Super Tuesday 2 Prediction

Paul in Cannon Beach

Anyone think that Hillary is still in the race after Tuesday?

ray a

Nope. At least not seriously with a hope of winning. Maybe for spite.

Paul in Cannon Beach

Will you miss her, Ray?

ray a

Miss her? She's my senator, I'll get her back.

ACU Frank

I know how you feel. By the time our very own Herr Ashcroft left the Senate it was to move on to a much grander scale of fascism.

ray a

Speaking of which, I read an interesting book recently making a comparison between contemporary liberalism and fascism. Interesting stuff.

Paul in Cannon Beach

Frank, who are you supporting? Obama or Clinton?

ACU Frank

I voted for Hillary in the primary, but it was a coin flip. I'm fine with either one. I think Obama is ultimately more electable, and if anyone but McCain was headed for the GOP nomination, I wouldn't worry about it. I think McCain still has some appeal to the center, and he is the only GOP'er with a shot.

plynnl

Washington had both a caucus and a primary. Apparently the primary votes did not even count for the Democrats only the caucus votes. Strange way of doing things as the state actually sent ballots for a vote which wouldn't even count.

I agree with the assessment that Obama may be more electable between Obama and Clinton but McCain isn't too bad.

NaeNae55

On a slightly different political note, did anyone read John Phillips' blog this morning? He had links to several articles about the fact that Hillary is a woman and how many voters are putting their confidence in a younger man rather than an experienced woman (sound familiar to any of you females out there?). The Democratic Party, and most Americans, like to think we have overcome our prejudices, but it is clearly not true. Can you imagine if a younger woman with the same amount of experience as Obama ran against a man with the same amount of experience as Clinton and the only real difference is that the man voted for the war and the woman didn't? The woman would not be taken seriously.

I am a registered republican, but as a woman this entire situation makes me sick. The only positive thing I can say about it is that at least Obama is black. If a woman is beaten out because of her sex rather than her politics, it should at least be by someone from a minority. It takes some of the sting out of the situation.

Also, thinking of one of Phillips' blogs from last week, if Obama does win I would like to be there to see the faces of some of those monsters who seem devoted to keeping people of color down. The story of the guy walking around with a noose was bad enough, but the one about the nasty insensitive poem waiting for the woman upon her return from bereavement leave for losing a child made me sick. There were comments about monkeys, but I think those who made them need to look in the mirror to find out what an animal really looks like.

Just my 2 cents.

ACU Frank

Amen.

ray a

So, it is acceptable for women to support Hillary merely because she is a woman, but it is wrong to support a white male who may be more qualified? Something is wrong with that thinking. That is reverse discrimination. Just what is this experience that Hillary has? What qualifies her to be president? Apparently with some people she has the only qualification that counts.... gender.

NaeNae55

I am not making that claim. What I am saying is that it is common for experienced women to get to a place where they might make a difference and suddenly find that instead a young man is selected to fill the void, especially if he is considered good looking. When I look at these 2 I find their political stand is almost identical (the only real differnece being how they voted regarding the war in Congress). If that is so, and she was such a front leader a year ago, why is he now the front leader looking like he will take it all? It is because we (including women) still put our faith in men rather than women, especially if they are young and attractive. It is a terrible indictment on all of us.

cnghr

I hear you on that one, Nae. I see this happen in business so often. One of my (male) co-workers once said to me, in all seriousness, when I questioned the promotion of a young man over an older woman: "Who has more potential: a 50-year-old woman or a 25-year-old man?" The woman in question had 20 years of experience in the industry, the man had less than 2 years experience at the time. It's not just men, either, I hear women say all the time that they'd rather work for a man than a woman and generally make other statements that imply that they put much more faith in the male ability to lead. As a woman, I find this very sad.

Paul in Cannon Beach

Isnt it fair to say that if Hillary WASN"T a woman she would most likely not be in the position she is now running for president because she wouldn't have been married to Bill Clinton through whom she gained prominence?

Not to diminish her abilities but certainly you can't dispute that she is WHO she is because she was the first Lady for 8 years.

Is that sexist? It seems fairly sensible to me.

ray a

Nae, I made that statement based on this, [i]If a woman is beaten out because of her sex rather than her politics, it should at least be by someone from a minority.[/i] I do agree if a woman is truly more qualified than a man, regardless of his color, then she should be seriously considered. And if in the workplace, she ought to have the job. But, we are breaking new ground here with the president. There are a lot of prejudices to be overcome. There will be people not vote for Hillary just because of her gender. There will be people not vote for Obama because of his skin color. That is a given whether we like it or not. There has been very little in the news about people actually making those statements, but I have read several articles where people have been quoted they will vote for Hillary merely because she is a woman regardless of her positions and qualifications. These tend to be woman showing solidarity, but also includes some men who want to be perceived as liberal minded and gender-neutral.

It still comes down to just exactly what is Hillary's experience? She and Bill often said she was co-president in the 90s. Well, he strongly supported NAFTA, but now she is backpedaling saying she wasn't really that involved. Was she or wasn't she? Maybe that's not a question of experience, but a question of character. I don't know.

NeedCoffee

Update from Tejas:

I went to vote this morning at 7:10 - 10 minutes after the polls opened, and already the line was wrapped around the school. I stayed in my car, and I'm going to try and find some other time today to vote.

Last night I was flipping through the channels, and Fox Sports Network was broadcasting a live feed from Hillary's town hall meeting here in Austin. At one point, a 101 year old woman got up, and they asked her why she voted for Hillary. Her answer? "Because she's a woman."

This is scary to me. Regardless of your political affiliation, I don't think you should EVER vote for someone based solely on their race, sex, religion, age, etc.....in the HR world, we call that discrimination, and we know that judging people based on those sort of characteristics never ever ever does anyone a bit of good..

Please, vote based on your candidate's views of the issues at hand, and who represents the majority of YOUR interests and opinions.

I am in an age group that's being heavily targeted by all candidates, and I am frightened for what my generation is going to do to politics in the future - I constantly see people voting based on popularity or single issues, and not the whole package.. This election is pivotal for many reasons, and I think we all need to be invested in this political process.

ritaanz

I agree with Ray. Exactly what experience does she bring to the table? Just because she was married to Bill does not qualify as the experience we need in a president.

I found her actions, or should I say non-actions, during the Monica brouhaha deplorable. What can I expect from her if she gets into a sticky situation in the White House? Will she follow the instructions from the Democratic party as she did with the ruckus Bill created?

ray a

I just had an epiphany. Since I was recently bashed on this forum for the high crime of being an obnoxious NY'er, and since Hillary is officially a brash, obnoxious NY'er, I hereby vow to vote for her in solidarity for NY'ers. We aren't called the Empire State for no reason.

ray a

I was reading some quotes from leading Texas newspapers who are endorsing Obama. Here is one quote that kind of sums it up. All noted that Hillary and Obama's views are similar so it comes down to how they each will lead.

[b]Austin American-Statesman[/b]

[i]Look closely at the two Democratic front-runners for president and you will see similarities in how they address challenging problems confronting the country.

Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois both talk about strengthening the middle class, expanding economic growth and lifting sagging wages. Both offer solutions for the crisis in our health care system and global warming and support ending the war in Iraq. So the key differences between the candidates are in their leadership styles and visions for the country.

Obama presents a view of governing that is inclusive and relies on Americans to work with their government to solve sobering problems at home and abroad. Obama’s familiar refrain on the campaign trail is, “Yes, we can.”

By contrast, Clinton promotes a self-centered governing style that drives home what she would do as president. She asks little of Americans and discourages opposing views. Clinton has moved from her position as first lady that it “takes a village” to solve problems to it takes only Hillary (and maybe Bill).[/i]

Paul in Cannon Beach

My prediction:

Clinton wins Ohio and Obama wins Texas. Clinton stays in the race much to the delight of John Mccain.

ACU Frank

NeedCoffee sez: "I am in an age group that's being heavily targeted by all candidates, and I am frightened for what my generation is going to do to politics in the future - I constantly see people voting based on popularity or single issues, and not the whole package.. This election is pivotal for many reasons, and I think we all need to be invested in this political process. "



Seriously, though... This is NOT new. Voters have been picking candidates based on single issues - or worse, NON-issues - for decades. Many historians would argue that it was even more prevalent 150 years ago. I would go so far as to say younger voters today are MORE likely to be aware of a politician's stance on a wider range of issues than their parents are.

I find it even more frightening that so many people will use Hillary's handling of her marriage as an excuse to vote for someone else. Many of those same people would have no problem punching a ticket for Rudy.

Ask yourself why.

ray a

Actually Frank, I agree with that. It wasn't until the late 60s that the younger generations bacame very politically active in presidential campaigns and really took off with McCarthy.

Interestingly, up through at least Lincoln, candidates did not actively campaign on their own. They remained aloof and above the fray portraying a presidential posture and not wanting to appear eager but willing to accept the call of the people. They saw it more as a calling rather than something to be sought after. Behind the scenes they were very active, but the public didn't see that. They sent their "people" out to all the dirty work of campaigning. Maybe there is something to be said for that mentality.

NaeNae55

I have never liked Hillary, so I am a little reluctant to step in and defend her. She does, however, have more experience than Obama (whether that is good thing or not depends on your view). She has been in the political scene, even if she wasn't running for or serving in office for nearly 40 years. She is the only first lady who was acrtively involved in her husband's term by spending time in committees and running interference for her husband rather than giving teas (again, whether that is good or not depends on your view). She was elected to Congress before Obama and has spent a lot more time in Washington and has built more political relationships than him. That is where the experience comes in.

Frankly, I don't like either of them. I can't even understand why anyone would say he is handsome. He looks dorky to me. However, all I hear him say is that he wants to make changes without telling us how and where. I've heard that line before and was even suckered in once (when I was very, very young..lol). It doesn't work if you don't have the relationships and can get everyone on board. To be perfectly honest, I don't feel that anyone running would make a good president.

Though I am disturbed by the number of people saying they will vote BECAUSE of her sex or his color, I am more disturbed by the number of people who do so while stating it is some other reason. To me that is the very worst part of discrimination. The large change from her as front runner to him has left me certain that it is more due to sex, and perhaps even age, rather than abilities. We like him if he shows a feminine side. We hate her if she comes across as too masculine. She is 'hard and cold;' he is 'warm and refreshing.' I think it is a combination of sex and age discrimination.

In answer to your earlier post, I am sorry that I was not clearer. I do not think anyone should vote for her because she is a woman. I just don't think that ANYONE should vote against her or for someone else, because of sex. When I said at least he is a minority, I was saying that though watching this happen is painful to me as a woman, it is less hurtful that at least the one being chosen instead is a minority and not a white male. That shows some progress away from discrimination, even if it still leaves women behind. The saying, 'We've come a long way baby,' still comes up short, for clearly we haven't come far enough.

ray a

As you can see, Nae, I love to debate politics and can't resist responding often. I've had an ongoing argument with a liberal friend who had told me she really doesn't like Hillary and preferred Edwards, but then as soon as I started "bashing" Hillary, she felt obligated to defend her. That is one thing I don't get. Of course some of us were in that position with Bush but have since given up. (Does Bush really have any relevance now?)

You made some points above that really reflect the feelings of many voters, including me. Obama has been accused of being lean on his specifics, but is that because he doesn't want to give away his hand to Hillary or because he doesn't have any? I don't know. I do know that I have big concerns about his philosophy of governance regardless of his experience. What type of jurists will he nominate to the Supreme Court? That can be critical. Will he immediately pull out of Iraq and leave a big hole?

McCain. 100 years from now he'll still have us in Iraq???? Got problems with that.

But, I don't think you can say women have been left behind if Hillary loses. Just the fact she is such a strong player and has been the front runner shows we have come very far and that her contender is black is even more telling of our progress. Of course, the real proof is getting over the hump.

BTW, when it comes to discrimination, I find it appalling to have read many times and even comments on this forum, that Huckabee is not qualified to be president because afterall, he was a Baptist minister, as if he were a lesser human being. Carter was demeaned when he was running and while in office because he was a Baptist, now Huck has faced some of the same discriminatory attitudes.

allsteaks

I believe if it was the right person, who understood the challenges, had developed a meaningful and understandable plan, and communicated effectively that plan, it wouldn't matter if they were a woman or a minority or an independent. Our country is looking for leadership and if it isn't apparent with the current candidates, then people begin looking for the next best thing, which is open to interpretation. Charisma, good looks, nice hair, attractive spouse, etc.; who knows what might prompt or upset the fickle voters. Politics has either driven out or prevented the best potential leaders from seeking higher office. As long as our candidates don't provide the assurance we need that our country will move in the right direction, we will all continue to struggle with our presidential choice. That cuts across party lines, gender and class issues, etc. No leadership, no confidence.

Paul in Cannon Beach

I have settled on Mccain personally. He is prolife, realistic about the ongoing war on terror, and he has enough of a maverick personality that I honestly believe he will do what he thinks is best for the country rather than just follow party lines.

I wish he was a better speaker and 15 years younger.

NeedCoffee

I wish I could pick my president a la carte...I really do like certain things about all 3 candidates. But, as a whole I cannot say that I strongly support one over the other, as I also strongly dislike certain things about all 3 candidates. There's not one that epitomizes my views on who our president should be.

At least it provides good fodder for conversation, right?

NaeNae55

For those of you who don't think voters tend to judge on appearance rather than platforms:

(Regarding the first televised presidential debate)
Kennedy had spent a tremendous amount time preparing for this event. The recent success of his answers on religion proved that television had immense potential for his success. In addition, a strong showing against the favored Nixon would establish credibility on the issues and further boost public confidence in his leadership ability. The Vice-President also came prepared, but when the debate began, the outcome, was not decided as much by substance as by appearance.
JFK was able to put Nixon on the defensive with his unexpected grasp of the facts, but Nixon held his own in responding to the Kennedy criticisms. The major story of the debate became the photogenic appeal of the attractive Kennedy versus the sickly look of the worn down Nixon. Several factors contributed to the poor image of Nixon. His poor health leading up to the debate had resulted in a drastic weight loss. A freshly painted backdrop had dried in a lighter shade of gray that blended in with the color of his suit. During cutaways, the cameras caught Nixon wiping perspiration from his forehead while Kennedy was taking him to task on the issues. As for Kennedy, he excelled in front of the camera. When the debate ended, a large majority of television viewers recognized Kennedy as the winner. To contrary, most radio listeners thought that Nixon had done as well as, if not better than Kennedy had. The results of the following debates were closer in outcome, but the viewing audience was not as large. In the end, Kennedy had used the television medium to his advantage and further established his media advantage.

for the entire article:

[url]http://www.kennesaw.edu/pols/3380/pres/1960.html[/url]

Paul in Cannon Beach

I doubt Abraham Lincoln could get elected today.

ACU Frank

I'll throw gas on this fire by stating that I have no problem with someone saying they will vote for Hillary because she's a woman.

We all have to decide what it is about a candidate that determines whether they are the best to represent the views that are important to us. To a lot of women, especially those who feel their opinions have been disregarded in our country's governance for centuries, Hillary's gender may be extremely relevant. There are "big issues" on which we all look at candidates' positions - the economy, foreign policy, etc. But I have no problem with anyone - be they female or black (or both) - who looks at all the issues and says "I just want a leader who understands what it's like to be me."

In the end, that could mean more to more people than whether a candidate supports tax breaks for the Fortune 500.