[QUOTE=Space Ghost;166122]I have no problem with her myself, but I seriously hope Clinton doesn't get the Democratic nomination for the reason that has become apparent everywhere (even this thread): she is a FAR too polarizing figure to win in the general election. Many people HATE her with a passion and I'm sorry to say that the other candidate would win in a walk.[/QUOTE]
I never really got why H. Clinton was such a magnet for unlikability, even among people you'd expect not to have a problem with her in principle. [url=]This cat thing, though, really pisses me off.[/url]
H. Clinton is polarizing because the Republicans made it so. Health care and general Clinton hating. As Bill was much liked they had to throw everything they could and hope something would stick. Any thing every nut job would say got reported as truth ( on Fox).
Part of my dislike for her comes from having her as my senator for the last 2 years. This area is failing miserably and she's done nothing about it. Though I agree that all of the Republicans except Ron Paul would be worse choices than her.
I'm still not sure about Obama. He's a good guy, I like him, but I think he's too green. This country is in serious shit trouble and we need experience to get us out.
As an amusing side note, when Obama was an Illinois state senator, he lived in my apartment complex, as did several other congressmen as it was the closest respectable complex to the state capitol building.
My problem with Hillary is how she has performed in her prior roles. Beginning with her campaign for the position in New York's senate all the way through now, she has never seemed to actually do anything to help her constituents. Rather, she flies through the campaign and once in, begins focusing simply on getting re-elected. Downstate, most of those I knew were fairly certain she was aiming for a presidential run the moment she shot for the Senate simply by the way she was acting.
Her inability to even remotely understand the financial problems occuring in the entire northern and western portions of this state irked me. How does she think she can help deal with a nation whose economy is drifting towards chaos when she couldn't even help [B]half[/B] of one of its more economically viable states? Her tenure here was all talk, no action. When officials offered plans to rejuvenate the major population centers, she took no action one way or another, instead attempting to simply boost her press coverage and public image whenever and wherever possible. This isn't someone I want as president.
And agreed on Obama. As much as I like what he represents and his stance, I just don't quite feel comfortable with someone who has so little experience in this area. The upsides of fresh blood don't confidently warrant the potential downsides.
Well, there was another President who had about as much experience as Obama (a little less, IIRC), and he was even from the same state. He turned out to be the the right man in the right place at the right time. ;)
I am not so much looking for experience, but proof of ability. There are many Senators who have loads of experience who you'd never want to be president.
To me Guiliani meets that criteria better than the rest. He certainly had what could be considered a successful tenure operating the nations 3rd largest government.
There may have been people who were not fond of him, but NY definitely saw improvement while he was in office. Let's put it this way, of all the candidates, he as the most verifible track record as the executive of a massive organization that seems to go a pretty decent job. You get the feeling the had a Katrina-like disaster struck NYC, the outcome would have been far different.
Romney, Richardson and Huckabee also have executive experience as governers, with Romney having a slight edge due to leading two successful companys, but none impressed me as much.
Giuliani may be more of an action person, and that's definitely what we need, but I really don't care for anything he stands for. Kind of an annoying problem.
I loved Guiliani's stay in NYC. He did an incredible job turning the city around post-Dinkins and Koch, but his campaign thus far has failed to do anything other than dredge up 9/11 fame. He has so much material to work with, so many years of massive improvements, but he markets himself as Mr. Republican Party-line 9/11, and I just won't stand for that.
H. Clinton has her husband doing the whole invading a nation and getting out of it thing. Bosnia-Hesagovina, Serbian provinse of Kosavo. And Massadonia,I think. With some involvement in most of the other former Yugoslavian nations.
Great. now you have me thinking she is the best one. :(
Comments
I never really got why H. Clinton was such a magnet for unlikability, even among people you'd expect not to have a problem with her in principle. [url=]This cat thing, though, really pisses me off.[/url]
Obama '08!
I'm still not sure about Obama. He's a good guy, I like him, but I think he's too green. This country is in serious shit trouble and we need experience to get us out.
As an amusing side note, when Obama was an Illinois state senator, he lived in my apartment complex, as did several other congressmen as it was the closest respectable complex to the state capitol building.
Her inability to even remotely understand the financial problems occuring in the entire northern and western portions of this state irked me. How does she think she can help deal with a nation whose economy is drifting towards chaos when she couldn't even help [B]half[/B] of one of its more economically viable states? Her tenure here was all talk, no action. When officials offered plans to rejuvenate the major population centers, she took no action one way or another, instead attempting to simply boost her press coverage and public image whenever and wherever possible. This isn't someone I want as president.
And agreed on Obama. As much as I like what he represents and his stance, I just don't quite feel comfortable with someone who has so little experience in this area. The upsides of fresh blood don't confidently warrant the potential downsides.
Maybe I'm thinking of the real Vertigo1.
Sanfram gives a real reason. :)
Maybe I'm thinking of the real Vertigo1.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Biggles;166201]The real Vertigo1 doesn't live in California, either. :)[/QUOTE]
heh, No he lives about 3 hours or so from me in the great state of Tennessee.
I used to live in Kalifornia a few years ago.
Maybe I like Fred Thompson because he's been our senator for a few years and I like him as an actor too... :p
Seriously though... It's all talk until they get into office, then the real shit hits the fan.
To me Guiliani meets that criteria better than the rest. He certainly had what could be considered a successful tenure operating the nations 3rd largest government.
Jake
Romney, Richardson and Huckabee also have executive experience as governers, with Romney having a slight edge due to leading two successful companys, but none impressed me as much.
Jake
Great. now you have me thinking she is the best one. :(