. He had no experience in running a presidential campaign before and I've never seen one run better. Have you?
Alec is right on track. The only change i would add is that McCain will eat Obama alive with his background in Foreign Policy. "yes we can" like Obama's in foreign policy will just be another Bush way of facing the problems America has with our foreign friends.
balderdash. By the time of the first debate, Harvard Law Review Editor Obama will know more about foreign affairs and have more expertise in policy choices and outcomes than McCain could absorb if he had another 70 years.
The 3 words Obama will never ever tire of wincing when he hears them after the election. I'm sick of hearing them now.
PRofessor Duh:
SO I suppose you think Obama's idea of "negotiating" with the likes of Syria who sends terrorists into Iraq to set roadside bombs killing US soldiers is a good idea?
You know where Obama got this idea?
From his Middle East advisor, Malley whose Dad was a lose friend of Arafat.
Just what we need - a middle-east version of the Manchurian Candidate.
Can you read an article? Or does it have to be on You Tube for Obama people to get it.
http://www
Troll.
Those of us, like Obama, who knew that the invasion of a country that never attacked or threatened the U.S. was a terrible, unjustified, immoral thing to do have been proven right — and Hillary Clinton has been proven dead wrong. There is no possible answer for this, so Hillary Clinton provides none. So as far as I'm concerned, her "foreign policy experience" amounts to endorsing the worst foreign policy disaster this nation has ever deliberately walked into.
And why did she make such a terrible decision? Because she was busy playing political CYA. To hell with her.
I'm glad to see some people are finally looking deeper into Obama.
I'm a Hillary supporter and voted for her in the primary. But now that it seems Obama may win the nomination, I looked deeper into him.
I DON'T LIKE WHAT I SEE ABOUT OBAMA - especially in terms of his middle east views and where they came from.
The more I read about Obama the more I'm thinking he's some Manchurian Candidate launched on us by powerbrokers in the middle east.
I mean, not for nothing like my friends in NYC say, but how is it that Obama has so many supporters and advisors either born in the middle east or born here of middle eastern parents, yet spending a lot of time traveling back to Syria, Iraq, etc.
First, Obama's Bagman, Syrian-born fraudster Rezko (who was arrested because of his "business" dealings with a corrupt Iraqi-British billionaire arrested in France).
Now ... Meet Obama's Advisor on Middle East Policy: Robert Malley, the son of a Syrian who was a close friend to Arafat.
It's clear to me why Obama wants to meet with terrorist states and sit around the campfire singing Kum-By-ya.
The article below has links to Malley's Middle East philosophy - hint: he thinks Israel is the big problem.
And did I mention Malley's dad was a close friend of Arafat? ;)
Do we need Pres. Obama being advised by middle-eastern powerbrokers and sympathizers?
http://www
Obama and Rezko:
http://www
http://rez
i cannot see was collaborative connections with people in the middle east is negative. i think thats exactly what this country needs.
Friends in the middle east to promote our policy will do much more for our foreign relations than an army and a war to promote our policy.
i cannot see why...
(sorry poor proof reading)
It's really strange to call the Obama approach "just another Bush way" on foreign policy. The basic philosophy toward the world is probably the clearest complete turnabout from Bush to Obama.
If you want some evidence, just look at some of the comments to this post all paranoid about Obama daring to see the possibilities of negotiation.
It was Clinton who went along with the Bush way, from Iraq, all the way, recently, to Iran. Obama, meanwhile, had apparently already developed enough background in foreign policy 6 years ago to smell that rat.
Did you switch the name Obama for Clinton accidentally in your post?
This comment was in response to Puntarenas, above.
Susan1968
http://fin
Such behavior would soon be a thing of the past, promised the party. "In contrast to the Republican policy of leniency toward white collar crime...De
And, at the convention's climax, Bill Clinton declared, "In the name of all the people who do the work, pay the taxes, raise the kids, and play by the rules, in the name of the hard-working Americans who make up our forgotten middle class, I accept your nomination for President of the United States."
WHAT A DIFFERENCE TWO YEARS MAKE. Now we know where Bill and Hillary Clinton got their ideas about the '80s, about S&Ls, about quick-buck artists, about politicians who shout about values, about "those who cut comers and cut deals." The Clintons weren't just mouthing Democratic slogans. They were speaking from experience
...the Clintons made most of their money and obtained their perks not by productive, wealth-creating labor but by exploiting the "parasite economy," reshuffling other people's money through the political process.
Wow so having foreign policy advisers that might actually understand the dissent in the middle east is now a bad thing. So then what's so wrong about the Bush policy that sees them all as evil doers that hate our freedoms?
Israel is a big problem. They are a rogue nation in violation of dozens of UN resolutions. The only country in violation of more is the US. Israel has a right to exist but cannot ever wish for peace if they continue to expand their borders with illegal settlements.
Alex - you forgot one thing in your analysis. You said Obama will have more foreign policy experience on day one in the oval office than Dubya Bush did on his first day. While that may be true - remember - Obama won't be running against Bush. Obama will be running against John McCain. McCain has 30+ years of experience in the Senate dealing with foreign policy issues. McCain will have Obama for lunch in the debates. The Repubs will soften up Obama all summer long with a mercilous swift boat/prison furlough/l
Interesting how you frame your argument. I disagree that there has to be anything about Obama that will be uncovered that wil 'stink to high heaven' as you say. Of course I expect that there will be swift-boating during the spring and summer but I think you forget that Obama is bringing in voters that don't go for all of the negetive stuff that is being offered in the public square, voters how are looking for a leader that talks more about what WE can do together as opposed to one who tells you what a slimeball his opponent is. Whatever happened to the land that was built on what could be, or is that just a myth, and even if it is, what's wrong with making the country over to be that land. We always seem to measure by the negetive and not what's possible or the positive. We don't seem to ask on what we agree and how we move the country forward even though we disagree on most other things. It always seems to be about what a person has done wrong or any other dirt we can find on or around them.
I hope we can be a country that believes again in ourselves, that's really our only hope to be good again. We have to start by voting for it!
Hillary can't even hold her own with Bill.
The day we as people accept that our politics is nothing more than a game with rules that betray our own hopes and dreams and we decide to do nothing more to change it is the day we've lost our democracy. The most patriotic thing we must do is change our thinking and take back control of our country - that is the promise of Obama - and if we are to afraid to act because we listen to cynics like you who offer nothing more than fear of the republicans then we don't deserve to win. You see the problem with Hillary is she voted for the war because she was afraid to look weak but you look weakest when you don't stand up for the right thing.
Our soldiers are dying every day for what? If we do not change our thinking as a people and start taking control of our country now then all these kids will have all died in vain.
I happen to know several republicans who are voting for him (Barack) in the primary (Ohio) and again in the general. Why??? because their party has been hijacked by the religious wrong and they can't stand Hillary. Her behind the scenes efforts on health care and her go it alone style was considered offensive ( much like the idiot in the office today). She actually would have had a chance with the swing vote had she been honest and said in 2000 when she ran for the senate that she planned on running for the White House. She proved herself to be a real "carpet bagger" her actions are just flat out misleading. Her lack of success in her efforts in the last 16 years overpower her 35 years of experience. (No universal healthcare) Finally please don't tell the people in Ohio that your going to bring their jobs back. Those left during Reagan and the first Bush.... Hillary's husband had 8 years to fix that... I thought we were getting 2 for the price of one. Her loud obnoxious voice and influence didn't help during the first Clinton terms and won't help now. The only thing she will be ready for on Day 1 is fighting the partisan politics, effectively wasting the first year of her administration. Thank goodness she seems to be ready to concede. She has run a miserable and arrogant campaign..
I had too much time the other day and discovered where much of the Obama plans came from. Lobbyists and big business! The theme is, not much change here.
1. Health Plans: Obama’s is a windfall for the insurance companies. The rhetoric Obama uses is directly from the Health Care lobby talking points, Harry and Louise ad campaign they did and the I will not be forced to pay for insurance, it is my right to be uninsured Rhetoric. Health Cares costs every American 7K somehow and 30 percent goes to administration, united Health Care, WellPoint et al win.
2. Obama’s Ethanol plan is directly from the Farm Lobby and all those that understand the issue know that it won’t lower gas prices and will keep accelerating food prices. Archer Daniels Midland wins.
3. Obama’s alternative energy plan and the 10B that goes along with it looks like GE’s strategy for the world. GE wins here.
This is just what I discovered after taking the time to connect the dots. Don’t see much change and all the plans are derivative of big business lobbyists. Where is the change? Where is the beef?
First let me say-------not speaking to foreign countries got us in the mess with all of them threatening us and hateing us. If you think Hillary's health care is good, you must think Obama's is! the only differnce is Hillary"s threatens to garnish our already heavly taxed wages for health care rather we cn afford it or not. Than if she cannot Manage Her Own Campagne Money-----------HOW CAN SHE MANAGE THE BILLIONS OF THE UNITED STATES MONEY? I have a feeling we have some Clinton Campagne member blogging on this sight. She acuse Obama of Plagiarism when words from her own speech;s come from Jessie Jackson 1984 speech in s.C! She stole words from June Jordan Poem, and words from Norman Hatchin song that says"A Change is comeing". Now I doubt she had permission to use those words, where Obama did. So what is she going to steal to bail us out of the real astate mess-----She has to loan herself money for her campagne------maybe she can borrow from China to bail us out-----Her NAFTA program she and her Husband supported did send thousand of jobs/camerican companies there after all. Ya real smart-dont vote for the guy who was against the Iraq war, Don't vote for the guy who wants to ed it in the next year or so, and don't vote for the guy that raised and Managed Millions of dollars in his campagne like a Pro. People I'm white 54 and have had enough of People like bush, Mccain, Clintons years.Let them go Good into the gentle night!
First, the intellectually disingenuous aspects of your argument.
1. Hillary’s position on Iraq is almost identical to Obama’s and she knows how to get out. Obama says we will responsibly withdraw. That means nothing and is not a plan. A speech does not have the same equivalency as a vote.
2. We all pay 7k per year in health care somehow. If you don’t have car insurance, everyone pays when you have an accident. Health Care is no different. Her plan has affordability built in. Obama’s has HMO winning and his rhetoric is identical to the Industry’s.
3. Managing a campaign is orchestrating a PR and branding exercise, basically putting on a big TV show. No one remembers how much money she contributed to dozens of fellow democrats in the 2006 election.
4. Running a broad multifaceted government, I would go with the person that has been around the block a few times.
5. Clinton years balanced the budget and was great economically for all. Hillary said she would not do Nafta the same way today and would change it.
Next the factually incorrect.
1. The plagiarism charge is factually correct. He was nailed and should say he made a mistake. He lifted an entire speech without attribution, not a passage from the bible, not a slogan, a straight lift. After the fact, there was a lot of red-faced explaining going on.
2. Hillary proved that she is a change agent and has the negatives to go along with it. I don’t say that Obama can’t do it, but the right wing are as wed to their positions and the left wing.
3. The Clintons had some of the best foreign relations the US ever had. Bush hosed most of them. They could rebuild those relationships faster and without risk because those people know the Clinton and know how to trust them. Obama, being new will have to prove himself with those people at the same time many will be testing him.
Where is Kucinich? Where is Paul?
Ther is a tide in the affairs of men(women)
it is time for hrc to appear on dancing wih the stars to work it out - and get some votes at the same time. vote for hillary america.
Mr. and Mrs. Clinton do not have 35 years experience. They have about 5 years of experience, and they've had that 7 times.
Gosh !!! Senator Obama ... runs a brilliant campaign .. You don't suppose that might translate into managing a brilliant administration do you ? It also kind of puts to rest the notion that electability might need to be looked at. But hey what do I know.
If change is all about PR then you are correct. The most dysfunctional businesses to work for are the PR firms and Media companies.
A campaign is about orchestrating a message and brand. Running an administration and a government with a 10T budget and 10T in debt, I think you need someone that’s been around the block a few times.
You're right it's not like running a government with a "10T budget." Obama is just running a $150M organization and doing it way better than these folks who've "been around the block a few times."
Obama doesn't have aides quitting left and right, the public infighting, or the obvious disorganization. And you can't say he does. You just blindly want to justify your support of another candidate and that's fine. But don't belittle what is by all standards one of the finest political operations seen in modern times.
Peace...
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
