My only problem with Hillary Clinton...
She is far too polarizing domestically, and will be hampered at every turn by her opponents and enemies on the right. Internationally, Hillary, a woman, will NEVER be accepted as an equal by the mysogynistic leadership of the Arab world. It is here that the inclusion of Bill Clinton would serve a very useful purpose, and would allow Hillary the flexibility to focus on her domestic priorities.
My only problem with Barak Obama...
He simply does NOT have the experience or the expertise to contend with the multiple daily responsibilities of President. The last thing we need is another President learning the job on the fly. A session or two as VP would have given him the seasoning to truly be a leader of this country. Today, he is simply following the advice of his handlers at each and every stage of his campaign.
That plus his continued close affiliation with bigoted pastor Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
My only problem with Mike Huckabee... he believes the world is only about 6000 years old.
I'm convinced he's going to double cross us.
My only problem with Mitt Romney... he's Mitt Romney. 'Nuff Said.
My only problem with John McCain... is who does he pick for VP?
This is a man who is loathed by Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter. Coulter said, ON TV mind you, that she would work for the hillary campaign before she would vote for McCain. Limbaugh was lamenting the terrible loss when McCain won Florida. And these two represent a significant portion of the GOP base. Toss in the Christian jihadists from Evangelicaland and you've got the modern Unholy Trinity.
But truly, my only problem with Election 2008, is my chosen preferred candidate is not running, nor is he interested in running.
Regardless of who leads the next administration, the People lose.
I'm not an Obama supporter but experience isn't all it's cracked up to be. A reporter once asked Lou Holtz if his team was going to be in trouble for the coming season because it didn't have much experience. To illustrate the the value of experience his answer was,"Experienced kamikaze pilots aren't worth a damn." The point was that he wanted competent and talented players, not experienced ones.
a legitimate threshold question might be, how much has s/he fucked up so far?
That would be a first.
But seriously, there is no comparison between playing 60 minutes of football once a week and being POTUS. If you are looking to Lou Holtz for political advice, please stay home on election day.
the Chimp has seven years experience as president under his belt and he still sucks.
My biggest problem with Obama is his lack of experience in every aspect of the presidency. Aware of all the comparisons about lack of experience and success but unfortunately all of the comparisons are centuries old. Comparing Lincoln's presidency to modern era is grossly inaccurate and grasping for whatever rationale one can find bordering on absurdity.
What has Obama done? Being a community organizer is one hell of an experience for any one running for the top post United Way, not to for the president of the United States.
Being an Civil Rights attorney, don't know what that brings.
Foreign policy and diplomacy, not sure what experience and understanding Obama has on this arena.
Economics, which is the most important issue globally in the foreseeable future I suppose, Obama's experience is none.
Obama is hallucinating if he thinks that the Republicans are going to jump in joy and cooperate with him on his agenda.
Clinton may be polarizing but it may not be such a bad thing in an already polarized political environment. At least the Republicans will know that, they will have a fight on their hands.
Polarization is a natural state in politics. After all, the goal of the opposition is to get the ruling party out of power. Playing nicey, nicey only happens when it benefits both sides or when one side determines, opposing it is very bad idea.
Obama is big no as far as I am concerned, even though supporting Obama is trendy.
sometimes the most important thing in a leader is who he has in his support team (see our current chief exec).
I think that the problem with having "experienced" politicians these days is that they have been so developed in the "system" (yes, Obama has, too, but less so than HC...whose personality, but not views, is becoming downright Thathcher-ite these days) that they don't REMOTELY offer change. While I know change is contingent on many things (like a supportive legislative branch...hello, Bill Clinton years), just look at how the outlook of government and the effect it has had on things domestic and foreign changed during the Shrub years with the R's in control of Congress.
If the Dems could maintain a congressional majority and get a Dem in the White House, it would be interesting to see what they could do with it...especially with someone who has a real vision of change, which I think anyone would agree Obama has more of than HC would.
My greatest fear is if HC wins the nomination that many voters who have been excited about Obama will be discouraged and not vote, and the R's will get another presidency handed to them like the accursed fuckhead Nader caused in 2000. Make no mistake...this election is ALL about changing the party in the White House (or, in the R's case, NOT changing). As much as I would prefer Obama get there, any prog/dem/lib/whatever who doesn't vote for WHOEVER the Dems nominate might as well just vote Repug.
There appears to be confusion about experience that is, between experience in politic and experience in government. Experience in politics allows one to work the political system and the electorate and experience in government allows one to get things done.
I really liked Obama's idea of putting Congressional debates on C-Span rhetoric. Unfortunately, the constitution does not allow the President to dictate how, when and why Congress proceeds. As a matter of fact the President is not allowed to enter the Congressional chambers without the Congress either inviting the President or allowing the President. Catchy rhetoric for the masses, yes, practical, absolutely not.
Some Obama people as well punditocrazy argues HC's experience doesn't count. On that count, HC has only few more years in the Senate than Obama. Divisive, really, HC has proved she can work across the aisle on issues more than once. But that gets muddied up by the punditocrazy. To me it is evident that CNN, ABC, NBC and CBS wants to keep it going to keep viewers, look the question Wolf Blitzer asked HC about being naive more than once. I do not intent to drink that bath water. Furhter, his idea of having a summit of muslim nations is not new. Believe Bill Clinton and Bill Richardson tried their best and didn't work. Both of them had more credibility internationally than any other US politician. Bill Clinton was the most admired US President in history. Yes, he surpassed both John Kennedy and Reagan!
Bill Clinton knew how to get things done even with a Republican majority led by Newt. He shut down the Government when necessary to rein in Pork Barrel spending.
Pual Krugman's article on NYT gives great insight on what happened.
I think that vision is more necessary than experience right now. There are plenty of cabinet people and advisers that can be counted on for experience. We need a leader to take us in a direction away from the Shrubbery of the past seven years.
I hear what you are saying about Bill C, but he had no government experience outside of Little Rock when he got there. Yes, he was a chief executive, but even a first term senator would know more about Congressional methods than a four term governor. However, there is no denying Bill C's legacy (in spite of the jealous howling that the Cons do about him). Just look at the first line of the official White House site about him...
Having capable cabinet people is one thing but the ability to make that all important one final decision is of concern which require a great deal of knowledge and understanding. I wouldn't want cabinet people to make that one final decision regardless of how capable they are.
I believe, Obama is whistling an optimistic tune, though so far, when compared to his main rivals, it has the substance and specifics of a chewing gum ad jingle. This disturbs me a great deal. He is not telling me enough to make me believe that he can actually deliver, the how question. I don't buy a car based on a slick ad and I won't buy this either until I am convinced. My reasoning tells me something very different.
""but the ability to make that all important one final decision is of concern which require a great deal of knowledge and understanding
Like the War Authoriztion the Cunt voted for.....which she lies about now.
and people who are proven to have fucked everything up.
I think when it comes down to it that HC will win.
I don't think Obama lacks substance, though...and I disagree with your first paragraph emphatically. Look at our current administration.
What a handily crafted re-write of history by Krugman. And a huge leep you made mis-reading it. You simply made up that BS about how Clinton "reined in" the Republican spending. Even for Clinton lovers, Krugar's column is at it's lowest form, simply one sided.
these people will say or do anything to stay in power becasue they feel ordained
Until Bill O'Reily fans injecting partisan crap.
I have been reading Krugman's articles for a long time on various subjects to know!
Bill Clinton balanced the budget and left a surplus.
That's not a rewrite of history. Is it?
I've run across the "no experience" arguments before. "He / she has no executive office experience." Like Abraham Lincoln? "He / she never served in the military." Like Abraham Lincoln? "He / she has only served in congress, etc. for a short time." Like Abraham Lincoln?
It strikes me that Lincoln did OK. When you get right down to it, there are two people on earth who have the experience to be president who are also eligible to be president: Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush. No one else on the planet has the "experience" or is eligible.
My only problem with . . . Clinton: Who would want to be her VP? Also, too many perceived negatives to draw independent conservative voters.
My only problem with . . . Obama: A little vague on the nuts and bolts of his dreams.
My only problem with . . . McCain: A right wing hawk who construes a short term military change in the Iraq situation as indicative of systemic progress. He isn't nearly the middle of the road maverick he claims to be. He's very right wing which makes the resistance of the Limbaughs and Coulters hard to fathom.
My only problem with . . . Romney: Thinks government is a business and that the two are synonomous. Other problem, he's lied about his record in Mass.
My only problem with . . . Huckabee: Oh, I have more than one problem with that religious nut whack job. However, I do like him in the race because his presence indicates the candidate who sane republicans prefer. All the Jeebus Jumpers are on his side, so whoever is for McCain or Romney is probably a little more grounded in reality.
My problem with . . . . Edwards: I want him to be president and he isn't running anymore.