Obama Vs Clinton

[JLevy]

I am writing to you in response to an email I received from Newsmax.com yesterday.
In my opinion I see Senator Obama as arrogant perhaps too green and wet behind the ears to become our next President.
“I have no doubt that I can get the people who vote for Senator Clinton…It’s not clear that Senator Clinton can get all the people I’m getting,” he said. I for one would not support Senator Obama. …is this comment arrogant or not?
Unless I have missed something I have been under the impression that it is Senator Clinton who has won California, New York, Massachusetts and a few other very important states. Senator Obama appears to be insistent of how he is the better choice and in fact feels he is ahead. He did win 13 states while Senator Clinton won 10 including American Samoa and as we all know New Mexico is too close to call.

I am aware of how much work and so little time our next President will have to fix all that needs to be fixed since President Bush took office seven years ago. Senator Clinton in my opinion has the experience needed to begin working from day one. Senator Clinton knows how to work with Congress and she knows how the system works.



Arrogant Senator Obama

Every time I see a picture of Senator Obama he looks just like this, in my opinion he looks arrogant. He sounds arrogant too when he speaks, specially when he talks about Senator Clinton.

I received the following email and my only thought is ...Do I want another arrogant man as my President? NOT!

Breaking from Newsmax.com

Obama Says GOP Will Have Dirt on Clinton

CHICAGO — Sen. Barack Obama predicted Wednesday that Republicans will have a dump truck full of dirt to unload on Hillary Rodham Clinton if the former first lady wins the Democratic presidential nomination, and said he offers the party its best hope of winning the White House this fall.

At a news conference on the morning after Super Tuesday, Obama offered some pointed advice to members of Congress and other party leaders who will attend the national convention this summer as delegates not chosen in primaries or caucuses.

He said that if he winds up winning more delegates in voting than the former first lady, they "would have to think long and hard about how they approach the nomination when the people they claim to represent have said, 'Obama's our guy,'" he said.

The Illinois senator won primaries and caucuses in 13 states on Tuesday, while Clinton won eight and American Samoa. Obama and Clinton were in a tight race in New Mexico.

Obama said he had won a majority of the 1,681 delegates at stake, although The Associated Press tally showed several hundred yet to be allocated.

Asked about Clinton's recent comment that she would not allow herself to be victimized by the type of Swift Boat-style attacks that were leveled against Sen. John Kerry in the 2004 race, Obama said he had been vetted by his opponent in the nominating campaign.

"I have to just respond by saying that the Clinton research operation is about as good as anybody's out there," he said.

"I assure you that having engaged in a contest against them for the last year that they've pulled out all the stops. And you know I think what is absolutely true is whoever the Democratic nominee is the Republicans will go after them. The notion that somehow Senator Clinton is going to be immune from attack or there's not a whole dump truck they can't back up in a match between her and John McCain is just not true."

It wasn't the only point at which he said he would do better against the Republicans in the fall.

"I have no doubt that I can get the people who vote for Senator Clinton. ... It's not clear that Senator Clinton can get all the people I'm getting," he said.

Obama sought to claim the permanent underdog's role in the race, saying the New York senator is backed by a "political machine honed over two decades."

At the same time, he said the more he appears before voters, the better he does on primary days.

He said he intends to campaign in the states next up on the calendar _ Louisiana, Nebraska and Washington vote on Saturday; Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia on Tuesday.

I certainly don't want another arrogant President, I have had enough with Bush. I want someone like Hillary who is bright and will get the job done.

---

Who's never won? Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music.

[Braggi]

"I have no doubt that I can get the people who vote for Senator Clinton. ... It's not clear that Senator Clinton can get all the people I'm getting," he said.

Arrogant? Gee. I think that is a true statement. I think he could have stated it more forcefully and it would still be true.

An arrogant look? That's kind of what we get with politicians, especially those at the highest levels.

I certainly don't want another arrogant President, I have had enough with Bush. I want someone like Hillary who is bright and will get the job done.

And that Hillary? She's not arrogant? I don't even watch TV and I've always thought she was arrogant. Carries in her voice. Not like Bush, of course. She's earned the right, and he clearly hasn't. I don't mind a little arrogance from someone who's paid their dues. This country won't vote for a humble person, though I might. We like our arrogant egomaniacs.

I'm not a Democrat, so I didn't vote for either of them, but I will vote for whichever wins the nomination unless California is clearly going to landslide for one candidate, in which case I'll vote Green.

Somebody has to.

I'm not worried about Obama. If he wins the nomination and the election I think he will be an exciting President and I don't expect he'll screw up too badly because of inexperience. He'll be so much better than McCain!!!

-Jeff

[Valley Oak]

Dear Janet,

I understand that you don't like what Obama said but I don't think that this is reason enough to not vote for him. Don't get me wrong; I already cast my vote for Clinton but I'm doing so for a long list of reasons that have to do with the proposed public and foreign policy platforms of both candidates. I have never decided to vote for or not vote for any given candidate simply because they might have said something a little bit rude. If I was an Obama supporter (which I'm not) I would not quit on him just because of his pissy little statement.

On the other hand, if Obama said something like: "I think Hitler should have executed more Jews." then, YES! I would immediately stop supporting him and start ATTACKING him, just as I have been relentlessly attacking Ron Paul on this forum (in case you haven't noticed already).

In my opinion, what would really spice up this forum, and this very appropriate thread you started (thank you) would be precisely to start debating in detail exactly what each candidate proposes to do once they get into the Oval Office.

Let's take their proposed health care programs. I like Clinton's much better because it is simply a free health care program across the board, for everyone. This is key.

I really dislike Obama's because it is an incomplete, optional, play-if-you-like proposition where people would pay into the service only if they can afford it and only if they want to participate. Maybe it is a wonderful idea but I don't own a crystal ball so that I can look into the future to see if it works or not. Obama's plan makes me real nervous. Clinton's plan makes a lot more sense to me. It's what works in all European and non-European countries that have universal health care.

I have personally experienced universal health care for the ten years that I sojourned in Europe (Spain and Denmark). Take my word for it: you can't beat universal health care with Obama's plan. Universal health care works! And it is what is best for you, me, and ALL Americans, rich and poor.

Edward

I am writing to you in response to an email I received from Newsmax.com yesterday.
In my opinion I see Senator Obama as arrogant perhaps too green and wet behind the ears to become our next President.
“I have no doubt that I can get the people who vote for Senator Clinton…It’s not clear that Senator Clinton can get all the people I’m getting,” he said. I for one would not support Senator Obama. …is this comment arrogant or not?

[Tars]

I really dislike Obama's because it is an incomplete, optional, play-if-you-like proposition where people would pay into the service only if they can afford it and only if they want to participate.

As currently stated, his healthcare stance is geared towards appealing to those independents at the conservative end of things, who would more likely vote for anyone who doesn't have Hillary's "universal" healthcare structure.

Obama, if/when he's elected, and if he's truly about "change", will change his healthcare plan to make it universal, not optional (mainly for the wealthy), as with GOP plans.

Universal health care works! And it is what is best for you, me, and ALL Americans, rich and poor.

Amen. Whomever is elected, their administration may well be be mainly remembered for initializing universal care, and thereby bringing the U.S. up to speed with the rest of the 1st-world nations.

[Zeno Swijtink]

"Hillary Clinton is a classic commodity provider. She caters to the less-educated, less-pretentious consumer. As Ron Brownstein of The National Journal pointed out on Wednesday, she won the non-college-educated voters by 22 points in California, 32 points in Massachusetts and 54 points in Arkansas. She offers voters no frills, just commodities: tax credits, federal subsidies and scholarships. She’s got good programs at good prices.

Barack Obama is an experience provider. He attracts the educated consumer. In the last Pew Research national survey, he led among people with college degrees by 22 points. Educated people get all emotional when they shop and vote. They want an uplifting experience so they can persuade themselves that they’re not engaging in a grubby self-interested transaction. They fall for all that zero-carbon footprint, locally grown, community-enhancing Third Place hype. They want cultural signifiers that enrich their lives with meaning."
(Brooks in NYT)

[scorpiomoon]

How about the best of all. Clinton for 8 years and the VP, Obama for another 8. For it may take double time to fix what "W" has done!!

["Mad" Miles]

They're both shills for corporate money (i.e. POWER, as presently constituted socially, check out where that's taking us).

Vote Green,

Can't hurt (No, our candidates are not "spoilers", look at the numbers, ignore the lies) and it sends a message. Good things start small.

"Mad" Miles

[charlieinca]

Obama arrogant? That's not my opinion-at all. To me Hillary is all about getting power--always has been. She's had her eye on the White House--for herself--even before Bill got there. He was one of her stepping stones. (Pleae don't be misled by my moniker on this site--I am a woman.)

If there is any arrogance in either of the two Democratic candidates, it is NOT Obama who exhibits that.

[theindependenteye]

>To me Hillary is all about getting power--always has been. She's had her eye on the White House--for herself--even before Bill got there.

Myself, I'm a left-in-the-lurch Edwards supporter. But I'm not sure I understand what's intrinsically evil about having your eye on the White House. I thought everybody learned in kindergarten that they could be President some day. Is there someone who's gone through a major campaign successfully without a vehement desire to win? I know the joke that the desire to be President should automatically disqualify the person for President. But that's a joke, and however true it may be it's not a viable action plan.

On one hand, we diss anyone who seems to be pandering to the electorate by changing positions. On the other hand, we demand that our elected officials "represent" us and not go off on their own agendas — e.g. the post about Woolsey's support for Clinton. It seems to me that we of the enlightened citizenry are just as subject to superficial image judgments as the doofuses who voted for Bush because of his warm, generous smile.

Cheers—
Conrad

[Tars]

How about the best of all. Clinton for 8 years and the VP, Obama for another 8.

The best possible solution, in my opinion, given the current candidates. I think the kid with the toothy grin could use some more experience, before acquiring the most powerful office in the world.

I heard a person yesterday, voice the opinion that either Hillary or Obama, as president, would almost certainly be assassinated by some wacko. A chilling but very realistic possibility. I can't even conceive of how catastrophic that would be for our country. But, perhaps together in office, they might present those wackos with the Democrat version of the Cheney Dilemma.

[Dynamique]

Even better, Obama as prez for 4 years, someone completely new, different and a genuine progressive for VP, and John Edwards as Attorney General (and also to provide adult supervision).

It is my heartfelt desire to have our country exorcised of neo-fascists, the Bush cabal, the Clintons and the Democratic "Losership" Committee by 2012.

How about the best of all. Clinton for 8 years and the VP, Obama for another 8. For it may take double time to fix what "W" has done!!

[Frederick M. Dolan]

Especially in a democracy, we need leaders who can speak. A lot can be done by setting a tone and raising standards. That's why people still remember JFK, though he accomplished little if you measure accomplishment narrowly. If you care about the quality of political discourse, the choice seems clear.

"Hillary Clinton is a classic commodity provider. She caters to the less-educated, less-pretentious consumer. As Ron Brownstein of The National Journal pointed out on Wednesday, she won the non-college-educated voters by 22 points in California, 32 points in Massachusetts and 54 points in Arkansas. She offers voters no frills, just commodities: tax credits, federal subsidies and scholarships. She’s got good programs at good prices.

Barack Obama is an experience provider. He attracts the educated consumer. In the last Pew Research national survey, he led among people with college degrees by 22 points. Educated people get all emotional when they shop and vote. They want an uplifting experience so they can persuade themselves that they’re not engaging in a grubby self-interested transaction. They fall for all that zero-carbon footprint, locally grown, community-enhancing Third Place hype. They want cultural signifiers that enrich their lives with meaning."
(Brooks in NYT)

[Valley Oak]

Obama is having a meeting with Edwards. This means that they are negotiating Edwards' public support (as did Kennedy recently) to help Obama clinch the nomination. If Obama succeeds in earning Edwards' endorsement, I have serious doubts that Clinton has a chance any longer.

This is a cliffhanger with subtext! I don't know if there has even been such a prize fight for the nomination of a party's presidential candidate in U.S. history.

Funny thing is that this is front page news in other countries but I haven't seen it in an American newspaper:
www.elpais.com

Edward

[Frederick M. Dolan]

Funny thing is that this is front page news in other countries but I haven't seen it in an American newspaper:
www.elpais.com

Edward

Apparently you don't read the New York Times.

[Frederick M. Dolan]

There have been many such fights! Hart and Mondale, for example. This is quite similar.

Obama is having a meeting with Edwards. This means that they are negotiating Edwards' public support (as did Kennedy recently) to help Obama clinch the nomination. If Obama succeeds in earning Edwards' endorsement, I have serious doubts that Clinton has a chance any longer.

This is a cliffhanger with subtext! I don't know if there has even been such a prize fight for the nomination of a party's presidential candidate in U.S. history.

Funny thing is that this is front page news in other countries but I haven't seen it in an American newspaper:
www.elpais.com

Edward

[Valley Oak]

Apparently not. Could you please provide the link and how you found it?

Thanks,

Edward

Apparently you don't read the New York Times.

[Valley Oak]

Back in 1984 I voted for Gary Hart and I clearly remember that the fight was not anywhere nearly as contested as it is now between Obama and Rodham. I remember things differently than you do. Mondale's victory over Hart for the Democratic nomination was a cake walk compared to this. The Democratic Party leadership was not trembling over a divisive nominating convention as they are now, not by a long shot!

Edward

There have been many such fights! Hardt and Mondale, for example. This is quite similar.

[Zeno Swijtink]

"At the same time, the Clinton camp confirmed that Mrs. Clinton had met privately on Thursday with former Senator John Edwards in North Carolina. Mr. Edwards, who has dropped out of the race, has not made an endorsement. But Mr. Obama is scheduled to meet with him too, on Monday night, Obama allies say, and is also flying to Mr. Edwards’s home in North Carolina."

Published: February 11, 2008

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/u...cs/11dems.html

Apparently not. Could you please provide the link and how you found it?

Thanks,

Edward

[Valley Oak]

Which of the two do you think Edwards will endorse? My feeling is that because of Edwards' attacks on Hillary as being "status quo," that she will have to do a lot more to earn his endorsement. Edwards identified himself (indirectly) with Obama as a candidate of major change.

Unless something unexpected happens, Edwards will endorse Obama. And although this race is far from being all said and done, even if Edwards' endorsement of either candidate will not necessarily clinch the nomination for him or her, it will become an important advantage to the lucky endorsee.

Edward

"At the same time, the Clinton camp confirmed that Mrs. Clinton had met privately on Thursday with former Senator John Edwards in North Carolina. Mr. Edwards, who has dropped out of the race, has not made an endorsement. But Mr. Obama is scheduled to meet with him too, on Monday night, Obama allies say, and is also flying to Mr. Edwards’s home in North Carolina."

Published: February 11, 2008

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/u...cs/11dems.html

[Frederick M. Dolan]

I see your point. Here's a link to a blog that parses the analogies/disanalogies between Clinton vs. Obama and Mondale vs. Hart:

https://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stum...n-analogy.aspx

Back in 1984 I voted for Gary Hart and I clearly remember that the fight was not anywhere nearly as contested as it is now between Obama and Rodham. I remember things differently than you do. Mondale's victory over Hart for the Democratic nomination was a cake walk compared to this. The Democratic Party leadership was not trembling over a divisive nominating convention as they are now, not by a long shot!

Edward

[Dynamique]

Isn't it interesting how "Hillary" has transmogrified into "Mrs. Clinton" when she started having serious competition and her presumed coronation was no longer in the bag.

"At the same time, the Clinton camp confirmed that Mrs. Clinton had met privately on Thursday with former Senator John Edwards in North Carolina.

[Zeno Swijtink]

Isn't it interesting how "Hillary" has transmogrified into "Mrs. Clinton" when she started having serious competition and her presumed coronation was no longer in the bag.

I quick search of my NYT files does not confirm this. Clinton is never called just Hillary in news items (except in quotes from sources), or in editorial items in the NYT. Only by some (female) pundits, such as MAUREEN DOWD or GAIL COLLINS.

[phooph]

A white, female, liberal, Democrat makes a case against Hillary. It is also a good argument for why she will win. This is long and detailed with reference links but you don't need to read the whole thing to get the gist of it.

Ruth

https://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-...8/02/05/p23068

We could use some equally diligent investigation into Obama's connections.

[Braggi]

A white, female, liberal, Democrat makes a case against Hillary. It is also a good argument for why she will win. ...

If she's going to win, she better get started. Looks like Obama has her on the run.

If Obama wins I really hope he stays safe and healthy and is able to rise to the challenge. Whether Clinton or Obama, one of them has got to beat McCain who just looks like the Bush agenda on steroids to me.

-Jeff

[Neshamah]

'"I have no doubt that I can get the people who vote for Senator Clinton. ... It's not clear that Senator Clinton can get all the people I'm getting," he said.'

Unfortunately, that just sounds to me like a true statement. Given all the issues at stake, I cannot dismiss a candidate for being arrogant. My problem with Bush was not his arrogance, but the fact that he was usually wrong. Arrogance is less of a problem if the person is right.

~ Neshamah