Why I like HRC over BO but still hold out hope for JE....

Being president is the toughest job in the world, or so that hoary old cliche states...

Why is it so tough? Because you are the face of the US government for most everyone in the world including more than half of the people in the US who slept through civics and haven't a clue about how our government truly operates...

That, and the fact that there is so much money at stake, powerful people on the outside looking in want things and will do things to get what they want...

I believe that all the crap HRC took ever since she said she wasn't going to stay home and bake cookies, or what ever that was back in 1992, she has been ridiculed, scorned, laughed at, held up as a representation of all that is wrong with this country and still has the gumption to run a much better campaign than I thought...

Sixteen years of living under a microscope has steeled the Senator from New York like no one else in this race...

We need someone who can hit the ground running and not go through any kind of learning process...

Remember the Travel gate situation that Newt and the boys worked up against Clinton from day one...

Magnify that by ten to see what comes at the next Democratic president...

BO, well, the guy has never faced a tough campaign. We have no idea how he will react under all that pressure...

I like him and think he has a future, but wish he had a little more political seasoning than he has...

BO's biggest problem since stepping onto the political playing field was how to not look too overconfident when ever he was asked to comment on his opponent, crazy Alan Keyes...

If someone has a dream for a better America, he/she had better have experienced the nightmare of reality in order to stand up to all that comes at you once you take up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave...

JE has been through the mill already and was able to stand that pressure...

I just can't see, as it stands now, him winning the big primaries in the big states...

Anyway, the way this whole gotcha thing between HRC and BO is unfolding is tiresome but to be expected...

It will be interesting to see how this effects the never ending polling being conducted all the time...

In my gut, I have major misgivings about replays of the triangulation strategy Clinton mistook for governing...

But for now at least, I have to tip my hat to a tough old broad who took what ever it was that Newt and the boys threw at her and is still standing...

That's my two cents...

If I had my druthers, it would be Edwards. And I will vote for him. But, I'm fine with HRC, because she is tough as nails and will fight whomever the Republics put up with everything she has. And she's a ten times better politician than Kerry or Gore (tactically and strategically.)
She is even now finally coming across as funny and self deprecating at times, combined with resolute, strong and presidential. I've grown more impressed with her the more I see of her.

And Barack, who has an ability to connect with people that far exceeds that of the tough old broad (and she is tough), just might be a grown-up by the time it's over.

'Cause I sure don't want to live through a repeat of 1993 again...

although I like Hillary and Obama both, I still don't think they would have a chance. I meet John Edwards when he was campaigning in 2004 and he has such a nice personality and cute as a bug in a rug.

In the primary, vote your choice. In the election, vote your party's choice.

If you need to hear it, Edwards has my vote in the primary. He has my sister's, and her husband's. At the least, our primary votes will tell them what we want. We have to tell them truthfully.

The people who want what Kucinich, and Richardson, and the others want, MUST vote for the candidate who speaks for them. The primary is our best chance to make them hear our voices. We don't unite until the majority has chosen. But don't give anyone a false majority because of what you think someone else thinks. In the primary, the ONLY thing that matters is what you think.

the primaries because we always vote at the tail end of the process...

I voted for Jesse Jackson in the primary back in 1988 when he ran for president...

But if I had to vote right now, I would vote for HRC because she could kick the shit out of anyone of the republicans in the race as of now and stand up to the media...

I just wanted to remind people how tough it will be as a Democratic president...

All the money and the megaphones are on the other side of the table...

But I vote my choice because I respect the vote too much to vote otherwise.

If things were different, I don't know how I would have voted...

in the election.

In lieu of Al Gore, I'm holding out for Kucinich or Edwards. If none of those emerge as a primary victor, I might go for Bloomberg.

HRC is a lethal candidacy. The RW has been trumpeting and funding her campaign long before it was ever announced. They know how polarizing her personae is. Do we really need to experience another disastrous POTUS Dynasty episode? It shouldn't happen.

It has nothing to do with her gender or intellect. It's her connections (Murdoch/DLC/Bill) and misjudgment on the Iraqi War initiative. HRC is not about us. It's all about her/him. It's too bad that they need for her to be POTUS to work things out between them.

For the record, I don't care if a POTUS candidate, wife or otherwise can bake cookies. I prefer the Jimmy Carter profile: Honest.

"We need someone who can hit the ground running and not go through any kind of learning process..."

So you want Edwards? The least experienced of the top three? As for experience, Obama has the most of the top three. And he's not divisive within his own party...

Good luck in your choices.

versus six or eight years...

And both Edwards and Clinton have been through a National Campaign...

How does BO have more experience?

Only past VP's, First Ladies, and failed VP and presidential candidates have the experience to be president.

Interesting perspective, but I respectfully disagree.

That clearly isn't the case...

That counts. He's the most experienced of the three.

He never, as far as I can tell, had a tough campaign...

This isn't a thread about legistlative careers...

It's about standing up to pressure and being able to react....

I'm sorry, but a State Senator never has to conduct all of his business in the glare of the international spotlight...

Good point about him never winning a competitive election.

They would put him back on his heals before he walked through the door...

You'll obviously denegrate the skills needed and the job of a State Senator like a dog that won't let go of a dish rag, but if you think not working with a cross-current of political contingencies like what Illinois presents with big city politics, diversity interests, rural politics, farming politics and even religious politics is just nothing more than day in the park, your view is suspect to me.

You mentioned that and questioned whether Obama had any experience, and I'll stand with the truth that he has not only more experience that Edwards or Clinton, but that his record outshines both of them greatly.

Were Lincoln and JFK not fit to run for President? They had pretty much identical levels of experience that Obama has.

~~~~

as well as the state level...

I worked for the Ohio House for 3.5 years...

It's not on the same level at all...

The level of scrutiny is just not the same...

It's the outside political attention brought to a national campaign and the stakes are much higher at the national level...

And beside that, I never said he wasn't fit to run for office...

I just said he lacks the true test under fire that those who have been in the national spotlight have had to face...

That's all...

And you can and will read anything you want into that...

That much is obvious....

prepares him at all for what's ahead.

his natural gifts do prepare him, but his inexperience at this level has been his obvious weak point so far.

boost him with real stuff, not by saying he is experienced enough. he's not.

If you think being a State Senator in Illinois is easy...

Also, a First Lady doesn't have ANY legislative experience...in case you didn't know.

a US Senator nor is running for State Senator anything at all like running for the president...

It can't be any harder than being a State Senator in Ohio, a larger more diverse State...

And I worked in the State House for more than three years...

And beside, my point was on the political side not on the government side...


And really now, argue the point I made, not the point you wished I had made...

No, The first lady isn't a legistlaor...

I am shocked, I tell you shocked...

But here's a hint, being a Senator for seven years in the national spotlight does give her far more experience that BO has at this time...

She voted for the IWR.

She wanted to make desecration of the American flag a federal crime.

Just those two are enough to make me say that with that kind of experience, surely more experienced people like Dick Cheney must be really great!

stride...

She is a pro at that...

You can be Mr. Liberal policy wonk and get your ass kicked the minute you walk through the front door at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave...

Hell I have a great city councilman, maybe he should run for President...

He's been in office an awful long time, fifteen years or so so he should know exactly how to handle what comes at him after he takes his hand off the bible...

And btw, being a state senator is so far beneath the radar of ordinary people they probably couldn't even tell you who their repr's are...

She is the better politician by far...

Would it be that we all lived in Utopia and only the best and the brightest were called to lead...

That's pretty subjective on your part. There are plenty of people who feel otherwise.

And yes it is subjective which is why I laid out several reasons why I believe she is the better politician...

Without detailing their subtle policy differences...

And I will stake my thirty years experience as a candidate, an elected official, the treasurer of the largest democratic party between New York and Chicago, an executive member of the Democratic party as well as a local political writer that she is indeed, the most tested candidate this party has seen in the last thirty years...

Does that mean I want her to win...

No, but I think she is the best candidate to deal with the piles of shit that are going to come after whichever candidate makes it to the general election...

And really, to tell the truth, I could give a rats ass what other people think...

Last I looked we are all entitled to an opinion...

Thanks for your service to your community. That is appreciated.

Yes, you are entitled to an opinion. And yes, you can be wrong.

Perhaps you can name the many allegations and perceptions that Senator Clinton would have if she was the nominee (I'm confident she won't be) and how she will not have to play defense the entire time she would run. It's pretty clear to me that the Republicans would absolutely prefer to have Senator Clinton be the nominee; there would be no greater unifier for the GOP than to run and vote against not one, but two Clintons.

Some misguided people think the Clintons fended themselves off well with the Right in the 1990's. What happened was that the 1994 elections gave the Republicans a clear majority thanks to the Clintons. When Clinton signed the DOMA, the Telecommunications Act, most favored status with China and Vietnam and signed the NAFTA agreement, he did so to save himself rather than fight for the American people. The absolute embarrassment that the guy couldn't control his testosterome outbursts is further evidence that he thought first about himself before country.

Senator Clinton will have to defend her view that the desecration of the American flag should be a federal crime, thereby slitting the throat of the First Amendment for a few votes and a jingoistic pandering for those that would never vote for her in the first place. There's much more...and it's pretty pathetic to think that she is clearly more in favor of being in the spotlight than being in the correct opinion in many cases. It boggles my mind why anyone would want to have to revisit that stuff again...

Good luck with your candidate.

She would not be depending on her husband bailing her out this early in the campaign. She should be able to answer questions head on. She is not. The serious questions, the media have not asked. She tries to take credit for her husband's decisions. No, she is not a good choice for president and she will not make it through the general election. The repugs will eat her alive.

I definitely agree about voting your choice/heart in the primary...

And for the chosen candidate in the general...

K&R, not that you need it!

An entire "Why I support this candidate" OP and thread.....

and NO ONE, not even the OP mentions a SINGLE ISSUE or even suggests that ISSUES or PLATFORMS or Political Ideology has any bearing on WHY they have chosen this candidate. :shrug:

I weep for America.

Most of the top three candidates are at least on the same page as far as the issues go...

I prefer Edwards since I think he has the best approach by targeting the people who need government the most, the sick and elderly and the working poor...

This was intended as a political discussion that can't be ignored since it doesn't really matter how agreeable a candidate stands with your view of the world, if they can't maneuver through the political aspect of getting there, than what's the point...

BTW, I weep for those who are too naive to realize that there is a political side to everything we as democrats and liberals strive to make happen....

I urge you to think about the margins, if they win, that Hillary, Obama, and Edwards would win by, and how that could give them added strength. If Hillary's margin would be the tightest, then her power could be lessened, despite the long experience you mention.

They will attack whomever is the nominee and be relentless in their persuit...

I'm talking about the margin of victory in the general. If Hillary gets in by the skin of her teeth, that would change the perception of her administration at the beginning, and counteract some of that experience you are talking about.

assault on whoever we put in the Oval Office...

And they will be well funded, as they are now, with the cable news channels grabbing any chance at controversy from the git go....

It's my gut feeling that BO has not had to suffer the slings and arrows of misfortune while HRC has...

I don't think her policy is in tuned with my favorite of the announced candidates, JE, but as anyone who has been around will know, the dem's tend to play by the book while the republicans, at least in the forty years I have been paying attention to politics, never shy from the low road no matter what the circumstance...

And remember, they will still have Fox, Hanni ty, Rush and the whole echo chamber turned toward who ever takes the oath...

That's my concern right now...

Now if the Dem's control both houses by comfortable margins, then that is a different story...

But I wouldn't count on that just yet...

Redistricting for the 2012 election will be, I believe, the defining moment for our democracy...