|
Since TV is starting to deluge me with Hilary vs Obama, fairly often, I decided to make a thread. I know there is a limit to how far this discussion can go at this, with primaries a year away, but it's never too soon to start.
I really don't know a great deal about either (though that won't stop me from having a very strong, near fanatical opinion).
I like Obama, a lot. I don't know the details of his views on every issue at this point, but the way he speaks is appealing. In my vague memories of his speeches he sounded very intelligent. He doesn't sound like he speaks in a overly prepared cue card reader... he sounds like he does a lot of speaking off the top of his head on things he has thought hard about. And my assumption on this is somewhat confirmed when he is talking to someone live rather than giving a speech. Like this one time he was questioning Secretary Rice in congress, Condi was trying her hardest to dodge the question but Obama would not be derailed and was able to adapt his questions. This sort of thing seems typical of him.
I am excited by the idea of someone from his backround becoming President. (is backround supposed to be two words? the firefox spell check highlighted it) He could communicate to a lot of groups that have been left out, in the US and in the world. Half black, half white, internationally educated in Jakarta, went to Muslim and Catholic schools before going to excel at Harvard.
One thing I think everyone on the forum can appreciate is a very unique stance Obama has taken. A somewhat anti-babyboomer stance. "THE time has come, Senator Barack Obama says, for the baby boomers to get over themselves." Man, that is sweet to hear. '“Thank you, here’s your gold watch, it’s time for the personal style and political framework of the 1960’s to get out of the way,” said Eric Liu, 38, a speechwriter and policy aide in the Clinton White House who now runs a mentoring program in Seattle.' 
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/weekinreview/21broder.html
Hilary, on the other hand, I dislike, more and more. First, I'm very turned off by the idea I get, that there has been some plan going on to capitalize on a low point for republicans to get Hilary back in, and that democrats like me are under the obligation to vote for her somehow. I would grudgingly vote for her if she is up against a typical Republican candidate.
What has Hilary done that is so great? She strikes me as a typical politician who just happens to have strong connections. I'm sick to death of talk about the Clinton connection. Like most democrats, thinking of the Clinton days sounds like heaven, compared to now, but that doesn't mean we have to vote for someone from the same family. I didn't like everything about Clinton and I wouldn't even vote for Bill Clinton over Obama if he could run again, at this point.
Hilary gives me the vibe that she takes the democratic, anti-Bush base, for granted.
Irrelevant as it may seem, one of my most vivid memories of Hilary is when she was speaking out against violence in video games. I don't remember the details, but it was apparent that she hadn't really thought through the issue and was just trying to make a concession to distressed mothers.
I'm optimistically hoping for being able to find some common ground with Excalibur_Z about disliking Hilary  Excal, I hope you contribute to this thread and confirm my dislike with some dirt you have on her 
|
background, not backround
|
On January 26 2007 15:02 ApollyoN wrote:
background, not backround
damn, what's wrong with me
edit: I also mispelled Obama's name! can a mod fix that? It's Barack. :O
|
i can just see the GOP ads now
do you really want Osama Obama to be running this country?
|
Wow. Just wow. Voting on who "speaks well" or "sounds the most intelligent" is about the most idiotic thing you can do. You might as well vote on who runs the fastest 400, or who has the most letters in their name. Skill in public speaking does NOT relate to intelligence, competence, or any other skill useful for running a country....aside from public speaking. Least of all does it have any relation to platform or values, which are two things you might want to consider looking into.
I'm not saying anything about Hussein's platform. I'm probably much more informed about him than most after researching and voting in the Illinois senate race. Try voting on something important instead of throwing away your vote.
|
I acknowledged I don't know much and there is a long way to go, that is part of the reason for this thread. "Wow. Just wow." Good to see you are as useless as usual. 
Speaking does matter to me. If it sounds like someone is just reading a carefully prepared speech and can't think on their feet, it makes me doubt how much sincere they are and how much they really know about what they are talking about.
|
|
|
I don't like Hilary Clinton because of the whole "Hot Coffee" fiasco. Really, nobody even tried to understand what videogames are about and why Grand Theft Auto is a success in general. She's an idiot.
|
On January 26 2007 15:19 Servolisk wrote:
Speaking does matter to me. If it sounds like someone is just reading a carefully prepared speech and can't think on their feet, it makes me doubt how much sincere they are and how much they really know about what they are talking about.
Um no. Not even close. It means THEY ARE NOT GOOD AT SPEAKING. NOTHING ELSE. It has NOTHING to do with sincerity. Have you ever heard of an actor? Ya, a good public speaker is good at seeming sincere in order to fool people. Politicians work on this A LOT. Again, nice to see someone asking for a ban just because I countered your point and disagree with you. If you can't argue by making thought-out, concrete points, don't try. You're just gonna end up asking for everyone else to be banned every time.
You said you like Hussein because he sounds pretty. I'm sure every intelligent person will agree that that is one of the worst things to base your vote on.
|
On January 26 2007 15:14 pr0n wrote:
Wow. Just wow. Voting on who "speaks well" or "sounds the most intelligent" is about the most idiotic thing you can do. You might as well vote on who runs the fastest 400, or who has the most letters in their name. Skill in public speaking does NOT relate to intelligence, competence, or any other skill useful for running a country....aside from public speaking. Least of all does it have any relation to platform or values, which are two things you might want to consider looking into.
I'm not saying anything about Hussein's platform. I'm probably much more informed about him than most after researching and voting in the Illinois senate race. Try voting on something important instead of throwing away your vote.
You're a moron. The most important information we have as to whether a politician is smart is gained through listening to them speak. Unless you think a candidate's intelligence is not relevant, you're not making much sense when you say that "sounding intelligent" is not important.
Your comment about "considering looking into" a candidate's platform or values is dripping with sarcasm, but it neglects the fact that Servo's already mentioned several concrete examples which refer to Obama's values and character. For example, his willingness not to sugar-coat his feelings (baby boomer remark), his ability to think on his feet (Condi Rice thing, etc.) and the fact that he's adapted and excelled in many different environments (cross-cultural, highly educated). Servo even prefaced his remarks by saying that he hadn't looked that deeply into Obama's platform (gee, maybe that's why he's posting here and soliciting input). In contrast, you offer no facts or argument of any sort either before or against either of the candidates.
And of course by referring to Obama as "Hussein" you're revealing yourself as a mindless hack. Yeah, attack someone for caring how a candidate speaks, but go ahead and worry about middle names, because they're really what's important. Congrats, you're a dumbshit.
|
On January 26 2007 15:24 pr0n wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2007 15:19 Servolisk wrote:
Speaking does matter to me. If it sounds like someone is just reading a carefully prepared speech and can't think on their feet, it makes me doubt how much sincere they are and how much they really know about what they are talking about. Um no. Not even close. It means THEY ARE NOT GOOD AT SPEAKING. NOTHING ELSE. It has NOTHING to do with sincerity. Have you ever heard of an actor? Ya, a good public speaker is good at seeming sincere in order to fool people. Politicians work on this A LOT. Again, nice to see someone asking for a ban just because I countered your point and disagree with you. If you can't argue by making thought-out, concrete points, don't try. You're just gonna end up asking for everyone else to be banned every time. You said you like Hussein because he sounds pretty. I'm sure every intelligent person will agree that that is one of the worst things to base your vote on.
Why do you keep referring to him by his middle name?
The reason I think Obama is sincere is because it would be difficult to talk the way he does and, as I mentioned, adapt/think on his feet, if he hadn't thought hard about it and believed it. For the most part.
I expect politicians to be able to speak well. They have no excuse not to. I'm not even concerned with things like pronunciation, proper English, and the things Bush is bad at. I'm talking about politicians who just come in with talking points, catch phrases, and constantly can't commit to anything/answer questions when they are in a conversation/debate because they are either too afraid to say something wrong or they haven't thought deeply enough about their subject matter.
|
On January 26 2007 15:33 Clutch3 wrote:
And of course by referring to Obama as "Hussein" you're revealing yourself as a mindless hack. Yeah, attack someone for caring how a candidate speaks, but go ahead and worry about middle names, because they're really what's important. Congrats, you're a dumbshit.
Actually it was a play on the fact that he presented the candidates using one's first name and the other's last name, making it sound funny because it wasn't parallel. Therefore I introduced the candidates using middle names (as well as to draw attention to the fact that he misspelled both of their names). I'm sorry if you didn't get the joke.
|
On January 26 2007 15:03 Servolisk wrote:damn, what's wrong with me edit: I also mispelled Obama's name! can a mod fix that? It's Barack. :O
And Hillary's...ask them to change the title.
|
On January 26 2007 15:35 Servolisk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2007 15:24 pr0n wrote:On January 26 2007 15:19 Servolisk wrote:
Speaking does matter to me. If it sounds like someone is just reading a carefully prepared speech and can't think on their feet, it makes me doubt how much sincere they are and how much they really know about what they are talking about. Um no. Not even close. It means THEY ARE NOT GOOD AT SPEAKING. NOTHING ELSE. It has NOTHING to do with sincerity. Have you ever heard of an actor? Ya, a good public speaker is good at seeming sincere in order to fool people. Politicians work on this A LOT. Again, nice to see someone asking for a ban just because I countered your point and disagree with you. If you can't argue by making thought-out, concrete points, don't try. You're just gonna end up asking for everyone else to be banned every time. You said you like Hussein because he sounds pretty. I'm sure every intelligent person will agree that that is one of the worst things to base your vote on. Why do you keep referring to him by his middle name? The reason I think Obama is sincere is because it would be difficult to talk the way he does and, as I mentioned, adapt/think on his feet, if he hadn't thought hard about it and believed it. For the most part. I expect politicians to be able to speak well. They have no excuse not to. I'm not even concerned with things like pronunciation, proper English, and the things Bush is bad at. I'm talking about politicians who just come in with talking points, catch phrases, and constantly can't commit to anything/answer questions when they are in a conversation/debate because they are either too afraid to say something wrong or they haven't thought deeply enough about their subject matter.
Some people (eg President Bush) will never be able to speak clearly and concisely on their feet, no matter how much they work on it and how intelligent they are. Others (pretty much any successful actor or politician) can speak smoothly, clearly, and sound like they not only know a lot about the topic, but they are very sincere about it, regardless of how intelligent or ignorant they are. The average American gets this confused with intelligence and competence, and usually votes on the prettiest speaker, when it is one of the LEAST important things if you think about what it takes to be in Congress/the White House/etc. Yes, communicating your ideas does have importance in foreign relations and speaking on the floor to get bills passed, but for the most part politicians are gonna stick to their platform and ideals regardless of how well other politicians present their arguments. As can be seen here, it doesn't matter how good one is at speaking or debate if the other side only cares about getting his way.
|
I was referring to Obama as Obama and Clinton as Hillary because that is the way they are most quickly identified, by most.
OK, now that we're beyond that, can someone offer any information about either of these candidates?
pr0n, you seem interested in this thread... What do you think of Obama? Since he is your senator I'd like to hear what you think.
|
In a recent study, 80% of black people said that they would vote for hilary over obama. You can also bet that somewhere around 80-85% of women will vote for hilary. Right now guliani(SP?) is ahead in polls where people were asked who they would vote for if the election were today. I dont think that obama is "known enough" to come anywhere near to becoming the president. sure hollywood loves the guy right now but i feel like hes just the flavor of the month. if anything i think hell become hilary's VP for the race.
|
Ignoring the horrible misspellings of both of your candidates, I feel it is still worthy to note that without knowing anything of either of their platforms I would vote for Obama, simply because he didn't marry Bill Clinton.
By the way, you can right click the underlined words and it will give suggestions.
Knowing something about their platforms, however, I would probably lean towards Hillary on every issue to come forth since Grand Theft Auto. That is probably because Obama has been relatively vague thus far in stating where he stands and makes his position not what isn't popular, that scares me.
None of this matters, though, because I won't have a vote in the Democratic primary in a year.
That, of course, doesn't rule out my voting for one of the two in November.
|
On January 26 2007 15:51 Servolisk wrote:
I was referring to Obama as Obama and Clinton as Hillary because that is the way they are most quickly identified, by most.
OK, now that we're beyond that, can someone offer any information about either of these candidates?
pr0n, you seem interested in this thread... What do you think of Obama? Since he is your senator I'd like to hear what you think.
I personally did not like him because of some of his views on drugs and race. I've seen quotes by him before he ran for senate indicating that he was very pro-drug, and not just marijuana. He said he thought drugs were a good escape for inner-city youth, and stuff like that. I tend to believe education for lower-class kids would be better than joining gangs, doing drugs, and ending up as poor as your parents. He also used to be very pro affirmative action, to the point where colleges can give points simply based on the color of your skin, etc, etc. If this country is ever going to have race not be an issue, we need to start by eliminating government mandated racism such as affirmative action. Giving breaks based on income, location, etc. are much better than race, because race by itself does not indicate anything about an individual or their (lack of) opportunities. Affirmative action is bad for society as a whole because it often gives the job/admission/etc to the worst qualified person, and they have the greatest chance of spoiling the opportunity. It also plays a huge role in creating subconscious racism within a populous. "If the government says you're better/worse because of the color of your skin, I guess it must be true..."
EDIT: I'm not sure of his current platform/"views" but people generally don't change that much in 2 years, and if they say they have, they probably aren't being honest (flip-flop for votes). You cannot trust someone that changes their views all the time, because you have no indicator of how they will actually vote/act once elected. It's better to vote for someone who agrees whole-heartedly with half the populous' ideals than someone who always changes his stance to claim he agrees with the majority.
I'm also not a registered Democrat, so I'll have no say in him vs Clinton, although I think either one of them well lose to a moderately conservative Republican candidate if they get the Democratic bid.
|
On January 26 2007 15:14 pr0n wrote:
Wow. Just wow. Voting on who "speaks well" or "sounds the most intelligent" is about the most idiotic thing you can do. You might as well vote on who runs the fastest 400, or who has the most letters in their name. Skill in public speaking does NOT relate to intelligence, competence, or any other skill useful for running a country....aside from public speaking. Least of all does it have any relation to platform or values, which are two things you might want to consider looking into.
I'm not saying anything about Hussein's platform. I'm probably much more informed about him than most after researching and voting in the Illinois senate race. Try voting on something important instead of throwing away your vote.
I am going to be polite. You are an idiot.
Speaking well is extremely important in politics. It is the basis of diplomacy.
|
guys, congrats, its a new record. it only took a whole FIVE posts for a flamewar!!!
back to topic, i hate hilary. ever since her little campaign against violent video games. fuck her. im pretty sure she was also for other forms of censureship as well, but i really havent been up on my presidential candidate shit. i dotn know much about obama. nor do i know much about any repubs.
all i know is the democrats had better put a half way fucking decent candidate this time (NOT KERRY). HOW THE FUCK DO YOU LOSE TO BUSH WHEN 70% OF THE COUNTRY HATED HIM? god. that was the most pitiful election ever. i refused to vote kerry on the prinicple that he had no platform other than im not bush. we spent a good 30 min talking about htis in class the other day, and most of the class agreed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
