• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

To all those blaming Hillary for a probably brokered Democrat convention...

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
0
Originally posted by: sirjonk
I'll vote dem either way, but I'm not horrified by the thought of a McCain presidency, as opposed to Huckabee or Romney.
I consider McCain to be - by FAR - the least of 3 evils in that bunch. The two main things that bother me about McCain are (in order) his 'must win' Iraq policy and his age.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
0
Originally posted by: daveshel
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Thats OK all the threads the Op has started lately smacks of somebody whose stull in elementary school!!
Ah, the erudite commentary that makes ATP&N the place to be for insightful discussions.

Like much of the US, I was introduced to Obama at the DNC Convention 4 years ago. I was moved by his speech. I thought then that he was better spoken than the candidates, and hoped he would run for president someday. And last fall I was thinking he was running too soon.

But the thing that has enabled him to gain such momentum is the perception that he represents the possibility of much needed change among a field of business-as-usual me-too candidates. I'm not sure I'd get out of bed to vote in an election between Clinton and McCain: sure, they seem to represent different ends of the spectrum, but I don't see any meaningful possibility that either will solve the country's biggest problems.

Neither will be able to mend the damage done in the last 7 years to the fiscal fortunes of the US, nor the stacking of the Supreme Court. And as for the monumental challenge of repairing the goodwill of the rest of the world toward the US, even Bush and Cheney's heads on pikes for a generation won't help there.

Can Obama do any better? Probably not. But the fact that he has not had time to become a jaded insider goes a long way. To me he offers hope in a time of hopelessness, and this, dennilfloss, is why I disagree with you.
Great post. :thumbsup: I think a lot of Obama supporters fee the same way you do.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,260
4
81
This is Generation Y, aka Millennials, the days of "paying your dues" is over. You are talented and can do the job or not. You old farts better watch your backs for us, especially in corporate america. You no longer have job security. We will usurp you.
 

dennilfloss

Past Lifer 1957-2014 In Memoriam
Oct 21, 1999
30,549
10
0
dennilfloss.blogspot.com
Originally posted by: JS80
This is Generation Y, aka Millennials, the days of "paying your dues" is over. You are talented and can do the job or not. You old farts better watch your backs for us, especially in corporate america. You no longer have job security. We will usurp you.

Both Obama and Hillary belong to the same generation: they are both babyboomers like me.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,260
4
81
Originally posted by: dennilfloss
Originally posted by: JS80
This is Generation Y, aka Millennials, the days of "paying your dues" is over. You are talented and can do the job or not. You old farts better watch your backs for us, especially in corporate america. You no longer have job security. We will usurp you.

Both Obama and Hillary belong to the same generation: they are both babyboomers like me.
No shit. It was to drive the point that the days of "pay your dues" are over. Obama represents Gen Y attitude and Hillary represents old establishment. Her world is crumbling as reflected in this race.
 

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,215
11
81
"paid his dues to the party", "waited in line".....what?? We're talking about running for President here, that's not exactly a union job.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
2
0
Originally posted by: Deeko
"paid his dues to the party", "waited in line".....what?? We're talking about running for President here, that's not exactly a union job.
Dennil is from Canada... :)

 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: sirjonk
I'll vote dem either way, but I'm not horrified by the thought of a McCain presidency, as opposed to Huckabee or Romney.
McCain basically = Hillary. I'm not surprised.
I'm not surprised you're echoing the new Obama talking point, despite Obama and Clinton sharing nearly every vote in the senate.
 
May 31, 2001
15,326
1
0
Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone
Why should he "wait his turn" when Hillary's entire relevant experience is two more years in the Senate than Obama? He has more experience as an elected official, and God knows he's run a vastly superior campaign. If she wins, fine, and I'll probably vote for her in the fall, but don't try to hand me the argument that she is somehow entitled to be President in a way Obama is not.
Well said. :thumbsup:

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone
Originally posted by: sirjonk

In the Wisconsin exit polls, voters who cared most about experience went for hillary 95-5. Apparently some people think she wasn't baking cookies in the white house for 8 years.
She has certainly been selling herself based on "experience," and people have bought into it. That said, the overwhelming majority of her experience consisted of being a corporate attorney. I don't doubt that she was involved in formulating some of Bill Clinton's policies, but as has been noted above, these failed for the most part. The reality IMO is that the "experience" she is selling is her husband's - apparently the voters are to presume that Bill will be heavily involved in her presidency, and accordingly trust her as an executive. The question is whether that is a good or a bad thing, and perspectives are all over the map on that issue.
In one news clip, she talked about her experience. I don't remember the exact number, but I think she said thirty-five years. That's as vague as Obama's hope that she was bitching about. 35 years of experience? What kind, and how is it relevant?
 
May 31, 2001
15,326
1
0
Originally posted by: sirjonk



Well I can only speak for myself, and I see her as an extremely bright woman who has been involved in politics for over 30 years, and I believe her 12 years in AK gov' mansion and 8 years in the WH, and her time in the senate were spent sponging up domestic and foreign policy knowledge for her future anticipated presidential run. I do think Bill would be an advisor in her admin but by no means calling shots. I don't see how detractors can square thinking Bill will be calling the shots behind the scenes while simultaneously thinking Hillary is a type A control freak.

Anyway, the majority of dem voters polled have indicated that their number one priority isn't experience, it's change. She can win 100% of the 20% that think experience is most important, but Obama still gets the large majority of the remaining who want change as a priority.
I don't believe Hillary has ever set foot in the Alaska governor's mansion.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: ShotgunSteven
Originally posted by: sirjonk



Well I can only speak for myself, and I see her as an extremely bright woman who has been involved in politics for over 30 years, and I believe her 12 years in AK gov' mansion and 8 years in the WH, and her time in the senate were spent sponging up domestic and foreign policy knowledge for her future anticipated presidential run. I do think Bill would be an advisor in her admin but by no means calling shots. I don't see how detractors can square thinking Bill will be calling the shots behind the scenes while simultaneously thinking Hillary is a type A control freak.

Anyway, the majority of dem voters polled have indicated that their number one priority isn't experience, it's change. She can win 100% of the 20% that think experience is most important, but Obama still gets the large majority of the remaining who want change as a priority.
I don't believe Hillary has ever set foot in the Alaska governor's mansion.
*blush*
 

merlocka

Platinum Member
Nov 24, 1999
2,832
0
0
Originally posted by: dennilfloss
Originally posted by: JS80
This is Generation Y, aka Millennials, the days of "paying your dues" is over. You are talented and can do the job or not. You old farts better watch your backs for us, especially in corporate america. You no longer have job security. We will usurp you.

Both Obama and Hillary belong to the same generation: they are both babyboomers like me.
They were both born during the "baby boom", but Hillary is truely part of the Baby Boom generation, where as Barak is probably better aligned with the Jones generation. And I think this observation is not without merit when contrasting the two candidates.







 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
Originally posted by: maddogchen
wait your turn. see how well that worked for John Edwards... hahaha
John Edwards was a douchebag, though.

it seems like there's strong sentiment amongst insiders that Edwards did a crappy job as a VP candidate on purpose because he wanted Kerry to lose, in order to further his own '08 run.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
2
0
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: maddogchen
wait your turn. see how well that worked for John Edwards... hahaha
John Edwards was a douchebag, though.

it seems like there's strong sentiment amongst insiders that Edwards did a crappy job as a VP candidate on purpose because he wanted Kerry to lose, in order to further his own '04 run.
Haha, he did an awesome job at that, then! He sucked royal sh*t as the VP candidate.

 

bl4ckfl4g

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2007
3,669
0
0
Originally posted by: dennilfloss
To all those blaming Hillary for a probably brokered Democrat convention and who say that she's ensuring that McCain will get elected because the Democrat nomination process is continuing and becoming more intense, just remember that it takes two to tango. If Obama had waited his turn and not run this time, there wouldn't be this problem. Instead, there would have been probably an early Hillary coronation instead and she would have already begun tearing the Republican nominee a new Iraq-sized butthole, so one could just as easily blame him.
Lol I think Bush and Clintons have had enough turns the last 20 years.
 

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,215
11
81
I don't understand where that notion came from?

I was a huge Edwards supporter in 2004, wanted him to win the primary. I never noticed him being a "bad" vp candidate. I also see people saying he got stomped by Cheney in the debates....what? I certainly didn't see that, either. I do remember Cheney blasting his Senate attendance record pretty good, but otherwise, what did he do so terribly wrong?
 

blackllotus

Golden Member
May 30, 2005
1,875
0
0
Originally posted by: dennilfloss
So you think it's good that instead of paying his dues to the party, going up the rank and file, etc...,he went above her helmet like he thinks he's Lone Star the galactic messiah. I just happen to believe otherwise.

Still, I must admit that this did work for Canada in 1968 with Trudeaumania and I too was and remain a Trudeau enthusiast.
In the United States PEOPLE run for president, not PARTIES.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: dennilfloss
-snip-
If Obama had waited his turn and not run this time, there wouldn't be this problem. Instead, there would have been probably an early Hillary coronation instead and she would have already begun tearing the Republican nominee a new Iraq-sized butthole, so one could just as easily blame him.
I'll give you a pass on this because that's likely the way it is is Canada with your system being considerably different fromours.

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I don't think we should "blame" anyone. We still live in a democracy, right?
-snip-
I'll answer that question after I see what the super delegates do. ;)

Originally posted by: Rainsford
That seems counter-intuitive, if Hillary Clinton really had united the party, Obama wouldn't have been able to come along and do anything.
I think you're dead-on about party unity.

Billary had fractured that long ago, muscling out long time party honchos and replacing all the positions with his personal acolytes.

The blue collar, northern states types were replaced with the Arkansas machine and a bunch of ivy league lawyers.

In many ways, Billary is not liberal enough, the "old school" doesn't seem to care much for triangulation, the partisan bitterness, nor their personal behavior (scandels, tendancy to play dirty with ANY opponent, and shirting the rules with fancy lawyer tactics). It's often fallen to the old school to defend the Clintons and I think they're tired of it.

Also, the Clintons claimed to represent a "new kind of Democrat" and said so frquently. I've no doubt the old school Dems felt there was nothing wrong with the old kind of Democrat.

I've often felt Chris Matthews (Old School Dem from Philly- aide to Tip O'neal and Jimmie Carter) showed this disdain frequently.

Fern
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,576
431
126
Originally posted by: Deeko
I don't understand where that notion came from?

I was a huge Edwards supporter in 2004, wanted him to win the primary. I never noticed him being a "bad" vp candidate. I also see people saying he got stomped by Cheney in the debates....what? I certainly didn't see that, either. I do remember Cheney blasting his Senate attendance record pretty good, but otherwise, what did he do so terribly wrong?
Personally I though he was on the receiving end of the stomping of a lifetime by Cheney in the VP debate. He also didn't carry his home state or the surrounding region, which is pretty much the entire modern-day point of adding a VP to your ticket.
 

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,215
11
81
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: Deeko
I don't understand where that notion came from?

I was a huge Edwards supporter in 2004, wanted him to win the primary. I never noticed him being a "bad" vp candidate. I also see people saying he got stomped by Cheney in the debates....what? I certainly didn't see that, either. I do remember Cheney blasting his Senate attendance record pretty good, but otherwise, what did he do so terribly wrong?
Personally I though he was on the receiving end of the stomping of a lifetime by Cheney in the VP debate. He also didn't carry his home state or the surrounding region, which is pretty much the entire modern-day point of adding a VP to your ticket.
Eh. Like I said I only remember Cheney making one good point. And as for carrying his state - maybe Kerry was that weak of a candidate.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,325
783
126
Originally posted by: dennilfloss
To all those blaming Hillary for a probably brokered Democrat convention and who say that she's ensuring that McCain will get elected because the Democrat nomination process is continuing and becoming more intense, just remember that it takes two to tango. If Obama had waited his turn and not run this time, there wouldn't be this problem. Instead, there would have been probably an early Hillary coronation instead and she would have already begun tearing the Republican nominee a new Iraq-sized butthole, so one could just as easily blame him.
Wait his turn?

Hes leading in overall delegates, elected delegates, states won, and the popular vote.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY