Slashdot Mirror
Best Presidential Candidate, Democrats
This story is to discuss the remaining democratic candidates for president. Please keep discussions limited to talk about Hillary and Obama. Keep discussions of the other party in the other story.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Mike Gravel is still running. It would be unfair of Slashdot to exclude him too.
I've not decided which of the two to vote for, but I do agree with something I heard John Grisham say last week: That having them pair up for a "super ticket" would probably be more negative than positive. Any voters who would not have voted for a woman AND any voters who would not vote for a black would BOTH be turned away and McCain would slide into the presidency.
"We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
Worse yet, one of those two might become president.
Or one of the republicans might become president.
Either way, the world loses.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
I like Obama, only because we need a President with a new last name. There's no scientific way to determine who would be the best president, but we need someone with new perspectives. Or at least not jaded enough to try new things. They're all politicians so everything they do will come under my inspection but so far the only two candidates that fit closest is Obama and McCain, IMHO. Still haven't made up my mind how to vote tho. Anyway, on to the flamebait stuff, the democratic logo is horrible, looks like a mutated dog.
As technology grows and becomes a more regular part of the everyday citizen's life, this next election will have a MASSIVE impact on us all, including from a technology standpoint. The next president will play a role in dictating funding, telcos, ISP's, piracy...you name it, this election is going to dictate quite a lot in terms of technology (not to mention everything else, of course)
In that sense, discussing this election (ESPECIALLY considering Hillary is a technological idiot) is very on-topic.
Living With a Nerd
Doesn't the process of selecting the leader of the (for better or worse) one of the most powerful and influential nations on the planet have some relevance to the phrase "stuff that matters"?
Even if you live in another country, the US government and it's actions have some amount of influence on your existence. (whether it should have as much influence as it does is another topic for another thread).
---
"I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
If one of your primary deciding factors is how trustworthy the candidate is, then the best you can do is pick the one you think will remain the least corrupted for the longest time. I don't know if that's Hillary or Barak. It looks like from your perspective Hillary has the handicap coming out of the gate since, as you say, she has "no principles" Who knows how long Barak would last against the temptations of the office, or how much worse than Hillary he could become?
The Statue of Liberty is America's lawn jockey.
Obama, hillary may as well drop out. Those two states are her states, and if she losses them, that should serve as a wake-up call that even her own people don't want her as president.
In Soviet Halo, the game kills you (socially anyway)
She's not a lunatic - she's a cold, calculating machine politician. We don't need another Clinton or Bush in the White House. Enough of the dynasties.
Obama is naive, compassionate, charismatic, and idealistic - just the kind of change in leadership this country needs.
Serving your airship needs since 1995.
Hillary is just plain frightening. She isn't a democrat. She is a socialist. Did you read her latest interview? "Garnish wages of workers who refuse to buy health insurance..." Your money isn't your money until the government says it's your money. That is her line.
Sorry, she said what?
That's right, you heard me .
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Like I said. I don't really agree with some of his political policies, but he does have a good head on his shoulders...that accounts for alot.
Living With a Nerd
I actually don't think that's that bad of an idea. In principle, maybe. In reality...
What happens now if someone doesn't buy health insurance? They go to the emergency room and get treated anyway. Other people end up paying for it in the form of higher hospital costs.
Obviously, the pure capitalist solution would be for hospitals to just refuse people who don't have money. I'm not necessarily against that idea either, but I doubt it'd ever fly.
So if Bob doesn't want health insurance and our choices are:
A) Bob is forced to pay for health insurance or
B) I'm forced (effectively) to pay for Bob's health insurance
I'll pick A over the B we have now.
A good way to stop fueling terrorism is to make all drugs (including heroin) legal. ESPECIALLY drugs like heroin. People are going to do it whether it is illegal or not. Would we rather those billions of dollars a year go to the middle east (where they produce over 90% of the world's poppy) or into the hands of American farmers?
Yeah. I thought so.
Living With a Nerd
Why not? We fill our jury pools with random conscripts, so why not the Oval Office, as well? While we're at it, let's do the same for Congress.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
Have you actually watched the woman talk for more than 2 minutes? That's all the example that you need.
Hillary is the epitome of saying whatever it takes to get the most votes. Running to become the next leader of the free world while spouting off boilerplate sayings just to look good in the polls is frightening. I don't know about you, but I don't want my leader to do their best to appeal to the masses...I want them to focus on running the fucking country.
Not to mention she is a backstabber. Did she or did she not agree with Obama to not sling crap at each other any more? And what is she doing now? Slinging shit again. Fuck that. I do NOT want the leader of my country to be trying to make others look bad so I will vote for them. You tell me why I should vote for YOU, not why I SHOULDN'T vote for someone else. This applies to all the other candidates as well.
Living With a Nerd
If I was American, I'd vote for which ever candidate has ACTUALLY read the Patriot Act. Anyone? Anyone? No? Oh right... only the person who typed it actually knows what it says.
Ok, then who is the strongest candidate AGAINST it?
I don't think it's exactly a conspiracy, I think it has more to do with the recognition the second candidate gets from the first. Similar to advertising, people find themselves asking "<insert name of no-name candidate> who?"
Hillary is the last candidate I would ever vote for because of this. The founding fathers decided against a system of Kings and queens, princes and other royalty.. Not to get too idealistic, but I think that there are other people out there, with new ideas that deserve a shot at running the country.
Watch 3 of Hillary's speeches, see 4 different women.
OTOH there was that whole White Water thing that still leaves people wondering.... and the fact that she chose her potential political career over divorcing her adulterous husband - many times... which leaves some people wondering what her priorities are (power/influence > integrity/values)... then of course she started her political career off the back of her husband (which isn't that strange but is a big deal for a president rather than a state rep or senator) and went to New York to do it (which was a perfectly strategic thing to do - hence the questionable move in the eyes of suspicious individuals).
All in all the above facts (mixed w/ my editorializing) lead up to a big ????? about her ability to be an *effective* President. A lot of americans don't like the idea of someone who positioned themselves to become president. See the post which quotes Douglas Adams. Who will follow and individual with these *qualifications*.
Other than that I think she's very smart, politically savvy... will hold her own on the international level (most leaders will actually respect her more for how well she manipulated everything to get into power) and knows how to pick a good cabinet of advisors = the most important part of the job.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
I expect them to speak truthfully to the American people, not trick them into becomming a bigger herd.
Living With a Nerd
I write sci-fi for metalheads
This story is to discuss the remaining democratic candidates for president. Please keep discussions limited to talk about Hillary and Obama. Keep discussions of the other party in the other story.
I am incredibly disappointed in slashdot today. To quote a commenter in the Republican story, "what is this, Fox news?"
We have more than two parties in the US. The last election had the Libertarians on the ballot in all but one state. None of the corporate news outlets mentioned this salient fact!
Another salient FACT is the FACT that the next President will be Republican. Both Obama and Clinton have far too many people who hate them for either of them to win the General Election.
The mainstream media say if you vote for a "third party" your vote is wasted, since they have no chance of winning. Well, the Democrats have no chance of winning this election, since they will nominate Obama of Clinton, both of whom are hated by too many people to have a snowball in hell's chance of winning.
So following the mainstream media's logic, any vote except e Republican vote is wasted this election.
But I don't follow that flawed reasoning. I am against the DMCA, the Bono Act, drug lwas, prostitution laws, gambling laws, the "Patriot" act, NSA surveillance of Americans, and all the other laws the multinational corporations have paid Congress to pass in the oast twenty years, all of which were passed by a clear majority of both wings of the corporate party that slashdot has wasted space discussing..
I say a vote for a candidate who will vote in laws I don't want is worse than a wasted vote. I'm splitting my vote between the Greens and the Libertarians. I'm not wasting my vote on a Republicrat, whether Obama, Clinton, or McCain. I, for one, do NOT welcome our old corporate overloirds, and I, for one, refuse to follow their unconstitutional laws.
mcgrew
Police State: In USSA, cops hassle YOU!
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
"His chances are so slim because of logic like this."
His chances are nill, and its all because of Mike Gravel, no one else. There is no conspiracy here. He's addressed the public, and been found wanting as a candidate. Same thing with Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, and Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter. All have small, rabid followings, and none have topped 5 percent nationally. The onus is on them to convince people they're viable. Nothing annoys me in a campaign more than Candidate X's followers pointing their finger at me and saying "well, he'd have more support if you'd just get behind him!". Well, he didn't convince me, and it's not my job to carry him. Its his job to gain a following, no one else's.
No matter how you might be attracted to their ideas, not enough other people are supporting them to give them a viable campaign. While I personally think the MSM has their favorites, they can't completely control the election process. Two months ago, they'd written John McCain and Barack Obama off completely. Funny how real voters (and not polls) have a way of deciding things for themselves.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Interestingly, the pure capitalist solution means that you actually pay more for your own health care. Here in the UK, the spend per person per year is substantially less than in the US because the corporate profits, overhead of running the insurance schemes, and the fragmented nature of the different companies all cost extra. On top of that, because every company wants to insure the low illness, high profit individuals, they try to marginalise the less profitable people who actually do get sick with higher premiums.
More details here
I actually agree with your conclusion (given the false dichotomy you've given) to prefer Bob to have to pay for insurance. That said...
What kind of heartless asshole thinks only people who have money should get treated at a hospital? Money is far from the best measure of the worth of a person. Yes, there is a disproportionate number of worthless people who have no money. HOWEVER, there are also a disproportionate number of worthless people who are stinking rich. And there are a disproportionate number of wonderful people who are a great boon to humanity who have almost no money. People much better than I: all of the people out there teaching Head Start, all the people out there volunteering in the Peace Corps, working at rehab centers, and just plenty of normal people working the job within their abilities that helps the most, while raising decent children. If I don't have the fortitude to take the loss of income to go do the right thing, at least I can work towards a society that supports those who do.
Most voters are older than that since the percentage of you young whippersnappers who vote is very small. I'll be 55 in a few weeks, and I've been voting longer than many of you have been alive. :)
I won't tell you who to vote for, but you should vote. Get involved from the local level all the way up. It's about the only say you have in government.
What about parties you ignorant anus-smelling-like fuckface? There are a lot of other political parties, not just the republi-crats. Howzabout a forum dedicated to Libertarians, so maybe people can learn about and discuss what a political party's goals should be.
Oh, yeah, right - go ahead and mod me a troll for pointing out someone else's ignorance.
I think your missing one of the key things that I happen to like about Obama though. A r/l friend of mine put it this way: Hillary knows what she wants to do and she knows what's best for the country. If she's elected she's going to run with her ideas and to hell with everyone else. Obama doesn't have all of his positions set in stone yet and he thinks that YOU know what's best for the country. Recall JFK's quote: "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country"
Obama is the first candidate that I've seen in my lifetime that I actually believe can unite this country. Can he actually pull it off? It's a tall order -- I can't say for sure and neither can anybody else. What I am sure of is that Hillary can't unite this country. It doesn't matter if that's her fault or not -- it's the current reality. You know how most of us feel about Bush? That's how the other side feels about the Clintons. If she wins then we can look forward to four (eight?) more years of slash 'n burn politics, governing from the 51% majority and claiming a "mandate". That's the last thing we need.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Here's a fact: future events that haven't happened are never facts, let alone "FACT"s. Also, after 8 years of the Bush administration there's a lot of people who are willing to suck it up and vote Democrat just to get the "lesser of two evils" (unlike you and me). 8 years ago those people didn't vote, or voted 3rd party, and we *almost* got Al Gore, so this time around I predict a change. As much as you say too many people hate Obama or Clinton, I have a feeling most of those are what we call "Republicans" and they really just keep to themselves anyway. Recursively, it's also a true statement that a lot of people, especially undecideds, do like Obama and Clinton for various reasons and some Dems are convinced they could be the next big thing. They've made the most headlines, which is worth 10 their weight in gold when it comes to presidential politics. So I call on Nader to run so I can place my vote for him, but I place my bet on the next president being a Democrat.
You were critically hit for no damage. The bruise will look nice, and maybe the scars will make good party talk.
While I find your joke to be in poor taste, I'm worried that there's some truth there. There are far too many people in this country, in this world even, who judge people by the color of their skin, and who, in all likelyhood, will find the election of a black man to the presidency to be too large of an offense to be ignored and will at least attempt to take matters into their own hands. This is no reason not to vote for him, though. Personally, I'm disappointed that none of the candidates, on either side of the fence, agree with my personal politics to the degree that I feel comfortable voting for them. Looks like it'll be another case of "voting for the lesser of two evils" for me.
"Willy Wonka for President! The Oompa Loompas will rule!"
"As president, I will order an immediate review of our overseas deployments - in dozens of countries. The longstanding commitments we have made to our allies are the strong foundation of our current peace. I will keep these pledges to defend friends from aggression. The problem comes with open-ended deployments and unclear military missions. In these cases we will ask, "What is our goal, can it be met, and when do we leave?" As I've said before, I will work hard to find political solutions that allow an orderly and timely withdrawal from places like Kosovo and Bosnia. We will encourage our allies to take a broader role. We will not be hasty. But we will not be permanent peacekeepers, dividing warring parties. This is not our strength or our calling."
- George W. Bush
Thursday, September 23, 1999
Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
Dude, the founders never desired a pure democracy, even if the techonology were available. Why do you think we use the electoral college system? Why are the senate rules designed so that the minority may prevail? For details one what they considered when forming the Constitution, read the Federalist and Anti-federalist Papers. The last thing they wanted was mob-rule (which is what they considered pure democracy to be). I think the French Revolution gave a good example of why a pure democracy is not desirable.
Well, I agree he doesn't have much experience, but, then again, I'm COMPLETELY puzzled by Hillary claiming to have 'experience' for the office. I mean, what is her experience? Sleeping with a sitting president for 8 years? And hell, if that is her claim to experience, she wasn't even that good at it...considering Bill's extramarital exploits during office.
That being said...POTUS I think by definition always is OJT. There is nothing out there that can prep you for it, as that it is unique. The closest you can come to it I'd say, is governor of a state. There are only 2 candidates that fit that bill, and one of them was only one term I believe.
At this point, I think you just have to guess which one would get in the office, and pick it up the fastest...AND who would surround themselves with the best and brightest to really run things.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I had a discussion with my girlfriend around this, and she said the same thing. Here's my problem with that approach: I can't keep up with every last bill, with every last project and with every last special interest initiative that is worming its way through the political machine. I already have a full-time job, I have hobbies and I have a girlfriend that wants attention as well. I cannot, and will not do the grunt work necessary to make an informed decision about every last idiotic bill that someone coughed up (case in point: the California Indian Gaming agreements - still can't find out all the relevant information). This is the reason why we're paying these people upwards of 150K a year to essentially sit in a cushy club and raise their hand on occasion. If we're turning them into mere mouth pieces, we don't need them at all. Vote via Internet on certain issues, have some grunt tabulate the votes on issues, and save a boat load of cash - not to mention make influence buying a whole lot more expensive. The short of it is, these people have a job to do, and it goes (or is supposed to, at least) far beyond merely raising a hand. They are supposed to be the ones to do the in-depth research to make an informed vote on every issue that is presented. Yes, I'm disgusted by the fact that this doesn't actually happen. However, I think that turning politicians into puppets is not the right approach. I might change my mind on this, but it will require that I lose all faith that any representative will do any useful work whatsoever under any circumstance.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Looks like it'll be another case of "voting for the lesser of two evils" for me.
This is why U.S. politics is in such a sorry state. We need to stop voting for the "lesser evil" just to defeat a "greater evil.
I'm tired of voting "against" someone, I'd really like to vote "for" someone, even if that means the greater of two evils gets elected. If everyone took the time to find and vote for someone they honestly believed in, we might actually start to get some candidates that people could support.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Personally, I'm not very impressed with either candidate in terms of maturity. Both are mudslinging pretty hard. If I wanted to hear that, I could watch a kindergarten class.
To choose one, I'm liking Obama at the moment.
Right now, the country has lost the majority of its international image. This will probably result in our economy crapping out the deep end. Without a standard to tie our money to a value, the stuff isn't worth the paper its printed on, unless someone is willing to take it. If we lose international interest in what we do, we're screwed.
He's been exposed to other cultures outside of politics, he talks well, he carries himself well, and I've liked some of what I've heard him campaigning for. He's also been pretty up front about a lot of his past. How many candidates admit to pot and cocaine use without being asked. He's come clean and that has a lot of value.
I can't help feeling that Clinton's twisted, the more I hear her speak. Does anyone have any links to her stuff, because I'd honestly like to know more about why so many people are interested in her. I don't want to just shoot her down without more on what she's trying to run for.
I wouldn't consider the mad hatter mad. Just reality impaired. He sure can make a mean cup of tea.
i find its fairly naive to think that one will find a candidate that that they believe in 100%. With the number of ppl in the US and the quantity of ideas those ppl generate, finding a candidate that agrees with each one (even within their own party let say) is very slim. one needs to look at a candidate that has the ability to make a positive change toward a greater good. so you may disagree on one or even a handful of issues, but do you atleast agree with the way he/she forms their opinion and delivers his/her argument. because in the end, those handful of ideas you disagree with may be changed both in your mind and or his/hers. combine this with the fact that we also have congress/house/supreme court and the few things you don't like about the prospective president may not even matter.
to me obama is the first in a long time of presidential candidates that has the country's interest at heart and has an open enough mind to accept the changes that are and will be happening in this country.
You lost me at POTUS and OJT. If you want to say something just say it, please. Don't assume everyone knows your wacky abbreviations. No, I won't google it.
I think the experience card is overplayed. I'd rather have a President smart enough to surround himself with intelligent and experienced people who listens to them then someone with "experience" who surrounds himself with yes-men and doesn't pay attention to those few advisor's that dare to disagree with him.
Besides that, what's "experience"? Being a Senator? A Governor? For how long? Does anybody with all that "experience" even remember what it's like to be a normal American any longer? Lincoln went from the House, to being a lawyer in private practice, to being President of the United States. I'd say he turned out pretty good despite his "lack of experience".
And secondly, I find his actual views to just be a rehash of the same tired liberal ideas we've seen disproved time and again for the last two generationsWell, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree there, because I support most of those "tired liberal ideas" and take issue with the idea that they've been "disproved". Regardless though, your next sentence still gives me hope for our country:
That said, however, if he were to win, I would have no problem supporting him despite not agreeing with his politics, as I would support any President of the U.S., but unlike some other candidates (*cough*Clinton*cough*) I wouldn't have to hold my nose while doing so.I'm hopeful that Obama can bring enough Independents and Republicans into the fold that we can actually change the tone of politics in this country. Do I know for sure that he can pull it off? Nope. Do I know for sure that Hillary can't pull it off? Yep. Hell, I think McCain could do a better job at uniting this country then Hillary can, and I say that even though I've lost respect for him over the last few years (mainly for kissing the ass of the religious right)
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Yes, it's great that health care is finally getting attention. It's just too bad that she sold out universal health care in favor of 'mandatory health care'. She got flack for being too socialist, so now she's going to 'clean up' her reputation by diving headfirst into crony capitalism.
Depends... Did this man serve on the board of Walmart, did this man vote for funding the war in Iraq (and never apologize for it?) Did this man shred thousands of documents related to a potential scandal? ( http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D06E6D7163DF93AA35750C0A962958260 )
How does this man compare on civil liberties actions? The other candidate - http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/clinton-slams-o.html - looks pretty good. She's never said she opposes widespread wiretapping, unlike the SAFE act (which Obama was vocal for.) http://w2.eff.org/patriot/safe_act_analysis.php for details.
I cannot support Clinton from a policy perspective when we have someone more in line with ideals concerning civil liberties.
Your girlfriend conjectured an idea out of nowhere? No, say it isn't so!
Obama is right on more issues than he's wrong on, he's demonstrated an ability to inspire and unify, and I personally believe that his "outsider" status and youth would be advantageous in setting this Nation down a better path.
Do you honestly think this should be a vote about being black or being a woman?
I thought we were looking for a president.
Neither color nor gender should matter in this decision.
So far, the only arguments I've heard for Clinton are:
'You think Obama will be the first black president?' and
'Just think about what women would do'
I'm interested in what Obama and Clinton would do, not what women or black people would do.
I wouldn't consider the mad hatter mad. Just reality impaired. He sure can make a mean cup of tea.