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.

[desultude]

I share most of the reservations that others here have.

Would I vote for her? Oh Yeah.

Over a group of Republicans who don't believe in evolution, think "don't ask, don't tell" is left radical, and, if Chaney asked them, probably would eat their babies. The party of family values, with this group, seems to believe in, at very best, serial monogamy and trophy wives.

And then you fall below the Democratic A list, which is where I put Richardson, Edwards (with reservations) Obama and Clinton, you find a pretty shaky cast of characters. Kucinich has some good ideas, but is too idealistic to achieve much- and he sure isn't married to an electable future first lady. Richardson is my favorite, but I don't hold much hope for him in this election. I'll give this to the Democrats- their top four are a woman, a black, a Latino and one white man. The Republicans pale,so to speak, by comparison.

Yeah, as with every election I can remember, I will hold my nose and vote for the least repugnant or ineffectual candidate. Usually they lose, anyway, except for Gore and maybe Kerry.

[bonanzabucks]

I'm a registered Republican and I would vote for Hillary. I don't necessarily like her, but I respect her. I think she is smart and she does have policies and ideas, whether I agree with them or not. The others don't seem to represent anything. Not to mention, she represents NY and I live here, so it will be good for the city and state if she wins. Furthermore, as someone said above, she seems to have learned from her mistakes and failures. Has Bush?

The reason I'd vote for her over a Republican is basically the field of candidates. I'm a big Giuliani supporter, but he will not get the Republican nomination (if he did, I'd vote for him). I think Fred Thompson will and I don't like him at all. I don't understand why Republicans are calling him the "savior" of the party. What has this guy ever accomplished? I also find it troubling that he keeps delaying his announcement for running, which means he constantly avoids the debates. Why? Because he's bad at them? Too many questions about this guy, in my opinion. And I think it's time we have someone from another region run the country. I'm kinda tired of Southerners in charge (don't hate because I was born in SC!) and it's good to shake things up a bit.

Also, the Republican Party needs to clean itself up. Bush has really done the party a disservice and moved it away from its core values. What ever happened to fiscal prudence? That's what this party was all about in the past. I also don't like how the party has been hijacked by the religious right (it was never that bad before he came into power). Now, I consider myself somewhat religious and I go to church on occasion, but I firmly believe in the separation of church and state. Religion has no place in politics and running the country. The fact that Bush has incorporated religious doctrines into his policy is deeply disturbing to me. For example, there is no reason why stem cell research should be an issue. This is something that this country can lead the world in, but we've been going backwards in this because he puts limits on it for religious reasons. As well, I really hate how he has been abusing power with regards to Libby's sentencing (yes, I know Bill Clinton was bad with that too, especially with Marc Rich) and stalling investigations into Gonzalez. Gonzalez is incompetent and an obvious liar (the FBI director contradicted his testimony) and should be removed from his position right away, yet he remains. Why? In short, I don't like the way Bush has run his presidency and it smacks of cronyism. You can�t blame the Republican Party for his poor record, but they were with him for most things in the beginning. They�re scared sh1tless now because the people are tired of Bush and everything associated with him. That�s why they the party isn�t supporting him anymore because while they probably think they�ll lose the Presidency, they don�t want to lose more seats than they already have.

So, while I am not a huge fan of Hillary, considering the realities and who I think will get the Republican nomination, I would vote for her. Fred Thompson represents an extension of Bush to me. Giuliani won�t get the nomination. I don�t like Obama and really hate how he -- who hasn�t even finished his first term! -- already thinks he�s entitled to be President. These elections are at a very vital point in global history. Who we choose will really affect our standing in the world and what happens in the future. I don't want someone with inexperience, nor do I want someone incompetent. Love her or hate her, Hillary does have experience and she is not incompetent. The others? Save Giuliani, I don't trust the others in both parties.

[DCJames]

Vote for Hillary and you get 2 Clintons for the price of 1.

Great deal..

[Ya-ta Boy]

I would vote for her even though she isn't my first choice. I'm still holding out for my boy Al.

If elected, I think Hillary would triangulate positions like Bill did. Principles are all well and good, in some situations, but I don't see anything wrong with deliberately trying to rule from the middle.


Here is an article from today's Quad City Times that is of interest on current standings in Iowa, where the actual nominating process begins (next January):

Edwards, Romney take leads in television poll
Three presidential candidates are cheering the results of an Iowa poll from KCCI television in Des Moines.

Democrat John Edwards and Republican Mitt Romney each have solid leads, while Democrat Bill Richardson appears to be rising toward the top tier of candidates.

The other big gainer � Republican Fred Thompson � isn't even an official candidate yet.

Edwards leads Democrats with 27 percent, followed by Hillary Clinton with 22 percent, Barack Obama with 16 percent and Bill Richardson with 11 percent. No other Democrat got more than 3 percent. Since the previous KCCI poll in May, Edwards gained one point, Richardson gained four points and Clinton and Obama each lost six points.

"I'm moving up, and it seems like the other candidates are moving down a bit. � I'm not a rock star, and I don't have their money, but I'm outworking them," Richardson said about the poll.

Romney leads Republicans with 25 percent, followed by Fred Thompson with 14 percent, Rudy Giuliani with 13 percent, John McCain with 10 percent and Newt Gingrich with 6 percent. No other Republican got more than 2 percent. Since the previous KCCI poll, Romney gained nine points and Thompson gained five points, while McCain lost eight points and Giuliani lost four points.

"Gov. Romney has been doing well in the state because of his hard work campaigning at the grassroots level and his focus on the issues," Romney spokeswoman Sarah Pompei said.

McCain's drop coincides with a shakeup of his campaign staff and disappointing fundraising numbers.

Clinton and Obama, while their numbers declined, are still near the front of the pack. The campaigns told KCCI that they remain confident that they will do well on caucus night in January.

The poll, by Research 2000 for KCCI, was conducted July 23-25. The margin of error is plus or minus 4 points.

[Nowhere Man]

[mithridates]

My first choice would also be Richardson if I were American.