Jump to content

CLINTON vs. OBAMA


Panamaniac

Clinton vs. Obama  

44 members have voted

  1. 1. Who will win the nomination?

    • Hillary Clinton
      22
    • Barack Obama
      22


Recommended Posts

With Oprah in his corner and opening endorsing him, who knows. Word is Oprah is willing to put out the major big bucks to support him all the way to the White House. That is some major heat if you have a multi-millionairess in your corner willing to use their major pull.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 199
  • Created
  • Last Reply
to a degree. i think some truly want change. the issue i have is that i don't think clinton or obama are bringing anything substantial to the table. i don't think obama is really the candidate for change like many people believe. he's a smooth talker. that worries me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still quite surprised that Clinton and Edwards aren't the top two candidates. Edwards looked like a sure thing when the campaign started. It'll be interesting to see how he does in Iowa, as he is very popular in the state.

Obama is an attractive fellow, a great speaker, has lotsa charisma and a gorgeous articulate wife. But doesn't Edwards "have the beef"? Edwards is the one out there putting his future on the line to fight poverty---something noble we haven't heard in American politics in a long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still quite surprised that Clinton and Edwards aren't the top two candidates. Edwards looked like a sure thing when the campaign started. It'll be interesting to see how he does in Iowa, as he is very popular in the state.

Obama is an attractive fellow, a great speaker, has lotsa charisma and a gorgeous articulate wife. But doesn't Edwards "have the beef"? Edwards is the one out there putting his future on the line to fight poverty---something noble we haven't heard in American politics in a long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

he just rubs me the wrong way. he hasn't said anything a whole lot different than the other main democrats. he hasn't set himself apart. sure, he's young, he's very bright, he's well spoken, he's energetic... but he's not really anything new. at this point, i want a complete change from politics as usual.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I hate to tell if, but if you are looking for a complete change from politics as usual then you better hope Bloomberg runs then. Because he is probably the only person with the money and electibility to get as close to "complete change from politics as usual" as you are going to get. I say this because until this country goes from a national bipartisan system, and pretty much stuck being unsatisfied.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

he just rubs me the wrong way. he hasn't said anything a whole lot different than the other main democrats. he hasn't set himself apart. sure, he's young, he's very bright, he's well spoken, he's energetic... but he's not really anything new. at this point, i want a complete change from politics as usual.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even though I'm a bonified Liberal Democrat Leftie (hehhee) I still think Ron Paul has the message Americans would latch onto in a second flat, if they were given the chance to truly hear his message.

But back to the Dems, my partner and I were discussing the other night how Hillary Clinton's campaign is starting to mirror Walter Mondale's presidential campaign of 1984. For those of you too young to remember, Mondale was the quintessential

insider candidate. Every Democratic subgroup at the time fell all over themselves to endorse him------AFL-CIO, NEA, NOW, pro-choice abortion groups, gay rights groups, civil rights groups, anti nuke groups, environmental groups....you name it.

There was a month or so in the 1984 campaign when Mondale held court every few days at some Democrat interest group's headquarters. The endorsements were usually filled with pagaentry, and always made the headline news. After a while it started to hurt Mondale---made him look like a special interests candidate, instead of a candidiate reaching out to all the American people.

Among Dems, Hillary's support is running very very deep too. All sorts of interest groups and famous people are lining up behind her like there's no tommorrow. She totally attracts the Democratic Limousine Liberal set, as well as major support in the black community. She is adored by all the traditional Dem interest groups, as well as big money Dems.

But man oh man is Hillary different than Mondale. I totally admire Mondale and I think he would have made a fine president in 1984---but as far as political sense goes, Hillary blows Mondale outta the water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not surprising, given who her husband is. They didn't call him "Slick Willie" for nothing, as he was (is) one of the most formidable politicians in U. S. history. This is not to say that Hillary doesn't have smarts of her own merit, just that if she didn't, her husband's would've sufficed to lend her that image. It would be foolhardy to underestimate the "Bill Factor."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly I don't know why people call Clinton one of the more formidable politicians in history. He got into office by defeating a very unpopular president Bush, Sr, he lost control of congress in the 2nd year of his first term, he barely won re-election over Bob Dole who wasn't that popular either, when he was impeached, 5 members of his own party voted against him, and his unpopularity is cited as one of the reasons that Al Gore did not do better in the 2000 election. Gore as you might remember did not want Clinton to be involved in his campaign and rightfully so since many people voted against Gore were voting against the Clinton Administration. If Clinton had been able to run for a 3rd term, it's not even clear that he would have even won the nomination and he certainly would not have won the election.

The biggest reason that Bill Clinton is so popular now is because the current president is such a disaster on any front, that most people look back at the Clinton years as the good years. (in recent history) However this does not translate to "formidable" and I predict that Hillary is going to face major problems once this election gets nasty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly I don't know why people call Clinton one of the more formidable politicians in history. He got into office by defeating a very unpopular president Bush, Sr, he lost control of congress in the 2nd year of his first term, he barely won re-election over Bob Dole who wasn't that popular either, when he was impeached, 5 members of his own party voted against him, and his unpopularity is cited as one of the reasons that Al Gore did not do better in the 2000 election. Gore as you might remember did not want Clinton to be involved in his campaign and rightfully so since many people voted against Gore were voting against the Clinton Administration. If Clinton had been able to run for a 3rd term, it's not even clear that he would have even won the nomination and he certainly would not have won the election.

The biggest reason that Bill Clinton is so popular now is because the current president is such a disaster on any front, that most people look back at the Clinton years as the good years. (in recent history) However this does not translate to "formidable" and I predict that Hillary is going to face major problems once this election gets nasty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, Bill Clinton had the highest approval rating of an exiting president in recent history. After the 1998 witch hunt and impeachment trial, the nation saw him as wrongly attacked for personal reasons. It only increased his popularity, which was already the highest of a second term president in modern history.

Most political scholars feel that Clinton won on his own merits in 1996. The Republican Congress shut down government in the Dec 1995-Jan 1996 period. The Gingrich Republican Congress was seen as obstructionists who wanted to repeal the Clinton Economic Policy passed in 1993 and just obstructionists in general.

Clinton stood his ground, was seen as the victor of that stand-still created by Republicans in Congress.

The competitor to Clinton in 1996 was Bob Dole - Senator from Kansas - who was part of that obstructionist Congress.

The people were uninspired by Dole, saw him as a conservative obstructionist, and Perot served as a libertarian option for those who wanted smaller government.

Clinton won on his own merits in 1996. He was well liked throughout his entire second term and through that election. All polls indicate it, the election indicates it.

Clinton's low point was 1993-1994 when his health policy failed, he was seen as too-socially liberal on gays in the military (for 1993 that is), and the backlash came in 1994 when people elected a Republican Congress to oppose Clinton.

Fortunately that opinion changed quickly and he was re-elected in 1996.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, Bill Clinton had the highest approval rating of an exiting president in recent history. After the 1998 witch hunt and impeachment trial, the nation saw him as wrongly attacked for personal reasons. It only increased his popularity, which was already the highest of a second term president in modern history.......
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When President Clinton was investigated by Ken Starr, and all that fiasco, his popularity soared. After the impeachment, Clinton's poll approvals went through the roof. At the time Jerry Falwell was so shocked by Clinton's public support, that he finally admitted that he and his ilk were not the majority, as he had been claiming since 1978.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You didn't show those approval ratings in comparisons to other presidential candidates where you claimed he was better. I stand by what I said above about his popularity. He was not that well liked by the time he left office and my guess is if the had been able to run for 3rd term he would have lost the election.

I won't bother to address the claim you made that I don't like him because I am Southern and the statement I made wasn't about Southerners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 1996 Washington state looked like this:

  • Clinton - 1,123,323 - 49.8%

  • Dole - 840,712 - 37.3%

  • Other - 290,138 - 12.8%

    Since it will not doubt come up. In my state, North Carolina

    • Clinton - 1,107,849 - 44%

    • Dole - 1,225,938 - 48.7%

    • Other - 181,750 - 0.5%

    No surprises here except to note that if Clinton had gotten the other vote he would have won the state. In other words, this proves the difference between red; and blue states is really not significant when one looks at the actual numbers and one can't predict support based on living location. Nationally Clinton did not get 50% of the vote which means that most of the people in the nation voted for someone else. Because of the winner takes all approach in the electoral college however he won the election.

    The link proves he was popular, and I'm not quite sure how to take your rejection of facts. Its your choice.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.