Korean Job Discussion Forums

[bucheon bum]

Hillary Clinton is leading the polls amongst Democrat candidates. That being said, I have yet to meet a person that supports her, and I live in one of the most liberal areas of the United States (San Francisco Bay Area).

I'm wondering who on this board would vote for Hillary. Obviously some of you wouldn't vote for her over some other Democrat but would pick her any day over most (if not all) GOP candidates.

Personally, I would really be hard pressed to vote for her. I can't think of any scenerio where I would vote for her. Perhaps if Fred Thompson were to become a candidate and win the GOP nomination. Beyond that? Eh, highly unlkely.

So for those who would vote for her, please tell me why you would do so.

[Nowhere Man]

Would you vote for Bill Clinton if he could run again?

She's not my dream candidate, but, to answer your question, yes.

I'd generally say I was satisfied with Clinton's stint as president, and I don't think she would be markedly different. A return to budget balancing and the possibility (albeit remote) that we might get socialized healthcare would be 2 things that appeal to me.

The things I resent most about her are her vote for the war and her support for making flag-burning illegal. However, I don't think any of the properly anti-war candidates have the support to get the nomination. And, it's not like I burn a lot of flags myself. I don't suppose she's much good for campaign finance reform, either.

Her strength as a candidate lies in it being virtually impossible to dredge up anything from her past. It's pretty much all out already. A scandal-free presidency would be a bit of a novelty nowadays.

What is it that you dislike about her?

[Kuros]

Absolutely. In fact, I probably will vote for Hillary given Richardson's unlikelihood of earning the nomination.

Hillary has won every Democratic debate on substance and even on posture and decorum. She has the most experience of all the candidates, and is the only candidate with any remote executive experience.

Am I supposed to think that Obama is not going to stumble about on the international stage his first few years in office like Kennedy or Bill Clinton did? Am I even flattering Obama by not considering that the better comparison might be Carter? On the other hand, while Obama might have the rhetorical flair and audacity of hope of a young Kennedy, it is not clear to me that he has the keen economic eye that Bill Clinton had.

As for Edwards, I fear the man. He is an economic populist who does not understand anything about the global economy. Unless he betrays his campaign promises, it looks like he would back the very worst forms of protectionism and stagnate our economy with higher tax rates. As a one-term Senator he embodies all the risks I have about Obama, except I would back Obama versus any Republican candidate, whereas I truly feel as Edwards is as at least honest a man as Obama, and I would have to reject his platform.

Shockingly, there is not a single governor candidate on the national stage right now. There are no Democratic candidates from the South, nor are there any Republican candidates from California or Texas. Instead, we have something unique. Clinton is a pseudo-incumbant, and the only person more electable on the political stage than her right now would be Al Gore. Clinton, despite many opinions to the contrary, is not a dynastic candidate. George W Bush was a dynastic candidate, he was the spoiled and priviliged son of an American hero and President, and he perfectly embodies the historical pattern of a man who has not needed virtue to advance to his position.

Senator Clinton, however, has made a few mistakes in her career, most notably her drive for health care. She has had to overcome these mistakes and grow from them. Clinton has developed character in a way that G.W. never really has, and it shows when she comes out and debates her fellow candidates. We have ample evidence of Clinton's maturity not only in her current positions, but also in her past mistakes. America should not look upon her previous defeats as premonitions of future inadequacies. Rather, America would be well-advised to look at her past failures as trials which she has overcome, and hurdles that her fellow candidates have yet to stumble over. Not only has she accomplished more than her fellow candidates, but Senator Clinton is much more well-advanced on the learning curve.

[bucheon bum]

[Tiger Beer]

I don't like Hiliary.

I find her to be deeply entrenched in Democratic Party propoganda, completely incapable of separating herself from what she perceives the party wants her to say and speak. The ideal party puppet, and we can sit back and watch others pull the strings.

I'd rather give her a shot than any of the Republicans who seem to love the fiscally disasterous Bush plan for the United States.

[Atavistic]

I will vote for any democrat who doesn't eat babies.

Which, luckily, seems to be all of them.

So far.

[Alyallen]

I'd vote for Hillary.

She couldn't be any worse than this guy


Or could she?

[stevemcgarrett]

Nowhere Man wrote:

[thepeel]

Too true, SM. But how is she in comparison to the Repubs? Less Ron Paul, I think I'd rather have her around.