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
Gravel is at less than one percent in every single poll ever taken, which would discount issues of bias in a particular survey. You may not like polls, and it's true that you can create an individual poll that drives responses in one direction or another. But it's hard to discount the enormous pile of evidence that we have that Americans don't see Gravel as a serious candidate (and for good reason).
Read my blog.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
I expect them to speak truthfully to the American people, not trick them into becomming a bigger herd.
Living With a Nerd
The issue is that Gravel and Kucinich both polled fabulously on the issues/votes/ideas, when divided from their names.
I'm going to write in Gravel, in any case.
I live in Illinois, and I think that the state will go with our home-town guy. HRC isn't exactly the best candidate either, as far as unifying the party and moderates. If there's something that has blown the election for the democrats the past two times, it's been two "meh" candidates. Obama, even if I disagree with him, is not merely "meh."
Dan
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.
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.
"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.
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 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.