Agree with this....Originally Posted by Gilly
Agree with this....
Suomea
I'm very much confused about this talk of Obama being the "compromising" candidate of the two. Does no one actually remember what Hillary's political career has been like for the last ten years? Even her heavy campaigning within the last three years? She has a history of backtracking like you will not believe. And not only on pork-barrel issues promised to her constituency in New York (of which there are many), but on things like abortion and the war in Iraq. I am not saying Obama is an uncompromising, hardassed beacon of change and I'm not saying that Hillary is necessarily any worse than any other politician in this regard, but it boggles the mind that Hillary Clinton, of all people, is now suddenly considered a contender on this sort of criteria.
"How could we forget those ancient myths that stand at the beginning of all races, the myths about dragons that at the last moment are transformed into princesses? Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
-- Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet
I'd like you to go into this further.... it's interesting. Are you saying that she reversed what she said in the past when new information came in, and disagreed with previous things she said? Or that she didn't do what she promised when she was being elected? Just more info on these issues would be helpful....
Suomea
Agreed. It seems to be a pretty well calculated political strategy to avoid becoming a "polarizing" figure by becoming the "anti-war" or "pro-immigration" candidate. By avoiding labels that would turn many off to his campaign he becomes a more acceptable choice than a "pro-war"/"weak within his own party base" McCain.
In any agenda, political or otherwise, there is a cost to be borne. Always ask what it is, and who will be paying. If you don't, then the agenda makers will pick up the perfume of your silence like swamp panthers on the scent of blood, and the next thing you know, the person expected to bear the cost will be you. And you may not have what it takes to pay.
the reason, however, that she was doing that was so that she could move her political stance to the right in order to try to get herself elected now. so it means very little in terms of what she's actually going to do.
Both. Certainly in the case of the war in Iraq, she claims her decision was allegedly based on "false intelligence" about Saddam Hussein's supposed WMDs (her words). But remember what was actually going on at the time? They kept sending inspectors in to those sites and what did they consistently find? Nothing. And what have we found half a decade thereafter? Nothing. The information we had at the time was nowhere near sufficient to mobilize our troops and invade Iraq. We knew that then, just as we know it now, and yet she remains largely unappologetic for her decision.
Then she went and voted in favor of the Patriot Act. Twice. This is a candidate you trust to pursue change in the White House??
Now I am not a zealous Obama supporter. My vote would have gone to Bill Richardson had they any chance in Hell or to John Edwards. But to use this compromise thing as leverage over Obama is nonsense. Vote for Hillary Clinton if you agree with her positions and plans. But not because you believe she will be any more "real" or stalwart in providing what she promises than her husband was, or Barack Obama might be.
Personally, the issue that sways me in favor of Obama is healthcare. Mandated universal coverage may sound good at first. But Clinton's plan would merely place one more burden on those who are already just trying to make end's meet. Obama's point is that if people could afford health coverage, they would buy it. But Clinton criticizes him for not taking a more verbal stance here. What's more, she hasn't exactly specified what the possible penalty would be should one decide NOT to buy health insurance. It could be a tax penalty, or wages could be garnished, or proof of insurance could be required to get medical care, enroll your kids in school, open a bank account (the things you need a social security number for), or they could just send you a bill (as they currently do in Massachusetts). None of this sounds something I am in favor of.
Last edited by Animal; 02-10-2008 at 08:04 PM.
"How could we forget those ancient myths that stand at the beginning of all races, the myths about dragons that at the last moment are transformed into princesses? Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
-- Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet
I'm not so sure. I just don't have this same confidence in her (or Obama, FWIW) that her campaign promises will resemble anything that would come after inauguration. Just look at her husband. I know they're not the same person, but it's a similar climate and situation. He voted in favor of the Gulf War to endear himself to conservative voters. His campaign made a bunch of promises that he never came through on. And then everything he actually DID improve basically dissolved as soon as he left. It's just the way these things work, unfortunately.
The more I think about the current political climate, the more decidedly apathetic I get.
"How could we forget those ancient myths that stand at the beginning of all races, the myths about dragons that at the last moment are transformed into princesses? Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
-- Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet
I completely agree with Baby. Very few politicians are more embedded into the world of Washington than Hillary Clinton. She has been part of the political landscape in Washington since the days of the Nixon administration. Her political connections and ties to various lobbyist groups and political interest groups is as good as any politicians'. She moved to New York to build a strong political platform for her run for Presidency this year. Her main advisors are people like Madeleine Albright and Sandy Berger (not to mention ol Bill), ie old hands from Bill's time. She is the last person to look for serious political change and a shake up of Washington from.
INFp
If your sea chart does not match reality, go with reality (Old mariner saying)
I realize she moved to New York to build up a strong political platform... I'm pretty much okay with that. I was ok with the Bill Clinton years as well. It's kind of odd how Bill Clinton got lumped up with George Bush and George W. Bush though. Just in my opinion I think things went reasonably well in the 90s. Maybe it was a time of luck for Bill Clinton where he avoided bad things happening but besides a few things I disagreed with I think the nation did reasonably well. As for Barack shaking up the political form....hmmmmm. I'd like to see it happen. I'd like to see the form of politics shaken up a bit, and less corruption, but I just have this weird feeling like Barack might not be smart enough to do it and might lead us down the wrong path. Like he wouldn't be able to handle balancing all the factors in his mind to make proper change and might hurt the system in effect. Something about him just makes me think act first think later. Or that he really doesn't make up his own mind about stuff. But if he wins and can and wants to make serious change that won't weaken the nation overall then I'm all for it. I'm voting Democrat either way though now so it's really out of my hands.
Suomea
We need a liberal and somebody far-left to save things, but somebody that can also kick ass and isn't apologetic about their views. Dear Lord, why is everybody on my side such a goddamn motherfucking little girl SISSY. I mean seriously! Things don't change until you get demanding, aggressive and IN THEIR FUCKING FACES. That's how power is achieved! There is no way else. We always delegate after the fact. Martin Luther King wouldn't exist without Malcom X. The sissy gay activists we have today would be NOWHERE without the bad-ass Larry Kramer. Power before peace. It's the only way.I feel Obama's a little soft, and I don't think that's what America needs right now.
I always laugh at hippies holding signs, cause Dumbya is laughing at them too- they are no threat to him.
Moonlight will fall
Winter will end
Harvest will come
Your heart will mend
It might also bear considering that you can be firm in your principles while being open in regards to the particular dictates of policy. Perhaps some types will find this patently a strike against him and others an advantage, but that's for each of you to decide. I personally think he's genuine and would seek to obtain (as well as follow) good advice (a 2nd brain trust perhaps?). I would even think that McCain would be more likely to involve a broader spectrum of advisors than Hillary would (given the family's past history in power, I think they would draw on the same or similar counsel). However, I don't pretend that this is anything other than my impression.
Moonlight will fall
Winter will end
Harvest will come
Your heart will mend
god damn i the alphas are kicking our asses....and the deltas are right on our tales...i guess with deltas a fair amout of hot air is to be expected ... muahahahha.
Lefty
ENFJ
"I'm Sick of Old Men Dreaming Up Wars for Young Men To Die In," George McGovern.
so...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote