Hillary Announces US Presidential Candidacy (1 Viewer)

[flashback]

I have just seen an interview with Barack obama.
He is good. I am starting to dislike Hilary, she is being evasive to the point of being slimey. She has no charm at all, and her politics are unclear.

I still think Hilary would probably make a better president than Bill, but she wont win it. Barack may make a better president than Hilary, but he wont win it either.
I have a sickish sort of feeling about Giuliani. He looks to be a hard man to run against. He will beat Hilary. The dems need another candidate.
Jesus. Is the US going to become even more fascist? Oh dear.

 

[jane]

I have just seen an interview with Barack obama.
He is good. I am starting to dislike Hilary, she is being evasive to the point of being slimey. She has no charm at all, and her politics are unclear.

I still think Hilary would probably make a better president than Bill, but she wont win it. Barack may make a better president than Hilary, but he wont win it either.
I have a sickish sort of feeling about Giuliani. He looks to be a hard man to run against. He will beat Hilary. The dems need another candidate.
Jesus. Is the US going to become even more fascist? Oh dear.

If Giuliani got I think I'd have my tubes tied. I don't think I could bring a child into the world during his fucking crazy reign of terror. He is so scary, and it's amazing that Bill Clinton got attacked over a blow job when Giuliani (if you wanna get personal) told his wife he was leaving her by putting in the papers. That's just fucking cruel. Maybe Massachusetts will secede and when I'm kicked out of Ireland I'll have a safe place to go?

I know a lot of people have a problem with the whole 'Nader lost the election', and I don't think Gore would have been perfect, but he'd certainly have been a hell of a lot better than Bush. And the fact is, it was almost certain that had Nader pulled out before polling day, the people who voted for him, especially in Florida, would probably have voted for Gore (though many might not have voted at all). Even if just a few hundred thousand across the country, we would not be living in the world we are today.

I know it's easy to draw comparisons between Bush and Gore, and to suggest that because Gore supported bombing campaigns (and yes, more bombing took place under Clinton than most of us are willing to admit), they are more alike than not or that Gore, too, would have ordered a full-scale ground war, but it's a total oversimplification. Just because the dark side of Gore means he's not 100% loveable peacenik does not mean he's almost the same as George Bush. You also have to look at the nature of the bombing he supported (not that it's any 'better' to bomb one place over the other -- if human lives are lost, then that's still human lives): short, targeted, and not done in a way that would turn into global war. I remember being really upset and disappointed when Clinton ordered airstrikes in Iraq. I just thought, "Oh, no, not you, too!" But unfortunately, the office of the presidency is always going to involve this until some very senior people actually set out to change it, and on an international scale, and until the people actually hold them to it.

No one is suggesting that the world would be all sunshine and roses if Gore had gotten in. He probably would have been a single-term president. There may well still have been a 9/11. But his reaction to it may have been very different than those of the Bush administration. And yes, he's a crusader, but he has political experience that Nader doesn't have and never will. He was already Vice-President of the US, which is, well, pretty close. And the fact is, if Nader-voters (because it's not just Nader, it's the people who voted for him) changed the election result sufficiently for Bush to win, then Nader deliberately damaged 300,000,000 people's lives and livelihoods simply to make a point about the 2-party system. Yes, they're very similar, but when you have a candidate as utterly terrifying as Bush, you really should be more worried about preventing him from getting in than throwing your arms in the air and deciding Gore is 'just the same' and throwing your vote away on a nutjob.

Political statements are important, but you have to weigh the benefits of the political statement against the potential consequences, and if you gamble with what he was gambling with, you're either not thinking about the potential outcome, or you're not caring -- and both are pretty nasty. Nader or no Nader, at least the close election results in the last two elections have taught people that voting counts. But I think a better way to change the two-party system is to begin to change it at local level, then state level, and then maybe it will take hold at national level -- a lot of the president's support depends on his or her party colleagues in Senate and Congress, and if your executive branch is packed out with Greens (which sounds great), how's that going to work? Changing the two-party system is just not as glamorous as Nader wants it to be, and just because someone points out that Nader's political statement was possibly extremely damaging doesn't mean that person supports the two-party system. It's just that this was an unrealistic way of going about changing it.

There are third-party people in offices all around the country, and if people are that concerned, then it matters at local level. And Green candidates, too, are really good on local issues and very likely to win votes from all along the political spectrum. Environmental issues, when it comes to localities, are not just for lefties. But no, Nader had to make it about making the biggest, boldest statement he could. He could have pulled out a few days earlier and still made the same statement.

As for Hilary and Kerry, the entire senate betrayed the American people, but Hilary stuck by her guns and her support for the war, which is actually going to harm her in the end. And yeah, I don't think she has the fortitude that people are really looking for right now, even if it's about the wrong things. By waffling -- as evidenced by both Gore and KErry -- she won't win votes from anyone. Kerry, well, I'm still surprised he made it as far as he did. He was a good senator, but I remember hearing he was running for president, and thinking, "What? Decent senator, but people will forget him before he's finished introducing himself!" Democrats really need to start taking a stand. They don't even need to win the whole country, just the swing voters who will make the difference, though they need to do it without alienating the party faithfuls by moving rightwards. I don't think that's what the swing voters even want. They want someone to take a stand. Bush didn't win the swing voters because he's a right-wing maniac (some, definitely), I think he won a lot of them because he actually stood for something and talked to them like they mattered. YEah, he was lying, but he made them believe it, and they voted for him.

 

[aoboa]

I have a sickish sort of feeling about Giuliani. He looks to be a hard man to run against. He will beat Hilary. The dems need another candidate.
Jesus. Is the US going to become even more fascist? Oh dear.

The ad campaigns for [SIZE=-1]Giuliani [/SIZE]are going to be insane. Loads of footage of him standing on the rubble of the WTC, hugging firemen etc.
I don't think Clinton or Obama are going to be able to compete.

 

[Pantone247]

I was reading somewhere that clinton's popularity with black voters is actually higher than obama's. Largely due to Bill, but still.

Deadly article in the Gaurdian recently about Obama ("it rhymes with Yo Mama") in the past week or two. Seems a lot of black folk are pretty slow to get on board alright, the piece puts out the idea that Obama has put so much effort into making white folk feel comfterable with him (or as they put "making white people feel less guilty about black people" heh) that he has alienated the black voters, they suggest that once he the race starts and he needs to start drumming up some serious $$$ and friends that it could only get worse

 

[jane]

The ad campaigns for [SIZE=-1]Giuliani [/SIZE]are going to be insane. Loads of footage of him standing on the rubble of the WTC, hugging firemen etc.
I don't think Clinton or Obama are going to be able to compete.

This is true, but the little teeny bit of me that is still vaguely optimistic about the future of humanity thinks that Americans will start to tire of this. And I reckon a LOT of 9/11 families will come out and make the very justifiable point that Giuliani has done more than enough pissing on the memories of their loved ones. And even the most ardent flag-wavers are beginning to see that 9/11 was used as an excuse to invade Iraq, so I'm not sure it has the political cache it did four years ago.

I hope. Please, godorwhoeverwhateveryouare, let there be some hope.

I reckon he'll use the "I turned NY around" argument more than necessary. But the fact is, he turned it around by pushing all the poor people out of the city to make it prettier for tourists. Can't really do the same with a country, unless you put your poor on outlying islands. Which, like, he'd probably do if he got the chance.

*whimper*

 

[Janer]

The ad campaigns for [SIZE=-1]Giuliani [/SIZE]are going to be insane. Loads of footage of him standing on the rubble of the WTC, hugging firemen etc.
I don't think Clinton or Obama are going to be able to compete.

Disagree.......he also needs alot more then NY behind him, so far looks a straight fight between Clinton and Obama.

 

[billygannon]

McCain is ahead of Giuliani at the moment. Giuliani is popular in New York, but I doubt he'll have the same appeal elsewhere. He's a facist, but he does have some liberal leanings.

The thing about Obama is that you genuinely feel he's a leader. It's the gut reaction people get. He's kind of like one of those heroes from children's cartoons who, at the end of the cartoon, tells you a lesson about washing your hands before eating or putting your rubbish in the bin.

 

[jane]

Disagree.......he also needs alot more then NY behind him, so far looks a straight fight between Clinton and Obama.

But Clinton and Obama are both Democrats, so the fight between them will end long before the fight between Democrats and Republicans ever begins.

And 9/11 is almost entirely unlikely to be an issue for New Yorkers, the majority of whom were against even bombing Afghanistan, totally disgusted by the flag-waving bellicose nationalism that resulted from it, and who also saw that while Giuliani did a decent job of handling the standing-around-on-rubble, it didn't change their minds about him. They lived with him every day for years, when he cut garbage collection in half in the outer boroughs during a heat wave while doubling it in Manhattan, making people sick in Queens and Brooklyn so that tourists would see only a 'clean' NY, seeing that people were pushed out of their homes to facilitate gentrification, raised taxes to crippling levels, and all sorts of dodgy crap. So much of what remains good and interesting about NY was done in spite of Giuliani, not because of him. People are glad it's not so dangerous anymore, but they're also aware of what it really cost.

They're also aware that a mayor and a president are very, very different things. Giuliani is not very popular in NY, and he would be harmed greatly if (and chances are) he couldn't carry his own state.

 

[jane]

McCain is ahead of Giuliani at the moment. Giuliani is popular in New York, but I doubt he'll have the same appeal elsewhere. He's a facist, but he does have some liberal leanings.

The thing about Obama is that you genuinely feel he's a leader. It's the gut reaction people get. He's kind of like one of those heroes from children's cartoons who, at the end of the cartoon, tells you a lesson about washing your hands before eating or putting your rubbish in the bin.

Wait, is Giuliani more popular in NY than I am assuming? I'm referring to the city, but maybe I'm not getting the big picture. I'm actually just goign on what I see, but I could have blinders on because I think he's a fascistic knob, and I assume that most people in NYC agree.

McCain is a scary dude.

 

[MDR]

I think that there is a limit to what Hilary can say about foreign policy before actually getting elected. I would have some confidence that she is more of an internationalist, and likely to rely more on building a consensus with other countries before acting.

I can't see Guiliani getting the republican ticket, as the voters in the primaries will not necessarily be of a 'New York State of mind'. Also, having two New York-based presidential candidates (clinton and giuliani) would almost certainly work to the advantage of Clinton, as the difference between the candidates for swing voters would be less clear.

 

[aoboa]

Hate to get really simplistic but:
So far, the hopefuls for the Dems are a black man and a woman - two firsts if either happen to win.
Clinton is universally disliked by republican voters and a whole load of democratic voters. I don't see her as being a strong ticket.
Obama - really cool guy but I can't see him getting through over Clinton.
Unless things have changed really dramatically in the US in the last 4 years, I can see almost any republican candidate having a huge advantage over these two.

 

[jane]

Hate to get really simplistic but:
So far, the hopefuls for the Dems are a black man and a woman - two firsts if either happen to win.
Clinton is universally disliked by republican voters and a whole load of democratic voters. I don't see her as being a strong ticket.
Obama - really cool guy but I can't see him getting through over Clinton.
Unless things have changed really dramatically in the US in the last 4 years, I can see almost any republican candidate having a huge advantage over these two.

No, I think this is important. I'm uncomfortable with the fact that it worries me that the Democratic nomination is quite likely to go to someone who is a 'first'. I know this sounds dumb, but part of me is thinking Americans want a real change and will vote in someone totally new, while another part of me is going, "Don't take any risks! Just get rid of the Bush dynasty!"

One thing in everyone's favour is that no matter who wins, at least the first two years will see a Democratic Senate and Congress, and that really does mean something. I'm slightly less worried about the presidential election because of it. Or at least, less worried than I'd otherwise be.

HOWEVER, I do think that if Obama and Clinton's respective race and gender are not made into foci, they have a better chance. A lot of people are ready to listen, and I'm not sure they care as much as we might have thought about what kind of face it comes from.

It's the swing voters that are the real concern, though. And as we saw in the last election, a small number of them can make a huge difference.

 

[billygannon]

Unless things have changed really dramatically in the US in the last 4 years, I can see almost any republican candidate having a huge advantage over these two.

I don't agree here. The Democrats have taken both houses of parliament - the first time in ages. I think Americans are just really pissed off at the Republicans. McCain is the only Republican who has any clout, as he's often opposed Bush (although he did back the Iraq war) and he has a military background.

What Clinton has is a juggernaut of financial clout and old-school Democrat support. There's a lot from the Clinton era backing her.

Obama is just totally unconnected to all the previous bullshit. And I think that's going to have a huge appeal in the States. I don't think the fact he's black is going to count against him either. Indeed, as it stands at the moment, more African-Americans back Clinton rather than him. He's kind of like Tiger Woods.

 

[Mormon Nailer]

No, I think this is important. I'm uncomfortable with the fact that it worries me that the Democratic nomination is quite likely to go to someone who is a 'first'. I know this sounds dumb, but part of me is thinking Americans want a real change and will vote in someone totally new, while another part of me is going, "Don't take any risks! Just get rid of the Bush dynasty!"

One thing in everyone's favour is that no matter who wins, at least the first two years will see a Democratic Senate and Congress, and that really does mean something. I'm slightly less worried about the presidential election because of it. Or at least, less worried than I'd otherwise be.

HOWEVER, I do think that if Obama and Clinton's respective race and gender are not made into foci, they have a better chance. A lot of people are ready to listen, and I'm not sure they care as much as we might have thought about what kind of face it comes from.

It's the swing voters that are the real concern, though. And as we saw in the last election, a small number of them can make a huge difference.

Lets wait to see if Al Gore has slimmed down to accept his oscar - that will tell a lot

 

[aoboa]

I hope I'm wrong but:
I reckon Hilary will walk through over Obama and Edwards and that's probably the worst thing that could happen. She evokes extreme opinions in people which will mean the worst in terms of the swing vote.
I'm being ultra-cynical but I don't think people are up for as much of a change as you think they are.
I also reckon that people aren't as pissed off with the republicans as they are with Bush - which has some serious implications.

Unless the Dems actually do something serious this year with their newly appointed power, they're screwed come election time.

 

[Janer]

But Clinton and Obama are both Democrats, so the fight between them will end long before the fight between Democrats and Republicans ever begins.

And 9/11 is almost entirely unlikely to be an issue for New Yorkers, the majority of whom were against even bombing Afghanistan, totally disgusted by the flag-waving bellicose nationalism that resulted from it, and who also saw that while Giuliani did a decent job of handling the standing-around-on-rubble, it didn't change their minds about him. They lived with him every day for years, when he cut garbage collection in half in the outer boroughs during a heat wave while doubling it in Manhattan, making people sick in Queens and Brooklyn so that tourists would see only a 'clean' NY, seeing that people were pushed out of their homes to facilitate gentrification, raised taxes to crippling levels, and all sorts of dodgy crap. So much of what remains good and interesting about NY was done in spite of Giuliani, not because of him. People are glad it's not so dangerous anymore, but they're also aware of what it really cost.

They're also aware that a mayor and a president are very, very different things. Giuliani is not very popular in NY, and he would be harmed greatly if (and chances are) he couldn't carry his own state.

I agreed with most of what u said but obviously u knew more about the last paragraph then I did.

 

[Janer]

But Clinton and Obama are both Democrats, so the fight between them will end long before the fight between Democrats and Republicans ever begins.

Just read back properly, I meant to get the nomination for the Democrats......
Was a straight fight between Hilary and Obama
must learn to double check my posts, I never do why so many typos etc

 

[jane]

Lets wait to see if Al Gore has slimmed down to accept his oscar - that will tell a lot

If he runs again and wins, which title will go first when he describes himself? Oscar®-Winner and President Al Gore? Ten bucks he's practicing signing all the versions on the back of a copybook. A solid gold copybook with a glitter pen.

 

[MDR]

To be honest Al Gore seems to have had more success in promoting environmental issues since he got out of policitcs than he ever did during his political career. He has become a failry identifiable spokesman for environmental issues (something which has been missing up to now) and it may be best for him to stay out of it. Although he could be a good secretary of state for the environment?

 

[Lefty Frizzell]

Deadly article in the Gaurdian recently about Obama ("it rhymes with Yo Mama") in the past week or two. Seems a lot of black folk are pretty slow to get on board alright, the piece puts out the idea that Obama has put so much effort into making white folk feel comfterable with him (or as they put "making white people feel less guilty about black people" heh) that he has alienated the black voters, they suggest that once he the race starts and he needs to start drumming up some serious $$$ and friends that it could only get worse

Around 32 million blacks who live in poverty in America didn't vote in the last election because they didn't think it would make any difference. A lot of people believe that Obama is the first candidate since Bobby Kennedy that has the ability to change those statistics.

Hillarys anti war pledges don't ring nearly as true as Obamas. She voted in favour of the war only a few short years ago at the same time that Obama was organising protest rallies against it.

So when does the shit slinging begin?!