who would you vote for??

Jeanwah

Purple Hawk wrote:

definately the most selfish post I've read in quite a while. You MUST be a new yorker!

If putting my family and their health in front of any other priority, including taxes and industry, is selfish, than I guess I am (although it's contradictory). I don't get you...you hate the state you live in, complain about it, but you're still here. Act locally, make your region better, or move to a place that's more your style. And I'm not saying it personally, because I'd offer that to anyone.

And, yeah, I LOVE NY!

farfromglorified

El_Kabong wrote:

didn't NC buy some voting machines that accidentally <wink, wink, nudge, nudge> deleted thousands of votes??

Ok. Let's pretend all 7,000 of those alleged deleted votes were for John Kerry.

OLD RESULTS:
GWB: 56.01%
KERRY: 43.58%

NEW RESULTS:
GWB: 55.91%
KERRY: 43.70%

farfromglorified

Puck78 wrote:

you need to change your electoral system, with less bipolarity and more people from different parties that form a government through proportionality

We already have "different parties". Few Americans vote for candidates outside the 2 party system. If America had coalition-style government, it wouldn't look any different than it does today.

ledvedderman

I really don't think Clinton will get the Democratic nomination. I think the two to watch are either Warner (The former gov. of Virginia, who left office with an 80% approval rating in the king of red states), or Edwards. I still wouldn't rule out Obama, but I think he is the fire extinguisher in the glass case, you don't want to break that glass unless there is a fire.

But between Hillary and Rudy, and because I work for the Democratic party, I would have to go with Clinton.

Milhouse VanHouten

tybird wrote:

Yes, I would also be tempted by that choice..again............I would never vote for Ms. Clinton........so, it would be Mr. G

I happened to see Senator Clinton interviewed on ABC last night. I liked her answers to quite a few of the questions in regards to Iraq, specifically balancing our policy between the need to get the fuck out as soon as humanly possible and the dangers involved in leaving Iraq as it is now, or more accurately, the way we've made it.

What I didn't care for were her evasive answers to questions about her 2008 presidential run. She stated over and over that she isn't even considering running, it's the furthest thing from her mind, she's only thinking about serving the people of the state of New York, etc. She's raised $47 million for a Senate race that she's going to win in a walk. Come on. I understand that they have to be coy about it, but it's almost too much.

That being said, I am definitely more open to the idea of voting for her than I am for Rudy G, I don't think I could vote for him. I'm ok with him on a few social issues, but his whoring for the president 2 years ago really left me with a bad taste in my mouth.

farfromglorified

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

I happened to see Senator Clinton interviewed on ABC last night. I liked her answers to quite a few of the questions in regards to Iraq, specifically balancing our policy between the need to get the fuck out as soon as humanly possible and the dangers involved in leaving Iraq as it is now, or more accurately, the way we've made it.

Don't you mean balancing her need to not come across as a liberal whackjob without offending her base in the process

What I didn't care for were her evasive answers to questions about her 2008 presidential run. She stated over and over that she isn't even considering running, it's the furthest thing from her mind, she's only thinking about serving the people of the state of New York, etc. She's raised $47 million for a Senate race that she's going to win in a walk. Come on. I understand that they have to be coy about it, but it's almost too much.

Hehe...yeah, I'd like to ask Hillary why I, a resident of North Carolina, receive fund raising letters from her every other week.

Milhouse VanHouten

farfromglorified wrote:

Don't you mean balancing her need to not come across as a liberal whackjob without offending her base in the process

I don't see her as a "liberal whackjob" like so many others seem to. If anything, I'd like her to be a little more liberal on certain issues. I don't understand the complete disdain that lots of people have for her. She's a career politician, just like all the other knobs contemplating a run, but she seems to get that held against her. She's described as being "ambitious" and "power hungry", as if the other Senators and governors aren't. I really don't know what it is about her that people hate so much.

farfromglorified

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

I don't see her as a "liberal whackjob" like so many others seem to. If anything, I'd like her to be a little more liberal on certain issues. I don't understand the complete disdain that lots of people have for her. She's a career politician, just like all the other knobs contemplating a run, but she seems to get that held against her. She's described as being "ambitious" and "power hungry", as if the other Senators and governors aren't. I really don't know what it is about her that people hate so much.

The "perception" is what I'm talking about. Hillary's entire career in the Senate so far has been defined by her distancing herself from that perception.

Some people dislike Hillary for good reasons, others dislike her for bad reasons. Personally I got turned off to both Clintons during the whole health care thing while Bill was in office. It infuriated me that an unelected individual was directly involved in shaping potential policy at that level. First ladies or husbands are not and should not be active political figures until they get elected on their own merits.

Milhouse VanHouten

farfromglorified wrote:

Some people dislike Hillary for good reasons, others dislike her for bad reasons. Personally I got turned off to both Clintons during the whole health care thing while Bill was in office. It infuriated me that an unelected individual was directly involved in shaping potential policy at that level. First ladies or husbands are not and should not be active political figures until they get elected on their own merits.

Most of the people involved in making presidential policy aren't elected, since the only two people who were elected are the president and vice president. Cabinet members, staffers, consultants, lawyers, pollsters, etc., business interests, special interest groups, etc. all contribute to shaping policy, and none of them are elected. The only difference here was the people who didn't like the recommendations could call it "Hillarycare" or some other stupid thing, and turn it into an attack on her specifically, as opposed to refuting the merits of the policy itself.

lalalalaaaaaaaa

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

I don't see her as a "liberal whackjob" like so many others seem to. If anything, I'd like her to be a little more liberal on certain issues. I don't understand the complete disdain that lots of people have for her. She's a career politician, just like all the other knobs contemplating a run, but she seems to get that held against her. She's described as being "ambitious" and "power hungry", as if the other Senators and governors aren't. I really don't know what it is about her that people hate so much.

I think it's simply the fact that she's a woman who obviously has aspirations to be president. I think that's where it all stems from.

I don't like her for the same reasons I don't like most democrats and republicans. She supports the wars, she supports the Patriot Act, etc. I assume Gulliani isn't much different on the major issues.

Jeanwah

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

I don't see her as a "liberal whackjob" like so many others seem to. If anything, I'd like her to be a little more liberal on certain issues. I don't understand the complete disdain that lots of people have for her. She's a career politician, just like all the other knobs contemplating a run, but she seems to get that held against her. She's described as being "ambitious" and "power hungry", as if the other Senators and governors aren't. I really don't know what it is about her that people hate so much.

I'm convinced that most Hillary haters know nothing about her stances on issues. A lot of people have a problem with her being a woman, in general. She is ambitious, and she's good at what she does. I mean, she pretty much did Bill's job for him when he was in office.

Milhouse VanHouten

Jeanwah wrote:

I'm convinced that most Hillary haters know nothing about her stances on issues. A lot of people have a problem with her being a woman, in general. She is ambitious, and she's good at what she does. I mean, she pretty much did Bill's job for him when he was in office.

She's been pretty damn centrist in the Senate, I'm not sure how anyone makes the "left wing loony" arguement with her. The level of animosity some people in the right wing media(Rush, mostly) have towards her is actually a little scary. They've been attacking her for 14 years now, you think they'd be tired of it.

farfromglorified

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

Most of the people involved in making presidential policy aren't elected, since the only two people who were elected are the president and vice president. Cabinet members, staffers, consultants, lawyers, pollsters, etc., business interests, special interest groups, etc. all contribute to shaping policy, and none of them are elected. The only difference here was the people who didn't like the recommendations could call it "Hillarycare" or some other stupid thing, and turn it into an attack on her specifically, as opposed to refuting the merits of the policy itself.

First and foremost, the policy itself had no merit, IMO. But that's not really unique to Hillary. I don't think any national health care policy has merit.

Secondly, yes other groups and individuals have influence. But few have direct defining interest in policy. Furthermore, cabinet members and staffers (at least in theory) have inherent qualifications that got them hired and direct accountability to do their jobs well. Hillary Clinton had no such qualifications or accountability.

These problems aren't unique to Hillary. But my animus towards that side of the political spectrum and those aspects of the political machine are not unique to Hillary either.

Milhouse VanHouten

farfromglorified wrote:

Secondly, yes other groups and individuals have influence. But few have direct defining interest in policy. Furthermore, cabinet members and staffers (at least in theory) have inherent qualifications that got them hired and direct accountability to do their jobs well. Hillary Clinton had no such qualifications or accountability.

She was plenty qualified to work on that task force.

farfromglorified

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

She's been pretty damn centrist in the Senate, I'm not sure how anyone makes the "left wing loony" arguement with her. The level of animosity some people in the right wing media(Rush, mostly) have towards her is actually a little scary. They've been attacking her for 14 years now, you think they'd be tired of it.

Stop pretending that Hillary's political career is only her work in the Senate. Yes she's been centrist there. But she's been centrist there for the sole purpose of attempting to sway the perceptions she created while acting as a political figure while being First Lady.

Hillary Clinton led a national health care task force that proposed a health care system that would force employers to purchase health care through heavily-regulated HMOs. It was a left-wing plan (though certainly not as left as you can get) and was correctly perceived as such.

Hillary is still viewed as an overly-driven, power-hungry bitch. Such perceptions are partly valid and partly invalid. While in reality such views stem as much from subtle sexism as the do from Hillary's own behavior, her behavior has contributed to such perceptions. There are perfectly valid reasons why Hillary is viewed unfavorably compared to similar poltical females.

farfromglorified

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

She was plenty qualified to work on that task force.

Yes she was plenty qualified to work on that task force. She was not qualified in any way to run that task force.

Milhouse VanHouten

farfromglorified wrote:

Stop pretending that Hillary's political career is only her work in the Senate. Yes she's been centrist there. But she's been centrist there for the sole purpose of attempting to sway the perceptions she created while acting as a political figure while being First Lady.

Hillary Clinton led a national health care task force that proposed a health care system that would force employers to purchase health care through heavily-regulated HMOs. It was a left-wing plan (though certainly not as left as you can get) and was correctly perceived as such.

Hillary is still viewed as an overly-driven, power-hungry bitch. Such perceptions are partly valid and partly invalid. While in reality such views stem as much from subtle sexism as the do from Hillary's own behavior, her behavior has contributed to such perceptions. There are perfectly valid reasons why Hillary is viewed unfavorably compared to similar poltical females.

What other far left agendas did Senator Clinton push while she was in the White House? What behavior are you talking about? I don't recall any Republicans coming up with any of their own comprehensive healthcare reform plans at the time.

"Overly-driven" and "power-hungry" aren't bad words in national politics until you make them perjoratives by attaching "bitch" to them. She wasn't the typical glassy eyed smiling Stepford political wife, so she's viewed "unfavorably" when compared to them, which brings me to another point, why is she being compared to other political females to begin with? She's not running against Libby Dole or Laura Bush or Nancy Reagan, so such comparisons are pointless and highlight sexist attitudes.

farfromglorified

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

What other far left agendas did Senator Clinton push while she was in the White House? What behavior are you talking about?

Clinton's positions throughout her early career revolved around the "It takes a villiage" mindset. Be it health care, education, or any other social issue, Clinton takes a leftish community-centric approach that often denies or comes at the cost of the individual.

I don't recall any Republicans coming up with any of their comprehensive healthcare reform plans at the time.

The Republican position at the time was the correct position, IMO -- your healthcare is not my responsibility nor is mine your responsibility. No such "comprehensive healthcare reform plan" is required by such a position.

Regardless, that Republican position has changed, unfortunately, which now means the citizens of this nation are losing billions of dollars per year in a corrupt drug scheme.

"Overly-driven" and "power-hungry" aren't bad words in national politics until you make them perjoratives by attaching "bitch" to them.

"Overly-driven" is a person who will sacrifice any principle for a specific goal. And "power-hungry" is not something I want in a politician. I'd much rather have a run of the mill bitch than someone who is driven to the point of having few principles or power-hungry to the point of not understanding justice.

Milhouse VanHouten

farfromglorified wrote:

Clinton's positions throughout her early career revolved around the "It takes a villiage" mindset. Be it health care, education, or any other social issue, Clinton takes a leftish community-centric approach that often denies or comes at the cost of the individual.

The Republican position at the time was the correct position, IMO -- your healthcare is not my responsibility nor is mine your responsibility. No such "comprehensive healthcare reform plan" is required by such a position.

Regardless, that Republican position has changed, unfortunately, which now means the citizens of this nation are losing billions of dollars per year in a corrupt drug scheme.

Maybe her "leftish, community-centric" side told her that having 40 million uninsured people, mostly children, in the "greatest country in the world" is unacceptable.

farfromglorified wrote:

"Overly-driven" is a person who will sacrifice any principle for a specific goal. And "power-hungry" is not something I want in a politician. I'd much rather have a run of the mill bitch than someone who is driven to the point of having few principles or power-hungry to the point of not understanding justice.

Right, this is a semantic arguement I won't be getting into.

SPEEDY MCCREADY

none of the above......