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)
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.
"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?
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.
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.
This whole election's outcome will be based on peoples' prejudices. What does America dislike the least:
a) women
b) old people
c) funny religions
d) blacks
Free the Quark 3 from asymptotic confinement! Bring your charm! Don't get down! All colours and flavours welcome!
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.
Obama has certainly taken the crown in the Democratic campaign as "the candidate making best use of the internet." Take, for example, this clip I saw yesterday. Not sure exactly who is behind it, but the message is inspiring and - frankly - can melt through the icy cynicism of the Grinchiest Clintonite.
I would have liked more singing from Scarlett Johansson.
Watch and enjoy.
http://www.dipdive.com/
On the other hand, our founding fathers didn't trust the uneducated masses, either. We have a largely unelected judiciary, and even the Senate was not originally elected. The popularly elected House then was only given a term of 2 years vs 6 in the Senate! Even the presidential election is slightly skewed from true democracy by the electoral college.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
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
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 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.
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.
The "lack of experience" accusation against Obama is a Republican/Clinton "talking point" that is widely circulated, and many people have apparently bought into it. It is also false.
...Saying "every politician does it" is no excuse: Obama has stuck by his pledge to refuse corporate lobbyist PAC money in his presidential bid.
... as well the functioning of democracy, itself.)
EXPERIENCE
Obama is a scholar of Constitutional law, and has more years of experience as an elected official, in the Illinois state senate. The fact that much of his advocacy and legislation experience are "local" is an asset, not a liability -- one that has probably kept him closer to understanding regular folks' concerns. (it is not the board of WalMart.) This has also kept him less susceptible to the cumulative impact of the vast corruption that is occurring on the national scale.
Hillary, if anything, has the *wrong* type of experience - e.g.: taking lots of corporate money in the form of lobbyist campaign donations and her many "consulting" gigs. (many people call this "bribery.")
ISSUES
Many people assert that there is only a razor-thin difference between Clinton and Obama's policy proposals.
First of all, I don't think Clinton and Obama are interchangeable: There are many policy proposals from Obama where practically *nothing* is forthcoming from Clinton. For example, Obama will (and already has, as Senator) take steps to:
* limit the influence of corporate lobbyists
* increase transparency of government
* Technology and Communications: safegaurd privacy, "net neutrality", prevent consolidation of media, support open standards...
None of the above items are even on Clinton's radar. (The last one involves a complicated set of "21st century" issues that every politician should be taking a stand on, because they affect: our economy, job creation, privacy,
Secondly: where Clinton and Obama's policy initiatives do coincide, it is often because of compromises each candidate has made. The difference is that Clinton has moved to the "left" -- trying to make herself marginally "electable" while attempting to maximize benefit to her corporate sponsors. Obama, on the other hand, is trying to maximize benefit for real, living people -- and he has to make comprises to get legislation passed by a sea of politicians who operate like Clinton. Clinton's policies are a swarm of disconnected proposals -- with few unifying themes save that some donor's interests are being protected -- while sounding "liberal" enough to maintain electability within her party. I think Obama, on the other hand, is actually applying principles to organize and apply his policy details.
CHARACTER
Most of Obama's presidential campaign contributions have come from a large number of small donors. (He has far more donors that Clinton -- while Clinton has relied on a smaller cadre of big-time donors.) Clinton, on the other hand, has actually said that taking lobbyists' cash is acceptable because they "represent real Americans." (Although you might wish it were otherwise, you cannot deny that "where you get your money from" indicates in the strongest possible terms whose interests you will be looking out for. )
I strongly urge you to support Obama over Clinton on Tuesday.
That's because most under-30s are, in fact, a worthless demographic that doesn't vote.
Maybe that's a chicken-and-egg thing, but FFS most of my peers just can't be bothered to vote, let alone research candidates. I've voted in every election since I turned 18 (I'm 28) and try to be informed about candidates and issues. I think it would help if elections were held on weekends or if Election Day was a national holiday, but I still think that most people in their 20s just can't be bothered.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
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.
So St. Peter is at the Pearly Gates checking up on the people waiting to enter Heaven, and asks the next one in line "So, who are you, and what did you do on Earth?"
So the fellow says "I'm Barack Obama, and I was the first black to be elected President of the United States."
St. Peter says "The U.S.? A black President? You gotta be shittin' me! When did this happen?!?"
And Obama says "About twenty seconds ago."
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
I'm not really sure either. I had about a 2-hour long heated discussion about Obama vs. Clinton. I cited numerous reasons why I thought Obama was the better of the two, and why I'm terrified of Clinton, mostly because I think she's batsh*t insane. After what I thought was a reasonably well thought out list of reasons, my girlfriend conjured the idea out of nowhere that I wasn't voting for Clinton because she is a woman. I think the fact that she's a woman is taking more spotlight than it really should. I'm sure Obama is getting a little extra time because he's black, but I don't think it is nearly as big a deal to his supporters as being a woman is to Clinton's.
The first thing I think about when I think about Clinton is her singing along with Jack Thompson over video game violence. I can appreciate that you don't want kids to have these games, even if I think your arguments are craptastic works of fallacy. But when you move to ban these games, that's censorship. Period. Given the way things have been going in this country up till now, I'll be damned if I'm going to support someone for president that already has a record supporting censorship. Instead, I will be voting for whoever has the best chance of reversing the current trend of rights erosion. And, as far as I can tell, that would be Obama by a landslide.
Raging in an online forum won't do anything for the world around you. To see change, you must take action.