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)
support whomever posts first.
One of these two will win the Democratic Party Nomination! Continue to read at your own peril.
Mike Gravel is still running. It would be unfair of Slashdot to exclude him too.
My political friends from both camps assure me that super Tuesday is NOT going to seal the democratic nomination one way or another. Unlike the general election, delegates are not assigned all to one candidate based on the state total (for the democrats, anyway. Republican rules are different). The exact formula varies by state, but the delegate assignment is roughly proportional to the number of votes.
Personally, I'm leaning towards Obama myself. He seems principled and energetic, and I like his principles. Clinton seems a bit more cynical. I think he'd have a better chance against McCain. McCain won't bring out the republican base; Hillary Clinton will.
Policy wise, though, I think they're similar enough that I wouldn't mind either of them in the white house.
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
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
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."
The Fight for Student Power on Campus: www.forstudentpower.org.
Who can win against a white male - a black man or a white woman?
I personally don't like even Obama OR Hillary...but, if forced between the two, I would choose Obama first. Hillary is a slight bit psycho, and her husband (in my opinion) isn't quite the sharpshooter he once was...Obama may have some "appease the masses" opinions, but at least he has a solid head on his shoulder.
Hillary is just plain frightening. It's a shame that the first woman to really have a chance at the white house is a total lunatic.
Living With a Nerd
Someone posted part of this clip last time, where Obama talks at google about the future of technology. This is the full 64 minute clip, complete with Obama's joke about sorting algorithms :-)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=m4yVlPqeZwo
Let's be consistent: you meant Clinton and Barack.
"She is highly intelligent, has real experience and is an attractive candidate. But she is terrified to act on her beliefs. In fact, she seems so conditioned by what she sees as political constraints that one can barely tell where her beliefs begin and where those constraints end."
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.
Policy differences between Clinton and Obama? Minor.
Leadership?
I worry about provenance with Clinton. Why was she the head of the Healthcare task force? A recognized health expert? A well-known elected official? Wife of a guy who got 43% of the vote? That 'mandate', plus too much secrecy, doomed a not-so-bad health care plan and has cost us a lot of jobs and bankrupt Americans in the last 14 years.
Then again, why was she on the board of Wal-Mart? We mention that (well, she doesn't mention on her website that she was the first female board member of America's #1 retailer). But, why? Was she a business expert? Run a corner store? Worked her way up from the mailroom? Was she the wife of the governor of Wal-Mart's home state?
Obama has taken every step. He's sprinted to the top, no doubt. But, he's gone from knocking on doors in the projects to fighting a political machine in his district to convincing both rural and urban Illinois to inspiring a generation. No shortcut.
Not to say she's been a bad senator. But, the Iraq vote is very troubling. Only six Senators are on record as checking in to the locked room to read the full (96 page) intelligence report. Yes, it was full of lies. But, John Edwards *did*. Clinton? McCain? Neither. They believed.
And thinking of Iraq. The *only* way out of Iraq is to offer a new deal to the Iraqis. Clinton? The wife of a man whose crippling sanctions and annual bombing runs caused a whole lot of misery and entrenched the regime? Sure, from here we can say the sanctions were a good thing. But, for the man on the street who lost a child to deprivation? We need a president who is not connected to that legacy.
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
A. The United States.
The good news: You wake up and find that everything was a dream - Bush not only never won the election - the votes were properly counted.
The bad news: You slept a LONG TIME, Rumplestiltskin - Richard Nixon is president.
Alternate bad news: Miss Carolina just won the dem nomination - for the children.
I'm sorry, but I wasn't aware that there were any Muslims in the race. Are you referring to Mike Gravel? I haven't really done any research on him.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
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.
Hey everybody, I'm from Italy, and I'm following with great interest your vote. Well, situation here isn't very good, we're approaching elections for the second time in 2 years. The last competition was between the 69-years old Romano Prodi and the 72-years old Silvio Berlusconi. Now Berlusconi is going to be candidated for the 5th time since 1994. Here things doesn't change. I like Obama because he's young and can be a change in the biggest and most important country in the world...
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.
Chances are, despite growing up Republican, I will vote democrat this election no matter who it is. Bush ran the republican party into the ground. But not all candidates are created equal.
Hillary is a strong traditional candidate. She is carrying out a textbook campaign. She appears to me to be very power hungry and is willing to do whatever it takes to win, but sometimes you want that in a president. I think she would make a decent/good president. I really didn't like Bill Clinton as president, but compared to Bush, the 90s look like the golden years.
Barack, though, is something different. He looks like he is honestly and thoughtfully trying to do what is best for the country. He tries to understand the issues, think through the issues, and come up with the best answer to the issue. That is something very rare. I noticed in the California debates that Hillary would say "this is my answer, it's the best! Your idea is dumb!" Barack would say "I have considered your idea and think that this would be the result of your idea, so I have another idea that doesn't have the disadvantage your idea has." He is the only candidate I have seen that actually thinks an idea through. Everybody else (Republican and Democrat) seem to just throw ideas out that sound good, without thinking about it. Obama has the potential to be one of the top presidents ever. (He may fail of course, you never know...)
I have been voting since 1992, and this is the first time I ever had a candidate that I wanted to win, as opposed to picking the lesser of two evils. (of course, I haven't voted for the winning candidate yet...)
I half-way agree. I am pro-Obama, but I think I have every reason to hate Hillary. The fact of the matter is that we've got a republican in the democrat field looking to cock-block progress by using a well-known "democrat" name.
If Hillary wins the nomination, it will be impossible to have a real progressive democrat president for four years. If she wins the presidency, then it will be impossible to have a real progressive for eight years.
Imagine another eight years of Bush politics. Remember, Hillary is pro-censorship, security, war, executive power, and secrecy. I think she's more like Bush than McCain.
They all want the job, which should be enough in itself to disqualify them.
Not a bad idea. The electorate should just choose some random person to be president every 4 years, and surprise them with the news at work one day.
ZuluPad, the wiki notepad on crack
I am disappointed that neither candidate has come out in favor of accelerated particle beam weapon research.
Screw the flying car - I want my death ray, the way this race is going.
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
Obviously you haven't heard about the viral internet smear campaign about Barack Obama "being a muslim". The facts are he had non-practicing Muslims for a father and stepfather, and attended local schools instead of expatriate schools in Indonesia. Those facts, combined the fact that he's the N-word, and enough hearsay and outright lies, are enough for most people to jump on this "Obama Is A Muslim Terrorist Trying To Dismantle The USA Or At Least It's Plausible Enough To Me That I'm Scared To Vote For Him" wagon.
Guess who's behind the smear campaign? That's right, Mike Huc^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HMitt Ro^H^H^H^H^H^H^HJohn McCai^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HGeorge W. Bu^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HHillary effing Clinton. This move will all but ensure that if he is nominated, he will not be elected.
If she makes it (which she almost certainly will) I am voting green. At least the Republican that will be taking office next January is a bit more moderate than the incumbent.... I hope....
Life would be easier if I had the source code.
I certainly can't disagree that there are a lot of Obama supporters doing Hillary-bashing. Perhaps it's because a good number of those folks who are members of Hillary's negative numbers end up in the Obama camp? That's certainly the case for me, even though I'd still be supporting Obama if I didn't dislike Hillary. If she wins the nomination, I'll vote 3rd party, as I've had enough of her fearmongering, think-of-the-children, divisive, anti-tech, pandering politics; supporting even symbolic anti-flag-burning legislation and doing photo ops with Jack Thompson earned her a black mark in my book long before Obama became a household name.
...but there are a lot more young people who are tired of being made to feel as if they're political nonpersons, a worthless demographic that never actually gets out the vote.
Have you seen the number of young voters Obama's brought out to the primaries? I'm not worried about the bigots... not at all.
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.
Once we get a candidate that can honestly answer "yes" to "Do you use Emacs or vi?", I'll vote for him without any further questions.
Watch 3 of Hillary's speeches, see 4 different women.
Obama is black.
;-)
Clinton is female.
HTH
Justin.
PS Not in America.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
Can someone explain to me the real differences in these candidates? I've been following the primaries and I still can't find one issue where they actually differ.
:).
Policy wise, these are the differences as I understand them:
Health care:
- Clinton wants universal health care, and if you don't buy into it they'll penalize you
- Obama wants cheaper health care, so everyone can afford it -- but if you can't, tough luck
Iraq war:
- Clinton was for it to begin with, but didn't expect Bush to screw it up so badly
- Obama thought it was a bad idea, Sadam wasn't so bad, leave the guy alone
Illegal immigration:
- I couldn't figure out what the hell Clinton wants, she always goes into a long speech about middle class American families when asked about this
- Obama wants to let kids of illegals attend school, and give illegals driver's licenses
Violent games:
- Clinton thinks Jack Thompson is right
- Obama thinks parents should worry about what their kids play, as long as the games don't implement bubble sort
That's about it, from what I've seen. But, it seems that most people will end up voting based on some intangibles, like charisma, ideals, inspiration, etc...
I can't blame them, I'd vote for Obama for those reasons, too. Too bad I'm Canadian, so I just get to watch them duke it out on TV
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
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
While I am generally fixed on the idea of voting for Barak, I wanted to bring up a point here about Hillary that I think needs some consideration.
In an ideal democracy, decisions are not left up to one person, but decided by the public. When our country was being conceptualized, we decided that the best way to govern was a compromise on pure democracy, where an elected official makes up their own mind and votes according to their beliefs/conscience. The idea being that he is a representative of the majority of the public that voted for him.
If the technology that we have now had been available in the 16th century, I believe that we might have sought a more pure version of democracy. While still complicated logistically (cost, fraud, etc.), it is now possible to put out a referendum on any given topic, so that a governing body can respond directly to the will of the people. It would be refreshing to find a presidential candidate the promised record numbers of referendums for this reason. It potentially represents a truer form of democracy, (assuming he/she votes accordingly).
So, getting back to the point, if someone says that Hillary will pander to voters, it's spun negatively. However, I'd like to at least suggest that if she completely flips her stance on an issue, (or any candidate for that matter), and it is a result of voter appeal, that democracy has worked, and that she is voting the way her constituents would want. I could care less about her personal ideals. If she were there solely as a puppet, acting on the whims of the public, that would be ideal to me. I have yet to hear an elected official say something to the effect of, "Personally, I hate the idea of X. I find it to be the worst idea in the world. But, my constituents think it's a good idea, so I'm going to vote for it." when that day comes, I'll feel better about living in this country. Until then, I'm still hoping that Canada annexes Mexico, so I can move some place warm.
Raging in an online forum won't do anything for the world around you. To see change, you must take action.
"I don't trust any of them. They all want the job, which should be enough in itself to disqualify them."
Funny you should say that. Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan tells people he'd like to propose a Constitutional Amendment, stating that "anyone willing to do the ridiculous things necessary to become President is hereby banned from that office".
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
So what, we should just give up and go home, and let come whatever may? Even if you are right, being apathetic and cynical about it isn't going to change anything. It brings to mind learned helplessness -- the idea that it sucks, and there's nothing we can do about it, so let's just give up, even when there is a chance to make things better. I think it's a little too cynical to say everyone that ever ran for President or wanted to be President did so for nefarious reasons. I'm sure plenty of them just wanted the fame and power, but I think at least a few wanted to try and do something good for the country.
Maybe he will, but that doesn't mean that he, or any other Presidential candidate, won't do anything good while in office.
By the same token, why should you trust anyone, ever? Politicians are just people capable of violating trust on a grander scale.
I don't necessarily disagree about HRC, but I don't think you and I know enough about about their relationship to make judgments. Maybe she didn't divorce him because she loved him and could forgive him? On the other side, perhaps it was political. Maybe it was a mixture of both. I don't think it's fair to judge someone on speculation about their personal life; maybe she was just being a really kind person, or maybe not.
Maybe I'm just too naive and optimistic, though. ;)
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.
Clinton's campaign, when asked about supporting free/open debates, said:
"Calling for free debates might be seen as opposing copyright."
Also note that B.Clinton signed DMCA, URAA, and the Sony Bono Copyright Extension Act.
Comparing that to Obama, who met with Lessig, and signed a letter saying the the debates should be in a Creative Commons license.
Who Disney would vote for?
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.
If the technology that we have now had been available in the 16th century,
Did you mean 18th century? In the 16th century, Machiavelli was explaining why pure democracy (along with pure monarchy and pure aristocracy) was a bad idea.
I believe that we might have sought a more pure version of democracy.
No, we wouldn't have. This idea was a very big deal to the constitutional framers -- they disagreed on the methods, but they all wanted to be sure that the rights of (political) minorities would not be trampled by the majority.
On the other hand, I think they would have loved the idea of popular sign-off on whatever the professional politicians came up with.
"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.
Awhile back I was leaning toward Clinton, but she said a few things that lost me pretty quickly. First, at one of the debates the candidates were asked why people should vote for them. Each candidate responded in turn, talking about the things they would do for the country and why they were the ones for the job. Then they got to Clinton, who said "because I'm the one with the experience to win." I'm paraphrasing, of course, but there was really not much more to her response than that (in either content or word count). Voting for the candidate who can win for the sole reason that he or she can win is monumentally stupid, and when I heard Clinton urging voters to do just that I had to put my hands over my ears to keep IQ points from falling out of my head.
That made me wary, but I chalked it up to the inevitable campaign trail gaffe. But then she started picking fights with Obama over nothing in an effort to get him off-message. Not only did he stay on-message, for the most part, but he did it with poise. When Clinton not only wasn't wise enough to stop, but got her husband involved, her whole campaign began to look like a group of playground bullies picking on the smart kid. Had Obama gone negative along with her then I might still be a Clinton supporter, but as it was he came off looking like a guy who genuinely cares about the country and wants to do the right thing while Clinton and her camp now look to me like a pack of trolls who see the White House as their birthright.
So in a pretty short span I've gone from leaning toward Clinton and hoping for a Clinton/Obama ticket to being a strong Obama supporter hoping for an Obama/Anybody But Clinton ticket. I know a handful of other voters that Clinton lost over the course of the last month, so I'm hopeful and cautiously optimistic that Obama will wrap it up tomorrow. Then maybe Clinton will stop shredding the few tatters that remain of Democratic party unity.
The parent post is verifiably false on both counts, either horribly misguided or a shill for the corporate stooges they referenced.
Obama's 2004 Senate campaign finance records are easily available and seem to be noticeably not dominated by banking interests with a stake in bankruptcy law or their employees.
This matches up with Obama's vote against the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005.
It's also difficult to credit Obama as a 'corporate stooge' given his record of seeking accountability and transparency for lobbyists.
Get your facts right if you're going to contribute to the discussion-- mod parent down.
"We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin