Is Hillary Done?

[billvon 2,990]

>Personally, I don't see any substance behind Obama's (admirable) charisma.

Have you read his books?

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

So now she has won West Virginia.

The Dem party now is seemingly imploding still.

Far be it from me to suggest that the Democratic party can't throw away this election but it seems to me that despite the nit picking that people are focusing on that the party as whole is doing pretty well. The battle for the nomination is between two strong candidates, both of which stand a very good chance of winning in November. Voter registration, and this is for the primaries, is at an all time high. I think I read something about 3.5 million newly registered voters this season so far.

As a contrast, their main opponent is best described as a continuation of the current administration even though both sides are calling for "change". He doesn't have much support of the party's base, I think I heard Hannity say yesterday that "conservatives" will probably disagree with 40% of McCain's positions. Basically the Republican party is settling for whatever they can get. You've even got what you would call an actual Republican party member masquerading as a Libertarian in pursuit of the Presidency. And to top that off, decades old Republican seats are being lost consistently in special elections.

Now I really don't know if there's going to be a fracture in the Democratic party after Hillary bows out. I suppose it's possible but I think that most Dem voters will rally behind the party nominee. There's certainly some fracturing going on in the Republican camp.

Admittedly, I think that the two party system is counterproductive and I'd like to see it abolished. Maybe all of this is a prelude to some sort of distinct shift. It will be interesting to see how it pans out.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

>Personally, I don't see any substance behind Obama's (admirable) charisma.

Have you read his books?

No, I haven't. I would if they were available for free download, but I'm not going to spend money just to find out what a candidate thinks. I don't have much respect for a candidate who won't make the substance behind his campaign rhetoric freely available.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

I don't have much respect for a candidate who won't make the substance behind his campaign rhetoric freely available.

But then if he did, people would call him a socialist

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Personally, I don't see any substance behind Obama's (admirable) charisma. That doesn't mean there's none there, but it seems that it's not readily and freely available.

His website has plenty. Here's his primer on health care reform.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/#coverage-for-all

Let's compare that to Clinton's - http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/healthcare/summary.aspx Clinton offers more details to hers in links.

Both are plans with which I disagree. But I describe neither as free of substance. Like it or not, there is enough there for people to decide whether they like them or not.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,990]

>I would if they were available for free download, but I'm not going to
>spend money just to find out what a candidate thinks.

So you wouldn't buy a newspaper to read about a candidate? That seems to be a not-insignificant effort to remain ignorant of his views.

Of course, for a more superficial list of his views, check out his website. It has a fairly comprehensive list of his plans, without the sort of detail his book goes into. For example, from his website his energy/environmental plan includes:

* Reduce Carbon Emissions 80 Percent by 2050
* Invest in a Clean Energy Future
* Support Next Generation Biofuels
* Set America on Path to Oil Independence
* Improve Energy Efficiency 50 Percent by 2030
* Restore U.S. Leadership on Climate Change


It is an interesting angle, though. "There's no way I am voting for John McCain because he supported the Viet Cong during his time in Viet Nam, or stayed with them or something. I'm not sure of that, but there's no way I'm going to take the time to figure out what happened. And with all those questions floating around about him - who wants to vote for someone who has so many unresolved issues?"

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

So you wouldn't buy a newspaper to read about a candidate? That seems to be a not-insignificant effort to remain ignorant of his views.

Probably not, especially since I have access to several newspapers at no charge, and significant stories are typically available online.

Quote

Of course, for a more superficial list of his views, check out his website. It has a fairly comprehensive list of his plans, without the sort of detail his book goes into. For example, from his website his energy/environmental plan includes:

* Reduce Carbon Emissions 80 Percent by 2050
* Invest in a Clean Energy Future
* Support Next Generation Biofuels
* Set America on Path to Oil Independence
* Improve Energy Efficiency 50 Percent by 2030
* Restore U.S. Leadership on Climate Change

I agree that those are commendable goals. What I am interested in is what strategies he is going to implement to achieve those goals.

Quote

It is an interesting angle, though. "There's no way I am voting for John McCain because he supported the Viet Cong during his time in Viet Nam, or stayed with them or something. I'm not sure of that, but there's no way I'm going to take the time to figure out what happened. And with all those questions floating around about him - who wants to vote for someone who has so many unresolved issues?"

Nice strawman. I've got no problem reading his strategies, but I'm not going to spend money (marginally) to do so. I shouldn't have to pay in order to find out a candidates strategy.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[pirana 0]

Quote

>I don't get the draw of Obama. What has he accomplished?

Well, he got elected to the US Senate, which is a pretty significant achievement. I actually like the fact that he hasn't spent the past 20 years racking up political debt and becoming a "Beltway insider."

>Sure, he gives a good speech with good "change" catch phrases but
>where is the substance?

In his book, primarily Audacity. Also in some of his longer speeches.

A common mantra from people who are not willing to state the real reason they do not like a certain politician:

"He (or she) is not addressing the issues."

Almost always the person citing this simply hasn't looked any further than the sound bites provided by the media. Barack, like any politician worth their salt, has addressed every major policy issue in papers that can be accessed easily online.

For a primer, try this:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

If people do not like him because he is black, they should just say so and admit they are racist.

If they do not like him because he is extremely liberal, then just say so and admit they are conservative.

But for them to say he has not expressed himself shows they are lying, lazy, or can not read.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I shouldn't have to pay in order to find out a candidates strategy.

To find out a candidate's "REAL" strategy you have to pay - it's called 'large dollar campaign donation'

anyone can find out for free what the candidate is pretending to say for the ignorant masses

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,990]

>I agree that those are commendable goals. What I am interested in
>is what strategies he is going to implement to achieve those goals.

Then go to his website, where there are many more details on how he will implement those things. If you want even more details, read his book. Heck, if you like I'll send you my copy; I'm done with it.

If you're not interested enough to do that, that's fine too.

Just keep in mind that "I can't be bothered to learn what his position is" does NOT mean "he has no position."

>I shouldn't have to pay in order to find out a candidates strategy.

Then don't. Choose a candidate that does not write any books, so there will be nothing to learn from reading.

[SpeedRacer 1]

West virginia:

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

But for them to say he has not expressed himself shows they are lying, lazy, or can not read.

ouch.

It's fair to complain that he's not very experienced. However, I prefer the potential he has over the best effort we've seen from Clinton.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Personally, I don't see any substance behind Obama's (admirable) charisma. That doesn't mean there's none there, but it seems that it's not readily and freely available.

His website has plenty. Here's his primer on health care reform.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/#coverage-for-all

Let's compare that to Clinton's - http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/healthcare/summary.aspx Clinton offers more details to hers in links.

Both are plans with which I disagree. But I describe neither as free of substance. Like it or not, there is enough there for people to decide whether they like them or not.

While their full plans offer significantly more detail, I consider both summaries to be largely free of substance.

I did find Obama's full plan at the bottom of the page you linked to. Either I missed it each previous time I visited looking for details, or it's a new addition. Either is possible, given its poorly chosen location on the page (although I'm not going to hold poor website design against either candidate).

I read through both a couple times (I was unable to find a similar plan for McCain), and still believe that Clinton's plan is superior and more detailed.

To his credit, Obama is the only candidate to acknowledge in his plan that sidewalks and walking & biking trails are in important part of preventative healthcare.

On the other hand, his plan for federal reinsurance for catastrophic coverage seems to be misguided at best, and at worst, a kickback to insurance companies at taxpayer expense. Such reinsurance is already available and utilized by insurance companies to keep catastrophic benefit payments from significantly reducing their costs. A better strategy would be to prevent, via regulation or incentive, the insurance companies from increasing the premiums due to such catastrophic benefit payments.

Obama is unclear in his plan with respect to who will qualify to enroll in his new national health plan. On page 3 of his plan:

The new public plan will be open to individuals without access to group coverage through their workplace or current public programs. It will also be available to people who are self-employed and small businesses that want to offer insurance to their employees.

This implies, but does not explicitly state, that access will be limited. However, on page five:

Through the Exchange, any American will have the opportunity to enroll in the new public plan or purchase an approved private plan, and income-based sliding scale subsidies will be provided for people and families who need it.

This implies, but does not explicitly state, that everyone will have access to the new public health plan. Both passages are ambiguous enough that neither possibility is excluded.

Obama claims to intend to leave Medicare alone. That, in my opinion, is unwise, unless he also provides a clear plan to address the impending Medicare funding crisis, which will occur long before we see any problems with Social Security if nothing is done to prevent it.

I generally like Clinton's plan both in its substance and increased specificity. This isn't her first attempt at a comprehensive health care plan and it seems to show.

One thing I would like to see both candidates do is place limits on the percentage of tax excluded (for employers) premiums applied to administration fees. This would provide incentives for employers to seek plans from insurance companies with low administrative costs, and consequently, provide incentive for insurance companies to minimize administrative costs.

Both plans are much better than the status quo, and much better than McCain's plan (at least compared to the general statements given in his vague summary).

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

"I can't be bothered to learn what his position is" does NOT mean "he has no position."

Nor did I ever make any claims remotely resembling "I can't be bothered to learn what his position is."

Quote

Choose a candidate that does not write any books, so there will be nothing to learn from reading.

Or better yet, a candidate that makes their detailed strategies freely available instead of trying to profit from those who want to be able to make an informed decision.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 2,990]

>Or better yet, a candidate that makes their detailed strategies
>freely available instead of trying to profit from those who want to be able
>to make an informed decision.

All three candidates have written books that go into detail on their policies, beliefs, opinions and views of the world. All three have websites that contain summaries. Educate yourself to whatever level you like.

[Remster 30]

Maybe now she is... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080514/ap_on_el_pr/obama_edwards

Remster

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Maybe now she is... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080514/ap_on_el_pr/obama_edwards

Nope. The pledged delegates mean nothing in this process this time around.

I don't like either candidate, but I see Sen. Clinton's point clearly.

Sen. Obama is outspending her 3+:1 and has not/is not making headway in the big states like California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York.

No matter how many primaries are left or pledged delegates remain, neither will have enough to close the deal, and the super delegates will decide. It's out of the voter's hands....interesting that the "democratic" party has the least democratic nomination process.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Sen. Obama is outspending her 3+:1 and has not/is not making headway in the big states like California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York.

How do you figure that? Hillary won CA by 8 or 10 points back in February, but now trails Obame in polling. Seems like headway to me.

[billvon 2,990]

>Sen. Obama is outspending her 3+:1 and has not/is not making
>headway in the big states like California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New
>York.

Right. And Clinton is not making any headway in many of the smaller states like Oregon.

But what matters at the end of the day are delegates - and Obama has more.

>and the super delegates will decide.

If that's the case, Obama has it. Right now it's 286 to 271 and the gap is increasing steadily.

>interesting that the "democratic" party has the least democratic
>nomination process.

Well, compare that to this year's republican primary, in which most states got no say whatsoever.

[lawrocket 3]

I see Hillary's point, too. In sports, we'd say it's about matchups. Team A matches up well against Team B. Team B matches up well against Team C. Team C matches up well against Team A. Thus, we can expect Team A to beat Team B but lose to Team C, while Team B will beat Team C.

Hillary is arguing that even if she can't win the semi-final, she should be allowed to advance to the final because she can beat the opponent.

I see that argument. I still don't agree with it.

May 31 is the big day in this campaign now. That's when the Dem Rules committe will be meeting in Washington to resolve the issue of the Delegates. So we'll see whether the rules will end up with Peyronie's.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Right. And Clinton is not making any headway in many of the smaller states like Oregon.

Given that the most electoral votes are in NY, CA, the northeast and Florida...Oregon is not in the democrat party strategy.

Quote

But what matters at the end of the day are delegates - and Obama has more.

>and the super delegates will decide.

If that's the case, Obama has it. Right now it's 286 to 271 and the gap is increasing steadily.

Still, if Sen. Obama has the goods, it should have been over by now.

Quote

>interesting that the "democratic" party has the least democratic
>nomination process.

Well, compare that to this year's republican primary, in which most states got no say whatsoever.

Point taken, but the republican party doesn't have a delegation that does not have to respond to the voter.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 2,990]

>Oregon is not in the democrat party strategy.

Hmm. I think any sane strategy includes all states that have electoral votes.

>Still, if Sen. Obama has the goods, it should have been over by now.

Why? They are both quite popular candidates. Can you not conceive of a contest (in either party) where two potential candidates "have the goods?"

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Given that the most electoral votes are in NY, CA, the northeast and Florida...Oregon is not in the democrat party strategy.

After the past Administration, Obama's pastor could win California as the Democratic candidate. Same with New York. Florida is rather important, though it would be silly to use results from January when it was a phony primary, if the purpose really was to identify the best candidate. You got a response for the fact that Obama leads polling in CA now?

Quote

Still, if Sen. Obama has the goods, it should have been over by now.

It is over, even if the bitch won't accept it. She is working to eliminate any good will the party has for her. Nader-Lite.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Perhaps because her healthcare plan is better (and quite possibly cheaper for the taxpayer) than the ones being proposed by Obama or McCain.

Is there a reason that she will be more successful in implementing her healthcare plan now than when she was "co-President" for 8 years previously?

Quote

Personally, I don't see any substance behind Obama's (admirable) charisma.

I see no "charisma" from Hillary.
I also don't see any truth behind Hillary's new persona.

The "new" Hillary who is doing camera-moments in bars hoisting a few brews? Ummm... yeah. That's her.
We've seen that for years... just one of good ol' boys, drinkin' some beer.

Her "charisma" is so manufactured that it comes off as less believable than a Saturday morning cartoon.

She's probably just drinking to forget... all the "war memories" in Bosnia...

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

She's probably just drinking to forget... all the "war memories" in Bosnia

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706