Obama or Clinton? - Page 15

Ophiel · #71 01-27-2008, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Love Campaign

this is unfair. they have a "democrat version" and a "republican version" but no option for people who don't believe in the two-party system.

That's because all the millions of votes for third party candidates get secretly taken away, mulched up and recycled to make copies of Al Gore and Michael Moore's latest book, Rita, Sue, and Voguish Panicky Pseudo-Liberal Rhetoric Too.

dollpartz · #72 01-27-2008, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ophiel

Are you sure about this?

*"But once bankruptcies pick up, Mr. Lasry said he expected returns to rebound to around 20 percent. His investors are also optimistic.'

*He seems unperturbed by the stubbornly low rate of bankruptcies in the United States. "Sooner or later, reality will prevail," he said. "The cycle will turn, and we'll be ready."

That's Chelsea's boss talking. Ya ... the company specializes in 'distressed debt' ... The owner has the 13th highest income in USA in 2003 ... Curious thing about him is he buys bad loans from China banks. That's right, China banks. The banks that USA borrows from! Oh my.

He's known as a 'vulture investor.' Well hopefully bankruptcies go up and Chelsea invite me to the party. Sheesh.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/19/bu...19vulture.html

JFL · #73 01-27-2008, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jellybella

oprah for president.

she's black and a woman.

ughh.

If Tyra Banks was two years older I'd rally for her.

I am a supporter of Hillary for the Democratic side and Guiliani for the Republican side, but since Rudy isn't gaining much momentum Hillary has to win as far as I am concerned, and I am not choosing Hillary over Obama because of my unyielding incliation towards white women over black men in most endeavors BUT... it's her legacy... I mean you don't know for SURE that she isn't a shape shifting reptilian entity

do you?

fen99us · #74 01-27-2008, 02:41 PM

forget it. lol

ThePrude · #75 01-27-2008, 03:00 PM

It may be over for her, but I guess February 5th will be the date.

I have to admit that Bill Clinton's "involvement" left a sort of bad taste in my mouth. And the concept of dynastic politics is third worldish.

I don't know...I just see her as being the best leader. Obama is obviously more of a "statesman", but is that what's needed now? I think the US really needs a fighter bull dog in there right now - after 8 years of Bush basically sitting on his ass. McCain or Guliani seem like they'd be of that "mindset" (i.e. bulldog fighter)...but I gotta side with the Democrats on most policies.

Edwards seems like a softy. Obama seems like he's at a stage in his career where becoming the President might be premature. (imho, he also seems a little to 'smooth', and I'm not sure I trust that). Will he get overwhelmed by it all? Hillary Clinton seems like a real 'fuckin' bitch'

(in both a good and bad way) with a good work ethic and with all of her "dirty laundry" already aired. My gut tells me she would do the best job right now.

Anyhow, I thought this article was interesting:

Quote:

Clinton must not let her husband be seen as leader -- Newsday.com
Clinton must not let her husband be seen as leader

In complaining "I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes," Barack Obama targeted Hillary Clinton's "can't live with him, can't live without him" dilemma regarding her husband.

If she loses the nomination, Monday morning quarterbacks will mock Sen. Clinton's strategy that risked turning the 2008 Democratic campaign into the Clinton 1990s nostalgia tour and will claim her husband should have played the healing Democratic statesman, not the snarky spousal buttinsky.

But if Mrs. Clinton wins, Bill Clinton's heavy-handed involvement in her campaign will cast a shadow over her presidency - until she asserts her independence.

The Clintons seem to forget that Americans already rejected a Clinton co-presidency back when they were campaigning in 1992.

Although the huge executive branch bureaucracy makes the modern presidency a corporate effort, it remains in Americans' minds a solitary post, focused on one individual who serves as king, prime minister and celebrity in chief.

Shrewd presidents have always understood that the nation requires one undisputed leader. Opposing the Bank of the United States in the early 1830s, Andrew Jackson showed how personally he took the presidency, muttering: "The bank ... is trying to kill me, but I will kill it."

In 1861, when Secretary of State William Henry Seward presumed he would act as prime minister to compensate for Abraham Lincoln's inexperience, President Lincoln proclaimed that if something controversial "must be done, I must do it."

A century later, John Kennedy kept his wealthy, domineering father, Joe Kennedy, behind the scenes. George W. Bush has insisted that he alone is "the decider" - not his father, not Vice President Dick Cheney and not Karl Rove.

The overwhelming focus on the president as soloist has strained presidential marriages. White House life disrupted the once-seamless teamwork of Bess and Harry Truman; Bess Truman resented being marginalized. Reporters frequently build up one spouse at the other's expense.

In 1977, with Jimmy Carter charming the press, journalists neglected Rosalynn Carter. By 1980, reporters discovered a flourishing Mrs. Carter as her husband languished.

Whenever first ladies have become too involved in policy matters, they have triggered angry popular backlashes. The Clintons first campaigned in 1992 promising "two for the price of one." They quickly dropped the co-presidency talk when surveys showed that voters perceived Mrs. Clinton as power-hungry and arrogant.

Sen. Clinton's current dilemma lies in the fact that the costs associated with relying too much on her husband are balanced out by the rock-star excitement he generates, and his considerable political savvy. True, as senator, Hillary Clinton distanced herself from her husband, but, as always, in adversity the Clintons unite.

Barack Obama has been a particularly frustrating adversary for both Clintons. His potential to be the first black president trumps Hillary Clinton's push to be the first woman president while threatening Bill Clinton's special relationship with African-Americans. Moreover, Obama's generational appeal for a "different kind of politics" repudiates the Clintons as perpetually battling baby boomers, making the fight very personal.

Hillary Clinton's presidential race has become a mission to affirm Bill Clinton's legacy, with the former president starring in radio ads celebrating the 1990s as "a time of prosperity."

The result has been a battle so pitched that leading Democrats have warned Bill Clinton to stop being so combative and central to Hillary's efforts.

If Hillary Clinton wins the nomination, and ultimately the presidency, she will enter the White House far more beholden to her husband than is healthy. Sending him regularly to Africa to fight AIDS might help create the needed distance.

If, however, the Clintons forget what happens when a presidential spouse gets assigned a disproportionate policy role, they should remember their health care reform debacle. Back in 1993, first lady Hillary Clinton overstepped, taking on too much power and responsibility as compensation, many believed, for helping quell the 1992 "bimbo eruptions."

Then again, if her husband proves problematic, President Hillary Clinton can recall how President Bill Clinton virtually fired her after health care reform failed in 1994 and consider doing the same to him.