The Better Candidate - Obama or Clinton?

[BRUCE]

I'm leaning towards Barack, who's your Democratic candidate of choice??

[Hedgehog]

Both these candidates needs to show a political agenda.

John Edwards had a political agenda: Doing something about the poverty.

But these two, they're more or less like two void papers.

Nothing on them to critisise, but also no ideas.

Clinton has moved herself towards the most conservative and moderate Democrats.

Obama - nothing yet IMO. Would love to see some action from him soon though, a political initiative, it would stir the pot a little.

-Hedge

[Dos Equis]

Both these candidates needs to show a political agenda.

John Edwards had a political agenda: Doing something about the poverty.

But these two, they're more or less like two void papers.

Nothing on them to critisise, but also no ideas.

Clinton has moved herself towards the most conservative and moderate Democrats.

Obama - nothing yet IMO. Would love to see some action from him soon though, a political initiative, it would stir the pot a little.

-Hedge

Completely agree.  Don't have enough information yet. 

But I doubt it matters, because it's Hillary's nomination to lose. 

[MidniteRambo]

The weakness in the question is that the candidate best positioned to win the primary may not be (and is unlikely to be) the candidate best positioned to win the primary.  Which race is the question geared towards?

[Mr. Intenseone]

Both these candidates needs to show a political agenda.

John Edwards had a political agenda: Doing something about the poverty.

But these two, they're more or less like two void papers.

Nothing on them to critisise, but also no ideas.

Clinton has moved herself towards the most conservative and moderate Democrats.

Obama - nothing yet IMO. Would love to see some action from him soon though, a political initiative, it would stir the pot a little.

-Hedge

I'm leaning toward Obama, but now that Richardson has thrown his hat in, I'd make a push for him and Hillary is a non-issue for me. Besides, where is their political agenda when it comes to the war........I've heard basically nothing new from them since the elections and thats what they based their agenda on..............same ol, same ol with them isn't it, promises with nothing to deliver!

[Camel Jockey]

Obama because he opposed the war from the start.

[Mr. Intenseone]

Obama because he opposed the war from the start.

You're a true Liberal......they kill 3000 of our own people on our turf and you want to do nothing, at least your consistant with your party!

[Hedgehog]

You're a true Liberal......they kill 3000 of our own people on our turf and you want to do nothing, at least your consistant with your party!

Where has Camel Jockey claimed that he wanted to do nothing?

-Hedge

[240 is Back]

You're a true Liberal......they kill 3000 of our own people on our turf and you want to do nothing, at least your consistant with your party!

Weird - I thought all those dems supported invading afghanistan.


Joe, which dems didn't want to invade Afghanistan for killing 3,000 people on 9/11?


Name them

[BRUCE]

Weird - I thought all those dems supported invading afghanistan.


Joe, which dems didn't want to invade Afghanistan for killing 3,000 people on 9/11?


Name them

I'd say John Kerry, but he was for the war before he was against it, uh I mean for.... against...... ah forget it

[Hedgehog]

Weird - I thought all those dems supported invading afghanistan.


Joe, which dems didn't want to invade Afghanistan for killing 3,000 people on 9/11?


Name them

You got a point - there is no connection between Osama Bin Laden and Iraq.

He's reported to have been in Afghanistan though.

-Hedge

[240 is Back]

I'd say John Kerry, but he was for the war before he was against it, uh I mean for.... against...... ah forget it

Did you know that the invasion of Afghanistan in oct 2001, following 9/11, was actually a different war than the one in iraq?

[240 is Back]

I think I know which 42% we have in here...

[BRUCE]

Did you know that the invasion of Afghanistan in oct 2001, following 9/11, was actually a different war than the one in iraq?

Did you know I didn't refer to any particular war in that comment?  Lighten up, Robert, I thought you were a Republican anyway - you should join me in my mockery of Kerry. 

[240 is Back]

Did you know I didn't refer to any particular war in that comment?  Lighten up, Robert, I thought you were a Republican anyway - you should join me in my mockery of Kerry. 

Kerry is a jellyfish but I think think he'll get the nomination.

[240 is Back]

Did you know I didn't refer to any particular war in that comment?  Lighten up, Robert, I thought you were a Republican anyway - you should join me in my mockery of Kerry. 

yeah, ya did refer to a particular war, actually  

Kerry's flipflop was about Iraq.  he absolutely endorsed bombing the shit out of those oil thieves the taleban.

[BRUCE]

Kerry is a jellyfish but I think think he'll get the nomination.

Do you believe he is a worthwhile choice for the Democrats?  

[240 is Back]

Do you believe he is a worthwhile choice for the Democrats?  

Nah.  But if you recall his college affiliation, he has a puuurty good advantage.

Remember that Kerry was a distant 4th during all of 2002 and 2003, then magically had a 20 point swing overnight to win the nod.

This was actually consistent with the Alex-Jones led conspiracy group which said for 18 months before, that because of his college club, Kerry would win the nod no matter what.



Dude, understand, the men selected as nominees are selected from a small pool of people who will work with the powers that be, who will play ball, to ensure long term US viability.

They won't let a guy walk in and pull us out of iraq.  Why?  Cause in order for the US to prosper, we have a master plan which goes beyond any one president.  We were plotting on that oil pipeline since 1993/95.  The one we won't have active until 2015.  No way do they let some airhead fck that up along the way.

Liebermann and Cheney were the same man.  Bush and kerry were the same guy.  ideologically and the way they'd play ball with the higher controllers.

Clinton will play ball.  as will kerry and edwards.  obama won't.  he won't get the nod, even if 80% of dems want him.  we'll have another magic overnight plunge like Dean had.

[Hedgehog]

Clinton will play ball. 

I agree.

Ever since her move to NY, Clinton has signaled that she's now part of the nomenclatura, the same elite group of politicians that Kerry, Kennedy and Bush are.

Here husband never was though IMO. He won, because he simply just was too good in campaigning and as a rhetoric, and a master of setting the agenda.

-Hedge

[Hugo Chavez]

without any doubt Obama... I'm ready for new blood, out with all the same ol bullshit.  Guiliani and we'll be 9/11'd to death... We'll acutally become walking zombies twitching "911....911....he... he... 911... 911... he... he..." Clinton and we're in for more years of reliving everything wrong or made up about the clintons.  McCain = Old World Dinosaur Wannabe Goldwater.  Oh brother, I'm done with Kings presidents.  This shit is becoming a bad scifi pre-American flashback...

[240 is Back]

I don't think anyone can deny...

911 is a question mark.

Guiliani cannot run on 9/11 (as perhaps was the original plan).  he'll always be America's mayor, but his presence would seriously motivate the 911 truth movement.

whether you believe it was an inside job, or you believe the official story completely, it cannot be denied that the 911 talk will be very loud.

[240 is Back]

Ever since her move to NY, Clinton has signaled that she's now part of the nomenclatura, the same elite group of politicians that Kerry, Kennedy and Bush are.

yeah.  and since the power elite group isn't going to change, perhaps a pendulum swing to the leftish, from neocon to moderate, is overdue.

[Eyeball Chambers]

You're a true Liberal......they kill 3000 of our own people on our turf and you want to do nothing, at least your consistant with your party!

Iraq did? DAMN thats news to me. 

[BRUCE]

Nah.  But if you recall his college affiliation, he has a puuurty good advantage.

Remember that Kerry was a distant 4th during all of 2002 and 2003, then magically had a 20 point swing overnight to win the nod.

This was actually consistent with the Alex-Jones led conspiracy group which said for 18 months before, that because of his college club, Kerry would win the nod no matter what.



Dude, understand, the men selected as nominees are selected from a small pool of people who will work with the powers that be, who will play ball, to ensure long term US viability.

They won't let a guy walk in and pull us out of iraq.  Why?  Cause in order for the US to prosper, we have a master plan which goes beyond any one president.  We were plotting on that oil pipeline since 1993/95.  The one we won't have active until 2015.  No way do they let some airhead fck that up along the way.

Liebermann and Cheney were the same man.  Bush and kerry were the same guy.  ideologically and the way they'd play ball with the higher controllers.

Clinton will play ball.  as will kerry and edwards.  obama won't.  he won't get the nod, even if 80% of dems want him.  we'll have another magic overnight plunge like Dean had.

I'm sure you've clarified this before elsewhere, but do you believe we should be exiting Iraq? If so, when?

[240 is Back]

I'm sure you've clarified this before elsewhere, but do you believe we should be exiting Iraq? If so, when?

No.

I think we should pull our forces out of the cities and abandon that "we're helping them" bullshit.

We should set up our 14 to 20 bases along that sexy oil pipeline and let a lot of GIs sit idly in the sand playing cards safely.  Give the cities back to the Iraqis and let them handle it.  Kill without prejuidice anything which comes within 2 miles of the pipeline.  We give them their profits, the US manages the resources as planned for the last 12 years (if not longer).

Thoughts?