Skip to main content

View Diary: It’s Time To Pick A President (168 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I wish Hillary supporters would listen... (6+ / 0-)

    I truly mean no disrespect.  None at all.

    But, I am one of those independents, part of that 40-50% majority in this country that is not affiliated with either party.

    I want to vote Democrat this time in the worst way.  I do.  

    It's not that I ever voted for Bush because I didn't.  But, then I never voted for Clinton either.

    But I digress.

    See, I and many many people like me will not ever under any circumstances vote for Senator Clinton.  

    We have a myriad of reasons and NONE of them have to do with her sex.  It's her record and the way she does politics.  It's her divisiveness.  It's the feeling she gives us.  It's that we have to call her by her first name.  It's the K-L vote.  It's the Iraq vote.  And so much more.

    Trust me on this.  If she's your nominee, you will get crushed in November.

    It's looking like McCain is making a comeback with the Elephants and Indies like him because of his Viet Nam record and most people think he's fairly centrist - except on the war.  But at least he's not devisive so maybe things will get done.

    Now, I'm not saying I'd vote for him.  I'd likely leave the president part blank because the whole choice would just plain suck for me.

    But, there is still time to make a smarter choice.  A choice that most head-to-head polls show is a safer choice.

    Go with Barack Obama.  He's the adult in the room.  He's the person who has demonstrated with his record that he knows and respects the constitution.

    AND, here's the kicker.

    Indies and even Republicans are digging him.  

    He makes us feel good.  

    We want to be progressive if he's leading us there.

    NOBODY else running does that.  NOBODY.

    So do the smart thing.

    Vote for that Obama person.

    Peace.

    What Washington needs is adult supervision. --BARACK OBAMA

    by broui on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 08:24:30 PM PST

    •  Thanks, but no thanks. nt (5+ / 0-)

      My new mantra: "Don't buy shit from China."

      by Radiowalla on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 08:33:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  So you drank their coolaid (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Alegre, Universal

      and didn't even know it.

      Do you even know why you hate her so?

      Give 'em Hill! The only woman who will slap the rethugs silly. The woman I trust to do right by the American people.

      by NewHampster on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 08:34:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ya but.."He makes Us Feel Good" (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Alegre, Universal, NewHampster

        Wheeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!  What more could you want? A plan, strategy, leadership? Nah.

        Hillary, the Change Agent, in 2008!

        by kitsapdem on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 08:44:50 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Hate? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Hope08

        That is such a childish response to a fairly reasoned argument.

        I don't hate anyone.  I don't operate that way.

        I don't respect the Clintons and never have.

        I work on a higher ethical plain and have higher expectations.  

        My vote is my voice.  It is also my trust.  

        I vote with integrity or not at all.

        I have already stated quite a few reasons above as to why I and many like me cannot and will not vote for Senator Clinton.  

        I do not care whose team wins - Republican or Democrat.  What I care about is that the person who holds that office finally brings honor and respect back to it.

        WJC and GWB in their own ways disrespected the office.  I cannot teach the importance of Civics to my students and the reverence I have for the constitution and the three branches of government with a straight face.  

        It sickens me that we've become so jaded and divided in my country.

        So this time, I seek something more.

        I saw Senator Obama speak some months ago.  In my lifetime I have met and known many so called famous and "great" people - including the Clintons in '92.

        But when I saw Senator Obama, I felt for the first time in my life I was in the presence of greatness.  There was something very special about that man that I cannot adequately describe in mere words.  But, I felt that this man, this Professor from Chicago could really be the kind of persom my mother described to me when she described meeting Jack Kennedy in Pennsicola FLA in '60.  

        He was special too.

        Nah, I don't hate Mrs. Clinton.

        I just came by to tell you that you are wrong about her and her leading opponent and you ought to reconsider, that's all.

        Folks like me won't vote for her.  We're too tired of the bickering and want - no we need something better.

        Something special.

        Peace.

        What Washington needs is adult supervision. --BARACK OBAMA

        by broui on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 08:51:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I'm willing to have a McCain presidency (4+ / 0-)

      with a strong dem majority congress if it means Hillary is done with along with the type of poltiics she represents. I would have to vote for her over Romney though, he is too personally disgusting.

      Obama/Webb the ticket to greatness!

      by nevadadem on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 08:36:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Don't you care about what McCain (4+ / 0-)

        would do to the Supreme Court?  In Iraq?

        Sheesh.

        You must be filled with hate for Clinton to wish a McCain presidency on us.

        My new mantra: "Don't buy shit from China."

        by Radiowalla on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 08:56:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Again with the hate (0+ / 0-)

          Assuming hate because we have more respect for other people than your candidate?

          Perhaps you should consider WHY your candidate inspires so much disrespect rather than spewing unfounded charges of hate around?

          Or are you like your candidate and opposed to asking the tough questions before making big decisions like she was before the Iraq war vote?

          What Washington needs is adult supervision. --BARACK OBAMA

          by broui on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:03:38 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Oh I forgot (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Alegre, Universal, kitsapdem

      On almost all issues from health care to education, Hillary is so much more progressive than O that it's not even worth an argument.  He's closer to McCain than any of the progressive dems running in this election.

      Give 'em Hill! The only woman who will slap the rethugs silly. The woman I trust to do right by the American people.

      by NewHampster on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 08:36:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Bravo (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RabidNation, invisiblewoman, broui

      Great post.  You're not likely to find much sympathy in a Hilbot lovefest diary like this one, but you echo what I've heard from a lot of independents.  

      People who aren't drunk on the Hillary kool-aid just can't stand her.  For most of us, I think, that has nothing to do with her gender and little to do with her background, and everything to do with the way she patronizes and panders every time she opens her mouth.

    •  most Obama supporters are not happy (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      poblano

      with the  type of camapign Hillary is running, she had better hope if she's nominated the majority of us don't find someone more appealing than Hillary to go with.

      Obama/Webb the ticket to greatness!

      by nevadadem on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 08:46:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Nope (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      naderhader, Wufacta, Universal

      my two  Republican friends are voting Hillary, as is one male Independent  family member.  

      Sorry, but Hillary can pull moderate votes just fine.

      Hillary Clinton 2008 - Less sizzle, more steak.

      by SaneSoutherner on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:43:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  broui (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hopscotch1997

      See, I and many many people like me will not ever under any circumstances vote for Senator Clinton.  

      We have a myriad of reasons and NONE of them have to do with her sex.  It's her record and the way she does politics.  It's her divisiveness.  It's the feeling she gives us.  It's that we have to call her by her first name.  It's the K-L vote.  It's the Iraq vote.  And so much more.

      I hope you will reconsider on Senator Clinton. You do not have to call her by her first name, you can call her Senator Clinton. She sometimes uses her first name to distinguish herself from her husband, as a reminder that she is, after all, a different person. Sen. Clinton's vote on Iraq was wrong, but she is no warmonger, and K-L was no vote for war with Iran, which is looking less likely by the month. It is important that the Democratic party nominates a candidate who reflects its strengths on national security but not its weaknesses. Her record is progressive, but not ultra-liberal-- from issues alone, basically your generic Democrat as far as the Senate is concerned. The way she does politics has changed over the years-- and continues to change. She worked hard in the Senate and did her best to be a good Senator for her state. She worked across the aisle with conservative Republicans. She doesn't try to hide the fact that she talks with special interests, as do all politicians including Obama and Edwards, but nor does she let them tell her what to do.

      I cannot speak to the feeling that she gives you, except to say that many people who have met her have come away with a very positive feeling, and many others who have seen her have come away with the same, including myself. Finally, on her divisiveness, if her record is any indication, she will not give the Republicans the same cause as Bush gave the Democrats to polarize; and although she may seem polarizing to some now, that is based on the fear on the Republican side that she is much more liberal than she really is-- and that will change if she proves them wrong.

      Finally, there is so much more to reccommend her as well.

      •  Thank you (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        poblano

        You did not persuade.

        I disagree vehemently with your assessment of K-L.  It was in my estimation, written in the language of the NeoCons and tantamount to trusting GW again.  Bad judgement.

        I used to work with these people.  It is IMPOSSIBLE for a politician to take special interest money, and not at a minimum be kind to them when you vote.  What actually tends to happen is, well, nothing, which is what most of these special interests would prefer so they can keep doing business as usual.

        She already has and so I have no reason to believe that she won't continue to give Republicans cause to remain as polarized as we have since '94.

        Look, as I said, I used to work with these people.  By that I mean I used to work in politics.  My specialty was spin and advance (creating media events).  I knew the Clintons from way back in '91.  My feeling then is the same as today.  Capable politicians but the type of people who are ruthless and would do anything to get and keep power.  It's that which takes priority over serving people.  They are not inherently bad people per se.  But they are looking out for themselves first.

        That does not describe all politicians.

        The Gores, the Tsongas's (when he was alive), Biden, Warren Rudman, Patty Murray, and Robert Kennedy Jr. (not actually a politician, but close enough) were people who I knew that I really got the impression were there to serve.

        So, all due respect, you didn't make your case, because I just know too much about the Clintons to ever back them.

        But I want you to know that I truly appreciate the respect you've shown me by trying.

        Most Hillary supporters seem to make personal attacks in some way or pay little attention to the merits of my arguments.

        Peace.

        What Washington needs is adult supervision. --BARACK OBAMA

        by broui on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:15:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  hm (0+ / 0-)

          I disagree vehemently with your assessment of K-L.  It was in my estimation, written in the language of the NeoCons and tantamount to trusting GW again.  Bad judgement.

          May I ask, under what criteria are you judging this piece of legislation? My criteria is-- does K-L lead to war or the authorization of war by Congress on Iran? Sec. of State Rice's admission that it does neither of those things settles my criteria. I think the substantive, meaningful criteria of actuality supercedes the empty criteria of rhetoric, just as actions supercede words.

          It is IMPOSSIBLE for a politician to take special interest money, and not at a minimum be kind to them when you vote.  What actually tends to happen is, well, nothing, which is what most of these special interests would prefer so they can keep doing business as usual
          ...
          Look, as I said, I used to work with these people.  By that I mean I used to work in politics.  My specialty was spin and advance (creating media events).  I knew the Clintons from way back in '91.  My feeling then is the same as today.  Capable politicians but the type of people who are ruthless and would do anything to get and keep power.  It's that which takes priority over serving people.  They are not inherently bad people per se.  But they are looking out for themselves first.

          That does not describe all politicians.

          The Gores, the Tsongas's (when he was alive), Biden, Warren Rudman, Patty Murray, and Robert Kennedy Jr. (not actually a politician, but close enough) were people who I knew that I really got the impression were there to serve.

          That's well and fair.

          May I ask what advantage adherence to the purity of a few 'noble' (or self-perceived as noble) politicians gets you in politics? Of the people whom you mentioned above, only Al Gore Jr. has come close to the Presidency in living memory, and when he ran he was villified by the media as an exaggerator who would say anything to get elected. IIRC the exit polls in 2000, more people believed that Gore attacked Bush unfairly than the other way around, and more people said Gore was more likely to say anything to get elected (74%) than Bush (58%). Of those who believed that an 'honest and trustworthy' was the most important qualify for the next President, 80% voted for Bush, only %18 voted for Gore. Of those who believed qualities in general more important, 62% voted for Bush.

          Here was a rare man who you say (and you have 5 of thousands) was out to serve the people above himself. Yet it got him nothing.

          Nothing. 62% of those who believed character was most important voted for his opponent. And at the time, there were very few to defend him. There was certainly no progressive blogosphere.

          Public perceptions then may not have been accurate, but if that can happen to people who you got the impression 'were really there to serve' (I did too about Gore, btw), then what? How effective could Gore have been as President? He would have been villified after 9/11 for not 'protecting the country' and for the recession. In short, public perceptions of him may never have changed to what they are now. Jimmy Carter may have been an earnest President, but he was not an effective one. No matter how innocent, how committed Gore was, he would not have been able to get things done.

          The above is not meant to diminish the importance of character but rather to point out the importance of effectiveness. One is worth nothing without character, but you also can't do anything without effectiveness. The classical means-ends dilemma is a matter of balance. You try to be effective with the system you're given (and in 2007, this includes money and endorsements from special interests, of which the blogosphere is arguably one) but you don't give up your core principles. There's a fine line, but you do your best not to cross it.

          The attacks on Sen. Clinton's character today echo the attacks on Al Gore's character in 2000. Far more people today, than in 2000, have a positive opinion of Gore, because they see now what should have been obvious at the time-- that a man who worked in the public sector for his whole life, whose very passion for leading the country led him to stiffen up and become awkward on the campaign, was a man who, at the very least, cared about the issues. Those same qualities that made me see Mr. Gore as a man who was really there to serve-- beneath all the ups and downs and gotchas of the campaign-- which is essentially a sad game-- those same qualities are in Sen. Clinton today. The question is not do you think this candidate is above politics? I still maintain that is a too naive question-- no one who participates in politics is above politics. The question is has this person given up their core principles in the service of politics? And Senator Clinton emphatically has not. She is still fighting for the same things she has been fighting for her entire professional life- arguably harder than ever.  When early polls showed her and Mr. Giuliani doing far worse in Iowa than nationally in bigger, more delegate-rich states, Giuliani withdrew his strategy. But Sen. Clinton stayed to fight for those votes, for those people who were in a place skeptical of her; just as she did for the votes of the upstate residents of New York.

          Btw, both Gore, Biden, Tsongas, Murray- they all have taken or take money from 'special interests'. So have Obama and Edwards.

          She already has and so I have no reason to believe that she won't continue to give Republicans cause to remain as polarized as we have since '94.

          What about her Senate record of expanding her appeal to those in rural, Republican areas? Working with Republican Congressmen? Her generic Democratic voting record, which is no more polarizing than the average Democrat? Her relatively middle-of-the-road positions and rhetoric compared to for example Senator Edwards? Sen. Clinton has already denounced Bush's practices of politiczing the federal bureaucracy and use of signing statements. These are all evidence that she will not give the Republicans reason to remain as polarized as we have since '94.

          Polarization does not exist in a vaccuum. It exists because of the way that leaders-- particularly Congressional leaders and Presidents, behave.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (152)
  • Community (77)
  • Bernie Sanders (50)
  • Elections (45)
  • 2016 (41)
  • Climate Change (35)
  • Environment (34)
  • Hillary Clinton (33)
  • Culture (32)
  • Civil Rights (29)
  • Science (29)
  • Republicans (28)
  • Media (27)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Labor (23)
  • Law (23)
  • Spam (22)
  • Education (19)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (19)
  • Congress (18)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site