Log in

View Full Version : Clinton versus Obama

2008-01-21, 10:14
I don't know how it came to be that Hillary Clinton became a Senator for New York. Prior to being in the White House the Clintons were from Arkansas. She was elected a second term as a Senator for New York in 2006. While campaigning for the 2006 election she claimed that she had no presidential aspirations and was only interested in being the Senator from New York.

A lot has changed in one year. Now we have Hillary running for President; and Bill, her legal husband, having fits (http://www.newsweek.com/id/96385) of rage, charm, and arm twisting to make sure that she succeeds. The two of them are a good team, and their relationship or marriage with each other is mutually beneficial on a professional level.

Historically it's not unusual to have political family dynasties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._political_families). Besides the Clintons there were: the Roosevelts, the Kennedys, and the Bushes. Family dynasties are a type of back-door monarchy supported in a democracy where monarchies are not recognized legally. Americans think of themselves as not having recognized monarchies since 1776-07-04. Yet the fascination of the public with celebrity, wealth, and name has helped support the continuation of the dynasties.

If Hillary Clinton were to become President in 2009, it would amount to at least 24 years of the Bush-Clinton dynasties spanning from 1989 to 2013. That is not a reason by itself not to support Hillary, but rather is amazing to consider how in a modern era where everything else has changed rapidly, how little would have changed in presidential leadership.

The public is wary of giving a new candidate the vote of confidence without certain credentials being in place; especially for high and powerful positions. One of those credentials can come from the family name or connections. Other credentials for the public can be: military service, other forms of public office or service, community activism, outstanding performance, or business credentials. Some credentials are considered to be more valuable or prestigious than others. U.S. Senators have more prestige than U.S. Representatives do because their terms are six years rather than two, and they represent an entire State rather than a singular Congressional district.

But sometimes there is such a thing as being too qualified or experienced when the experienced candidate is viewed as being a Washington insider who represents the status quo. In that case the less experienced candidate could have the advantage of personality and likability, and of representing change. Most people find Obama more likable and more believable than Clinton. Hillary is seen as calculating and dishonest.

Regarding experience, it is actually Hillary who has less experience (http://www.slate.com/id/2182073/) as an elected official than Obama does. She has seven years as a U. S. Senator; and Obama has a total of eleven years; eight years in the Illinois Senate and three years in the U. S. Senate.

Some time after Bush was reelected in 2004, some of us started thinking about the election in 2008 and actually realizing that there was light at the end of the tunnel, and that His Craptacularness would not be the president forever. And whatever person we thought of, it was such a joy to imagine that person being the President instead of Bush. That is because anybody other than Bush would be an improvement and we knew that things could only get better in 2009 with a new president.

Early on before I even knew anything about Obama, there had been speculation about Hillary running for president. That was because of the unexplained anomaly in 2000 of her being from Arkansas but choosing to be a Senator for New York, and speculation that a larger plan of hers was in place to seek the presidency and to use the Senate position as a stepping stone. During those early times of speculation, imagining Hillary as president, or anyone other than Bush, was a pleasant thought that I supported. Later on in 2007 when the presidential campaign season started, and Bush's days became fewer numbered, I was given more choices. And so when given choices and exposure to the candidates who were running, I became more picky and decided that I really wanted Obama to be president a lot more than I wanted Hillary. If the choice were instead Hillary versus Lieberman in the Democrat primary, I would probably be supportive of Hillary, out of contrast with Lieberman. But I would not be enthusiastic about her candidacy the way I am about Obama's.

I am not registered in any political party and I have no voting ability to influence the outcome of the Democrat primary. I can only vote my support in the general election in November 2008. In the primary season the Democrats ought to remember that the ultimate goal is to select a candidate who can win in the general election in November and not just appeal to the smaller world of Democrats in the primaries. Obama's support crosses party lines to non-Democrats, or other lines which can be drawn throughout America. Obama will be more electable in the general election because his appeal and political views are broader and less alienating than are those of Hillary's.


It was almost three weeks ago that Obama came in first place in the Iowa caucus. After Iowa, people were speculating as to whether Hillary should stay in the race if she were to finish anywhere besides first place in the New Hampshire primary as well. Yet considering that they were only the first two states of many, that would be too early for anyone to drop out of the race. Afterwards there was the caucus January 19 in Nevada, and there will be an upcoming primary January 26 in South Carolina. Then on February 5, 22 states vote. After that point it would be reasonable for a candidate to drop out, but only if the results are really dismal for the candidate. Let us not forget that it really isn't over until June 3, when Montana and South Dakota hold their primaries.

The polls were wrong in their projection of Obama to come first place in the January 8 New Hampshire primary. It is heartening to see that pollsters and pundits can't know everything in advance, and that the people disregard such things when voting.

Regarding the choice of words as to whether a candidate wins or loses, those words seem inappropriate when the margins are close. In New Hampshire Obama had 36% of the vote as compared to 39% for Hillary. It's unlikely to expect that a candidate could come in first place in every state's contest, and if that were to happen the contest would be boring and uncompetitive.

In the January 19 Nevada caucus Obama had 45% of the popular vote as compared to 51% for Clinton. But Obama actually got 13 delegates while Clinton got 12, because his victory was more widespread geographically, demonstrating his strength to win in a general election. Obama has more appeal to independents and Republicans. And Obama has the power to create a large voter turnout because the people who vote for him are enthusiastic about him, and don't regard him merely as a lesser-of-two-evils candidate. Those people will go the extra effort to show up and vote for him on election day in November 2008. Normally there are many people who don't bother to vote or to register even when they are eligible to do so.

In 2000 Democrats felt in their hearts that Bill Bradley was the best candidate, but instead they followed the guidance of the pundits by choosing Al Gore. That failed. In 2004 Democrats felt in their hearts that Howard Dean was the best candidate, but instead they followed the guidance of the pundits by choosing John Kerry (http://www.3-3-3.org/forum/showthread.php?t=276). That failed. I'm hoping that this time around in 2008, that the Democrats don't a similar mistake and choose Hillary over Obama to be the presidential candidate.


I've heard some doubt that America would vote for a Black president. Since Obama is biracial, it would be just as inaccurate to say that he is the first Black president as it would be to say that he is the forty-fourth White president. The term "African-American" that is used to describe all people who are brown-skinned, applies well to Obama because his father is African and his mother is American. I don't like "Black" and "White" as racial descriptions and prefer "brown-skinned" or "beige-skinned".

The racial factor will work both ways as it will cause Obama to lose some support as well as gain some support. Pundits can try to easily write off entire populations and take them for granted. For example; it's been said that Obama will get the brown-skinned vote or Hillary will get the female vote. But people vote as individuals rather than as a voting bloc. Otherwise they become predictable, marginalized, and taken for granted. And no one has the endorsement authority to speak for any community to say which way that person's community will vote.


Since Hillary has been in the White House she has had many people who dislike her. Some of the hatred towards her has been because she is a strong outspoken woman. I myself thought that was the biggest reason for people disliking her when she was in the White House as First Lady. This is what Hillary said regarding her unpopularity in an interview (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/etc/03261992.html) with Ted Koppel 1992-03-26:
"I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession which I entered before my husband was in public life."

When people feel the attacks on a candidate are unfair or inappropriate, they are more inclined to support the candidate out of sympathy. Attacks on Hillary which are perceived to be motivated by misogyny will backfire and actually increase the support for her. That will be the case even when the Obama camp is not the originator of such attacks.

That being said, to accuse Hillary's critics as all being misogynists would be similar to accusing all of Obama's critics as being racists. In some cases it is true and other cases it's not. But it doesn't matter what the motivation is, and one could spend a long time wondering what the motivations of one's critics are. Instead only the substance of the criticisms needs to be addressed.

2008-01-22, 01:14
But she still is a bITCH.

No body that wants it that bad should ever get it.

2008-01-27, 08:00
Why is everyone so anti-Hillary?! I don't really hear much about the Republican campaign, the entire campaign thus far is a Hillary vs Obama tango in the primaries.

2008-01-27, 16:25
The Republican field has been more in fluctuation; with McCain, Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee, and then McCain again; alternating as apparent front runners.

I think that if Democrat Clinton runs against Republican McCain in November it is McCain who will win because he appeals to independents and is considered to be a credible, principled person.

Only Obama can beat McCain in the general election in November. See this opinion piece:
Frank Rich - The Billary Road to Republican Victory (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/27rich.html) 2008-01-27

2008-01-28, 07:38
I did not know that one does not have to be registered to a political party in order to be able to vote in the general elections. I don't know why I was under the impression all this time that registering was compulsory if one wanted to vote in the general election. Now I realise the absurdity of registering for general elections... why hold elections at all in that case?! Duh.

I was wondering what your reasons were for preffering Obama over Hillary?

I'm not too certain that the Bill and Hillary team (or as the opinion piece you supplied a link to, refers to them as 'Billary') is as beneficial as assumed. I believe undoubtably that being a Clinton team has benefits for Hillary's campaign, but I also get the impression that their collaboration works against Hillary's campaign in the primary elections. I have personally always liked Bill Clinton, and I have a certain respect for Hillary, but as a team I find them to be... i believe the political term is... creepy. Plus Obama has Oprah (a champion for the 'brown-skinned' people)... and Oprah kicks Bills arse anyday!

I read somewhere that men are more likely to vote for a male candidate and women are more likely to vote for a male candidate... but I also believe that 'brown-skinned' people are more likely to vote for a 'brown-skinned' candidate, but I do not believe that women are more likely to vote for a woman. I think race and class divisions have a bigger place in this election than it is being circulated. Sure Obama is biracial but, many people will see only that he is 'brown-skinned' and different from the JFK sun tan and the Bill Clinton professional powder-bronze look he sported during his interesting years in the White House. Obama is black. That alone gives rise to a new energy of excitement and enthusiasm for a minority in America that have felt underrepressented and discriminated against for decades. I have no doubts that Obama will receive a share of votes from voters who want to see the White House turn a shade of grey, representing a new era in American politics and giving rise to a Hero of Martin Luther status. I feel the same way about a woman possibly being the American president, and it excites me. It's not logical, it's not purely based on campaigns or policy proposals... there's just that fraction of excitement about Hillary being a woman. Not all voters are political animals, but all voters have slight illogical emotive tendancies... politics is more than politics.

2008-01-28, 10:56
Here is why I think Obama would be a better leader than Hillary:

Obama cares about those who have no voice and no power. He would be the type of leader who would have compassion for the plight of the Palestinians, for people who are locked in jail, for perceived enemies of America, and so on. Hillary only cares about people if they can vote for her or help her out in some way. Hillary cares about those who have power and who don't need her help. Obama helps the powerless and defenseless; the ones who really need help.

Hillary is more likely to do what is popular or what is for the advancement of herself; Obama is more likely to take an unpopular stand, as a leader must do sometimes, and do what is for the greater good.

Hillary believes that the greatness of the American people comes from leaders such as herself; Obama believes that the greatness of the American people can be represented by leaders such as himself.

Hillary likes to have enemies and views things in a polarized "us and them". For domestic politics that means Hillary would be partisan and alienate Republicans and independents. Regarding foreign policy, she alienates the perceived enemies of America. Her view of the World is similar to Bush, in that she would refuse to sit down and negotiate with adversaries or those who oppose her.

Hillary likes war. She will drag out the war in Iraq, and shift over and invade Iran as well. The U. S. will have even more enemies if she is the president.

2008-01-29, 09:49
At this stage we can only assume that Obama will be all of these things when in presidency. I'm interested to see, if elected President, how his relationship with Congress develops. But the points you have described and contrasted do sound like attractive reasons to support one candidate over the other. They do however appear to presume that the state of matters remain static, making Obama's executive decisions somewhat predictable. When people voted for Bush jnr in his first term of Presidency, nobody was voting for a long drawn out war in Iraq.

I get the impression that you are more voting against policies than you are voting for policies. For example, a vote for Obama is a vote against the invasion of Iran.

Bush has made decisions against popular opinion, supposedly for the greater good, and while they have been defining decisions of his Presidency, that is not to say they are so for positive reasons. You seem to trust Obama's understanding of what the 'common good' is, but for any Executive, even that is relative to the state of affairs at the time, which are not predictable. However, I do realise that when voting, one can only really vote for the candidates proposals during the long election campaign, and not for unpredictable reactionary and preventative decisions that may or may not be made in the future term of Presidency.

2008-03-06, 10:32
The contest continues. On March 4, four states had elections. Measured in delegates, Billary won Ohio and Rhode Island, while Obama won Texas and Vermont.

Let me just warn all Obama supporters who are impatiently waiting for Hillary to drop out, that they ought to just relax and enjoy the contests in the remaining states. They should not get their expectations too high and then have them disappointed. And if Hillary were to have dropped out by now, it would be discounting the upcoming participation of Wyoming, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Guam, Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, Montana, South Dakota, Puerto Rico. The last-but-not-least participation of those places should be encouraged and welcomed. By the same reasoning that the January contests of Michigan and Florida should be nullified for their greediness and their breaking of party rules, those participants of the upcoming contests who have been patient enough to follow the rules and wait their turn, should be rewarded for doing so.

The impatience of Obama supporters who had wanted Hillary to drop out after March 4 also appears as a weakness, which contributes to the Billary fairy tale of Obama being untested or weak, and not having the fortitude for a general election campaign. At the very least one would hope that Obama supporters have as much backbone in them in their support of golden Obama, as does president Bush in his support of "staying the course" in craptacular Iraq. The impatience also contributed to Obama spending heavily in Texas and Ohio, because he got suckered into Billary's rope-a-dope by thinking he would be able to finish her off in those contests. Bill had said that Ohio and Texas were essential to Hillary winning, so Obama tried especially hard to knock her out in those states. Such heavy spending also backfires because it creates the appearance that Obama thinks he can buy the election.

In this race it has been like the tortoise and the hare, with Hillary being the one who occasionally wins some bigger states in her sprints, and Obama winning slowly but surely.

I also think it is arrogant for anyone to demand that someone drop out of a presidential race, and such demands will backfire. The demands will contribute to the paranoia that there is a misogynist glass ceiling. If people want to participate in politics and run for president, no matter what their odds or persuasion are, that should be encouraged.

Hillary must not quit the race. God willing, she will continue on her quest for the presidency until she drops dead.

Finally, another reason for Obama supporters to encourage Hillary not to drop out, is that this is a chance for Hillary to be tested, scrutinized, and challenged in ways that running for Senator from New York didn't do. Americans will see more of the Clinton fairy tales, when they break their pledge to release their tax returns and the public records from the Arkansas presidential library. What kinds of skeletons are in their closet that has made them reluctant to release such information? Don't ask, don't tell.

The Clintons are closed in their dealings and affairs, much like the Bush administration is. That is indicative of how they will conduct the operations of government and their administration, should she become elected. So much for Hillary being a more tested and scrutinized candidate than Obama is.

2008-05-10, 17:06
Looks like Clinton vs Obama is no more. Obama has moved on to McCain.


2008-06-03, 11:23
Hillary has made references in her campaign about breaking the glass ceiling. She has made appeals to those who support having a female president. She has also tried to appeal to light-skinned people by suggesting that Obama could not win over their votes against McCain in the November election.

The elephant in the living room regarding Hillary is her legal husband Bill Clinton, and the involvement he has in her life and her campaign. People see his influence as positive, but I see it as something which drags her down. And seeing that so many females are supporting Hillary's candidacy as a way of empowering women, I think that ignoring Bill is a big mistake.

There is a good article in the July 2008 Vanity Fair issue by Todd S. Purdum:
The Comeback Id (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/07/clinton200807)

Some months ago, MSNBC pundit David Shuster was criticized for pointing out how the Clinton campaign has pimped out daughter Chelsea for its cause. The truth of the matter is that Bill has pimped out both his legal wife Hillary and his biological daughter Chelsea in order to get his foot back into the White House. He is the real driving force behind Hillary's campaign.

I feel that the inability of Hillary to quit is being driven by the power hungry rage of Bill. By continuing to support her candidacy, her supporters are in fact contributing to Hillary's abuse and domination at the hands of Bill. Convincing Hillary to quit would help save her from her husband.

It would be no more of an advancement for women to have Hillary as president than it was for Hispanics or Latinos to have the disgraced Alberto Gonzalez as Attorney General. Instead what we can expect to see with a Hillary presidency, is an embarassment for women, with Big Dog Bill overshadowing her.

If Hillary wants to clean up her act she ought to divorce Bill, send him to the dog house rather than to the White House, and change her name to Hillary Rodham. For that I would salute her and say, YOU GO GIRL.

The interests of women would be better served with Michelle Obama as First Lady than with Hillary Clinton as president.

2008-06-07, 00:00
The Clintons have been big supporters of Blacks and had their support...against Republicans. Now that there's a choice between a Clinton and Obama, Blacks are going for the "brotha". Like Homeboys From Outer Space had higher ratings in Black households than Seinfeld. Blacks seem to stick to their own. Whites should realized that. :oompa:

2008-06-08, 15:29
The Clintons have been big supporters of Blacks and had their support...and they have had the luxury of being on the receiving end of support from the Black community for eight years. Hillary leveraged Bill's popularity to obtain her Senate seat. Perhaps her comment discounting the important role Dr. Martin Luther King played in forcing Johnson and congress to finally pass the Civil Righs Act of 1964 swayed Black voters over to Barak Obama. The bill had been introduced by John F. Kennedy during his civil rights speech in June 1963. Hilary said that regardless of what MLK did, the bill would not have existed without the powerful pen of LBJ. Really?

It's is very narrow minded of you to compare the Democratic Presidential contest to the Nielsen research from two sub-par television programs. (Interesting how racial stereotypes will always be the fallback.) I'm sure that if Barak Obama is elected any missteps will eventually be attributed to his race.

2009-08-17, 16:38
. . .Blacks are going for the "brotha".

And other intelligent voters. As I said several months ago, Obama will be blamed for everything. Yes, this "brotha" is expected to clean up the mess of G.W. Bush in eight months with a wave of the hand.

Yes, LOVE the United States of Amnesia.