another poll confirms oprah backlash:Hillary is surging

[Kandahar]

What exactly should I do for MY problem?

You should learn how to read between the lines better.

 

[Kandahar]

And I respectfully disagree. I think the problem is that they are lying in the first place. While one can very well make an educated guess about what a politician truly thinks, it's insane to think we should have to.

Well like it or not, we do have to. No successful presidential candidates get there by telling the truth 100% of the time.

If we, as citizens, stood up and made it their problem by not giving them inevitable candidacies, I think our political system and country would be in a much better place.

Sorry but I don't value 100% honesty in a presidential campaign as highly as you do. There are more important things at stake. As you said, we can make educated guesses about what they truly think. And I'd rather vote for someone who agrees with me on most issues (Hillary), than someone who is relatively honest but batshit insane (Kucinich, Paul).

While I do have respect for candidates who are relatively honest even when they disagree with me (John McCain), I'm certainly not going to vote for someone who I disagree with just because they're honest. That is an absurd way of voting.


Find me an electable, competent, intelligent candidate, who agrees with me on most issues, and always tells the truth without being divisive. I'll gladly vote for that person, but such a person does not exist. Several of those traits are simply incompatible with each other.

 

[Thales]

Complete honesty isn't my only criteria, but it's an important one. If I actually agreed with Hillary on most issues, then I might be more easily persuaded to suck it up and vote for her. But I have the luxury of disapproving of her campaigning and not liking her opinions.

I'm guessing that Obama isn't experienced/electable enough for your tastes? Because he's certainly one of the most open and honest people in the race.

 

[Thorgasm]

You should learn how to read between the lines better.

You should learn to say what you mean and mean what you say. Let me guess, when you disagree with me, you are lying and actually agree with me.:mrgreen:

 

[Thorgasm]

Well like it or not, we do have to. No successful presidential candidates get there by telling the truth 100% of the time.



Sorry but I don't value 100% honesty in a presidential campaign as highly as you do. There are more important things at stake. As you said, we can make educated guesses about what they truly think. And I'd rather vote for someone who agrees with me on most issues (Hillary), than someone who is relatively honest but batshit insane (Kucinich, Paul).

While I do have respect for candidates who are relatively honest even when they disagree with me (John McCain), I'm certainly not going to vote for someone who I disagree with just because they're honest. That is an absurd way of voting.


Find me an electable, competent, intelligent candidate, who agrees with me on most issues, and always tells the truth without being divisive. I'll gladly vote for that person, but such a person does not exist. Several of those traits are simply incompatible with each other.

The thing is, how can you possibly know when a liar is agreeing with you?

 

[Kandahar]

Complete honesty isn't my only criteria, but it's an important one. If I actually agreed with Hillary on most issues, then I might be more easily persuaded to suck it up and vote for her. But I have the luxury of disapproving of her campaigning and not liking her opinions.

I'm guessing that Obama isn't experienced/electable enough for your tastes? Because he's certainly one of the most open and honest people in the race.

The main issues I have with Obama are electability and competence, yes.

While I think that any Democrat has the edge over any Republican in this particular election (due to a toxic atmosphere for the GOP, and the fragmenting of their base), I think a Hillary victory would be much more certain than an Obama victory.

As for competence, I think that his rhetoric about "ending partisanship" and "uniting the country" is incredibly naive. I'm much less confident that he has it in him to fight for the policies that I want to see enacted, whereas I have no doubts that Hillary would do everything she could to advance those policies. I worry that congressional Republicans would walk all over President Obama, and he'd compromise for the sake of compromise, when greater change was possible.

A perfect example of this is his health care proposal. While Hillary Clinton and John Edwards both proposed universal health care plans, Obama promised a much less ambitious reform. I have no doubt that all three candidates are basically on the same page regarding their basic ideas toward health care policy, but Obama was much more timid than the other two. I believe that universal health care is easily within reach for the next president, so why go with a candidate who only offers tepid support to his own ideas, in the interest of unity? Even if doing so could bring about "an end to partisanship" - which I don't believe it would - I'd rather have universal health care than an end to partisanship.

 

[Kandahar]

The thing is, how can you possibly know when a liar is agreeing with you?

By honing your bullshit detector. Listen to their speeches/debates sometime, and it will become easy to tell when they're lying. It is really not that difficult to figure out where candidates truly stand on the issues...especially someone who has been on the political scene as long as Hillary Clinton has.

 

[Stinger]

The main issues I have with Obama are electability and competence, yes.

And you DON'T have the same issues with Hillary?

She has huge electablity problems and has never shown much competence at anything.

 

[Thales]

The main issues I have with Obama are electability and competence, yes.

While I think that any Democrat has the edge over any Republican in this particular election (due to a toxic atmosphere for the GOP, and the fragmenting of their base), I think a Hillary victory would be much more certain than an Obama victory.

As for competence, I think that his rhetoric about "ending partisanship" and "uniting the country" is incredibly naive. I'm much less confident that he has it in him to fight for the policies that I want to see enacted, whereas I have no doubts that Hillary would do everything she could to advance those policies. I worry that congressional Republicans would walk all over President Obama, and he'd compromise for the sake of compromise, when greater change was possible.

A perfect example of this is his health care proposal. While Hillary Clinton and John Edwards both proposed universal health care plans, Obama promised a much less ambitious reform. I have no doubt that all three candidates are basically on the same page regarding their basic ideas toward health care policy, but Obama was much more timid than the other two. I believe that universal health care is easily within reach for the next president, so why go with a candidate who only offers tepid support to his own ideas, in the interest of unity? Even if doing so could bring about "an end to partisanship" - which I don't believe it would - I'd rather have universal health care than an end to partisanship.

Fair enough. Although I'd say that Hillary and her unfavorables are still an issue, enough to put her about even with Obama in electability.

I tend to agree much more with Obama than Hillary, but if you're more liberal than I am (and I'd venture a guess that you are), Hillary will probably be able to push through more of your legislation than Obama.

Having witnessed Deval Patrick for the past year in Massachusetts, who lacks political experience and has the exact kind of message, I'd say that there is a bit of a learning curve. But Obama at least has experience as a senator and Illinois legislator, whereas Patrick had purely business and law experience.

 

[Thorgasm]

By honing your bullshit detector. Listen to their speeches/debates sometime, and it will become easy to tell when they're lying. It is really not that difficult to figure out where candidates truly stand on the issues...especially someone who has been on the political scene as long as Hillary Clinton has.

Her voting record is Bush lite. Her health care plan won't do anything as it leaves the middleman in place. Eliminate the insurance companies and their lobbyists. You seem to be endorsing the lobbyists running our country. I don't.

 

[Kandahar]

Her voting record is Bush lite.

Pretty much everyone seems like "Bush lite" to extremists. But for those of us in the reality-based community, there are plenty of obvious differences between Bush and Hillary (and for that matter, between Bush and the Republicans running to replace him).

Her health care plan won't do anything as it leaves the middleman in place. Eliminate the insurance companies and their lobbyists. You seem to be endorsing the lobbyists running our country. I don't.

My desire is to improve access and affordability to health care and to streamline the process...not to **** over insurance companies just for the sake of ****ing them over.

Your position seems odd for someone fawning over Obama, considering his health care proposal is less ambitious than either Clinton's or Edwards'.

 

[Thorgasm]

Pretty much everyone seems like "Bush lite" to extremists. But for those of us in the reality-based community, there are plenty of obvious differences between Bush and Hillary (and for that matter, between Bush and the Republicans running to replace him).

She's a neo-con. Can you tell me her position on Iraq and our troops?

My desire is to improve access and affordability to health care and to streamline the process...not to **** over insurance companies just for the sake of ****ing them over.

The middlemen are unnecessary. That shows how little you know about this issue. Her plan will cost too much as it essentially will use the government to subsidize the insurance companies. They don't need the government's help.

Your position seems odd for someone fawning over Obama, considering his health care proposal is less ambitious than either Clinton's or Edwards'.

I am being practical. Obama is reasonable. He is also electable. He doesn't have healthcare right. Kucinich doesn't have a chance of being elected though. I could vote for Edwards. If Hillary gets the nomination, I will vote third party. A win for her now is a win for the GOP in 2008. People don't like her. Her negatives are too high. This will motivate the GOP voters to get out and vote. Please don't make the Dems look like idiots another election. I don't think our country can handle another GOP president.

 

[Kandahar]

She's a neo-con. Can you tell me her position on Iraq and our troops?

Withdraw from Iraq in an orderly manner, as security permits. Of course, "as security permits" can mean many things. It's a code phrase to sound tough on security without really elaborating much. To a George Bush, the phrase might mean as soon as Iraq becomes a peaceful utopia. To a Hillary Clinton, the phrase means as soon as it's possible to get our troops out without having to airlift them off the roof of our embassy as an angry mob ransacks it.

The middlemen are unnecessary. That shows how little you know about this issue.

Good day, sir.

 

[Thorgasm]

Withdraw from Iraq in an orderly manner, as security permits. Of course, "as security permits" can mean many things. It's a code phrase to sound tough on security without really elaborating much. To a George Bush, the phrase might mean as soon as Iraq becomes a peaceful utopia. To a Hillary Clinton, the phrase means as soon as it's possible to get our troops out without having to airlift them off the roof of our embassy as an angry mob ransacks it.

She has also said that she would leave troops there for the reasons that they are there now. She can't have it both ways. She supports the status quo. Stay the course.

Good day, sir.

Good argument. Didn't you already play that card earlier?

 

[RandomProfanity]

As a citizen of Iowa and democratic caucus goer I feel I should weigh in. In Iowa you don't see that many Hillary posters or supporters because no one really takes her seriously. For good reason too, I dont mean to seem sexist but in all of her campaign adds that are on tv like every 5 minutes in Iowa she always says something like "31 years of experience in washington". I wouldnt really consider decorating the white house for christmas real washington experience. If hilarry is nominated I will probably vote republican even though I'm a democrat. She's awful. I am absolutely torn between the rest of the democratic field though because they are all extremely qualified, experienced, and have good agendas in my view. I will probably vote for either Richardson or Obama because of thier energy plans.
And who cares what celebrity endorses which candidate, is the public that dumb and oblivious to the real issues? Maybe.