Convince me - why vote for Hillary?

DixieN wrote:

Every good reason to vote for Hillary is the same good reason you'd vote for Obama. They are the same candidate--one in a vanilla flavor another in chocolate. (Two great flavors, that in my opinion, taste better together, as the advertisement goes.) They are Coke and Pepsi. The big thing Clinton has over Obama is experience and her record. Yes, not everything's rosy on the record, but on the whole it's quite a record of doing good wherever she can for the most people she can. She certainly has a larger record getting things done than Obama. She and most world leaders already know one another. She is well respected by these people. She's worked closely on issues affecting the US in her years at the WH. She knows quite a lot about the economy--she's married to someone who took the country from a deficit to the largest surplus known in recent years. We desperately need someone who knows what they're doing economically. The hurt is just starting. 63,000 jobs lost last month, making the January numbers look paltry. In fact, we are experiencing the biggest decline in jobs in years and the biggest housing recession in 25 years.

The other thing she has is incredible energy and fortitude. Sixteen years of Republican shenanigans, and she's a viable presidential contender--despite years of shit thrown at her. That is impressive to me. That woman has more guts in her little finger than boatloads of people have in their whole bodies. A vote for Clinton is a vote for a fighter that won't quit no matter what is said designed to get her do what specific interests want. She's not afraid. I admire that; I even envy that. I don't have the "what it takes" she does. I don't think many people do. Not many people could take what she's taken and be left standing, no less up and fighting.

Here's a reasonably decent article about the two of them, relative strengths and weaknesses:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/03/08/ST2008030800051.html

My biggest fear about Obama is that some scandal will come out of nowhere to rock his boat. He's relatively untested...if there's something, and the Republicans know it, my guess is their strategy will be to wait until he's the nominee and then spring it a few weeks prior to the elections. This could be catastrophic if it's anything at all in a tight election, since he would have no time to recover from it. By then, the Democrats will have torn each other to shreds over Pepsi and Coke on top of it. The Republicans could be in for a big party, really, if they play their cards right. On the other hand, what new stuff could the Republicans have on Clinton after 16 years of looking under and planting many rocks?

Pacomc79 wrote:

Well she does have a Vagina... so it would be barrier breaking for the female sex... IE you really could give an example to that 6 year old little girl that wants to be president.

other than that... I got NOTHIN.

I consider myself a huge fan of gender equality so that's on the record but she embodies about every negative quality one could describe in a woman.

Think of the worst person you've ever dated/ married, multiply it by 10 million..... understand why Bill strayed. as some great comedians have said... oh I don't agree with it... but I understand.

I've heard of staying together for the kids... but staying toegther for the politics?

DixieN wrote:

Clinton is a politician, as is Obama. I hope you are not the person waking up at some point, maybe soon, since the potentially embarrassing Rezko trial's about to get under way. It could turn out your candidate has done some pocket lining himself. Maybe some little string pulling. Wouldn't that be novel? A politician lining their pockets?

Obama and Clinton are the same. Obama has resorted to a few tactics over the last few weeks himself. And I thought he was so much better than she. He hasn't shown me he's any different. He talks a good game, but plays the same old one. Which, to be quite honest, is why I think he'd wouldn't be such a bad president. It's a skill to get people to think Pepsi and Coke are radically different with radical differences to those who chose them. Got to give the man credit where it is due. And here it is undeniably due. Hope and dreams and good lines are the bottled water marketing dreams of politics. Bill Clinton used the same thing to win himself the presidency, so the formulation is hardly even original. Obama's campaign is so recycled that he is not only the same as Hillary Clinton politically, but he's lifted her husband's campaign. He's not even different in that light.

Hollyweird wrote:

Bottom line. I don't buy all this horseshit that she would be easy to beat in the General Election. Reality is ONLY the Clinton's as a team have been able to beat the Republican machine in the last 30 years. I just think she will also be able to bring alot of experienced people with her to the White House who can hit the ground running. I just don't think a green Senator getting on the job training as President in 2008 is just too risky. Talk is cheap. What has Obama done? Not much. No record and we really just don't know the guy. Everyone thinks because he s a fine orator he is ready to be President and I dispute that. One has nothing to do with the other. While I don't think Hillary is the best candidate, she is the best one left. The Democrats never run their best or most electable people...ever. Clinton was able to do it by stealing a handful of Red States and maintain the Democratic base. That wont change this year. Do you really think a moderate is going to vote for Obama afte the GOP paint his as the "most liberal Senator in Congress" which they are already doing? Listen, I like Obama and think he is refreshing. I do. I just don't think the guy is ready and some of his positions I find to be unbelievably naive to the point where I think the guy is just flat out lying. I think he may be a better candidate in 4 years or 8 years after serving some time in the Senate and learning the ropes.

Hollyweird wrote:

Talk is cheap. What has Obama done? Not much. No record and we really just don't know the guy.

SweetHarmonics wrote:

What? Everyone knows he has a couple of books that pretty much lay his whole trip out there for all to see. I don't get this argument.

Are you willfully ignorant of the subject or haven't you the time?

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Oh look,
another conspiracy theorist.