If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Obama was the only better qualified candidate on the ticket, or so the Dems decided. Most people should agree that my cat is a better candidate than Trump though so I'm no sure your thinking here is really relevant.
In my view back in 2008 Obama was not more "qualified" than Clinton. He was simply a better "candidate" than Clinton. That is why he won the primary.
If you choose to convince yourself that Trump's million vote deficit is due to "dead and illegal voters" then knock yourself out. Something tells me that if it was 10 million you'd say the same thing.
Eight years ago we decided there was a better candidate than Clinton. What has changed in those eight years so that suddenly she's qualified? It certainly wasn't a lack of experience that disqualified her. Was Obama the only person in America better qualified than her?
You're using some poor logic here, Laminar. Just because Obama beat Hillary in a primary doesn't mean she's unqualified. It just means he was seen as the better choice.
Originally Posted by Laminar
And now that he's had his 8 years all that's left is her?
That's the real problem. The democrats didn't have a real primary. Hillary's opposition was three Johnny-come-latelys and Martin O' Malley. While we didn't need 17 ridiculous candidates, having several legitimate choices might have changed things. In this case, however, the blame falls to the establishment itself. Outside a few people with nothing to lose, no one had the balls to challenge her or make their own case. Which is bad form regardless because you probably wanna get those reps in. Pulling an Obama is nigh impossible.
Originally Posted by Laminar
The impression that Hillary felt she "deserved" the presidency and that it was "her turn" was damaging. That impression was probably amplified by her being a woman, but it was impression nonetheless.
Politically, she did wait her turn. After that emotional 2008 primary she ate her pride, went to work with Obama.
Perspectives and all, I never thought she thought she 'deserved' it, but it was clear as day she always aspired to it since her husband entered the White House. Though if you believe in sexism the sin is the same.
Originally Posted by Laminar
I think Clinton's biggest issue - all the way through the election - was Bernie. He proved that being a qualified long-time politician wasn't a guarantee of corruption or surreptitiously acquiring wealth through influence. It proved that out there somewhere is someone who has been on the right side of history, even when it was unpopular. Someone whose principles come before politics.
Counterpoint: Most politicians would look like an angel next to Clinton.
We've already demonstrated that Mr. O'Keefe has no credibility whatsoever in the other thread. You do know that he's been busted making highly misleading edits to his so-called "sting" videos on NUMEROUS occasions before? And that he's REFUSING to release the raw footage of these? Care to try again.
In my view back in 2008 Obama was not more "qualified" than Clinton. He was simply a better "candidate" than Clinton. That is why he won the primary.
OAW
Yes you're right, I was just sticking to the original phrasing.
Chongo, why do you think Youtube conspiracy nuts are credible?
That first one is just an interview with some random Republican. Chances are he is just partisan and paranoid like you.
Surely if you're going to commit voter fraud you do it in the swing states?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
The 2008 feeling from Hillary supporters was that Barack had cut the line, but many in the Dem party felt he had a lot of charisma etc despite lack of experience so they pushed his candidacy. With no Obama, Hillary would have been a shoe-in vs McCain.
Yeah, Obama had the charisma and promise of change that Clinton didn't, and still doesn't have.
We've already demonstrated that Mr. O'Keefe has no credibility whatsoever in the other thread. You do know that he's been busted making highly misleading edits to his so-called "sting" videos on NUMEROUS occasions before? And that he's REFUSING to release the raw footage of these? Care to try again.
OAW
You have no idea what you are saying. YOU are not a good judge of others character, so your evaluation of Mr. Keefe is just as worthless as your 5000 word cut-n-paste jobs.
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status:
Offline
Nov 18, 2016, 12:36 PM
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar
You're using some poor logic here, Laminar. Just because Obama beat Hillary in a primary doesn't mean she's unqualified. It just means he was seen as the better choice.
Am I? I'm saying that she wasn't the best choice 8 years ago, and when someone else got picked ahead of her, it had nothing to do with experience, which is the only thing that she's gained in 8 years.
That's the real problem. The democrats didn't have a real primary. Hillary's opposition was three Johnny-come-latelys and Martin O' Malley. While we didn't need 17 ridiculous candidates, having several legitimate choices might have changed things. In this case, however, the blame falls to the establishment itself. Outside a few people with nothing to lose, no one had the balls to challenge her or make their own case. Which is bad form regardless because you probably wanna get those reps in. Pulling an Obama is nigh impossible.
Yeah, it was clear that everyone decided it was Hillary's turn and she was going to have it, whether or not that was a good idea.
Politically, she did wait her turn. After that emotional 2008 primary she ate her pride, went to work with Obama.
Perspectives and all, I never thought she thought she 'deserved' it, but it was clear as day she always aspired to it since her husband entered the White House. Though if you believe in sexism the sin is the same.
To be clear, I'm addressing perceptions I've heard from people on both sides of the aisle. I'm not stupid enough to play psychiatrist on someone I only know through the public persona they portray through the lens of TV and the internet.
Counterpoint: Most politicians would look like an angel next to Clinton.
This was to address the idea I've seen here a few times that "anyone in politics gains baggage no matter what."
Am I? I'm saying that she wasn't the best choice 8 years ago, and when someone else got picked ahead of her, it had nothing to do with experience, which is the only thing that she's gained in 8 years.
That's an interesting deconstruction. It's worth noting, though that the only difference between 2008 and 2012 was Obama. Most Dems stepped aside for the assumed coronation then too.
Originally Posted by Laminar
To be clear, I'm addressing perceptions I've heard from people on both sides of the aisle. I'm not stupid enough to play psychiatrist on someone I only know through the public persona they portray through the lens of TV and the internet.
This was to address the idea I've seen here a few times that "anyone in politics gains baggage no matter what."
My fault, I haven't been following the entire conversation.
Am I? I'm saying that she wasn't the best choice 8 years ago, and when someone else got picked ahead of her, it had nothing to do with experience, which is the only thing that she's gained in 8 years.
If Barcelona beat Real Madrid to the league title, does that mean that Accrington Stanley are better than Real Madrid?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Top