Clinton, Obama, or Edwards?

justabeachbrat · #1 08-27-2007, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeekyPenguin

I'd vote for Bill Richardson, since if I had to vote tomorrow it'd be the primary and he'd still be on the ballot.

At this point, I agree. I hope he's around still for the CA ballot. He hadn't crossed my radar until the last televised debate, and was impressed.

Clinton: Rove didn't invent her negative numbers. You can try to kill the messenger, that does not mean the message will go away. And I think I am Clinton-ed out.

Obama: Some interesting ideas, and yes, nice to see a new face, but the country has seen what happens when foreign policy experience comes from on the job training.

Edwards: Was pulling for him, until the $400 haircut, well actually trying to explain it. A candidate today must know the petty details, because the media sure does. And his involvement with hedge funds, sticky. He may still be able to get up steam, again.

KSig RC · #2 08-27-2007, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justabeachbrat

Obama: Some interesting ideas, and yes, nice to see a new face, but the country has seen what happens when foreign policy experience comes from on the job training.

You mean like Reagan?

justabeachbrat · #3 08-27-2007, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSig RC

You mean like Reagan?

Actually, yes.

Re: Reagan. despite pretty commercials, was it a new dawn in America, or whatever, and being able to deliver a good speech, (perhaps a skill from his acting days), I feel he didn't "see" the poor and needy. If you don't address them, they don't just go away.

Would perfer Obama to Clinton or Edwards. But I think it is much too soon for any of them to be too secure. First, the election campaigning began way too soon--the alleged frontrunners run the risk of becoming very stale. That is why I think there is more than enough time for someone else to take the ball and run.

KSig RC · #4 08-28-2007, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justabeachbrat

Actually, yes.

Re: Reagan. despite pretty commercials, was it a new dawn in America, or whatever, and being able to deliver a good speech, (perhaps a skill from his acting days), I feel he didn't "see" the poor and needy. If you don't address them, they don't just go away.

Remember when you posted about "foreign policy" and "learning on the job" . . . and how a governor couldn't do it?

That's what I responded to - also, I'm not sure what you mean by "Reagan didn't see the poor and needy", and I suspect you really don't either.

Honestly, most of the front-line candidates lack experience in one major area or another - unless you can give me a valid reason why that experience is completely necessary (or even beneficial - "practice makes permanent" after all), it seems like nonsense to me.

Kevin · #5 08-27-2007, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justabeachbrat

Obama: Some interesting ideas, and yes, nice to see a new face, but the country has seen what happens when foreign policy experience comes from on the job training.

Edwards: Was pulling for him, until the $400 haircut, well actually trying to explain it. A candidate today must know the petty details, because the media sure does. And his involvement with hedge funds, sticky. He may still be able to get up steam, again.

What does Edwards know about foreign policy that Obama does not?

What's wrong with a $400 haircut? Edwards is a bazillionaire. You should be happy that he shares some of that wealth with a middle class hair stylist. Or would you rather he be a stingy bazillionaire? If Edwards wants to spend money to ensure that his look is correct, I think that's great. One does not simply roll out of bed looking presidential.

honeychile · #6 08-27-2007, 01:21 PM

Please realize first that I don't feel that I have a dog in this fight - yet.

What bothers me is that I've been told by someone in foreign policy that a devout Muslim man cannot be touched by a woman to whom he's not related, that he cannot enter Paradise if it happens. This person then explained that's one of the biggest reasons we're not getting very far with our Middle Eastern policies, as Condeleeza Rice is our Secretary of State.

Now, assuming that he's correct, why would we even entertain the concept of a female president? Wouldn't that put us even further behind in the Middle East?

If you can, put your thoughts about me aside, and discuss this. I'd be interested in hearing if anyone knew if that was correct or not.

AlphaFrog · #7 08-27-2007, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by honeychile

Now, assuming that he's correct, why would we even entertain the concept of a female president? Wouldn't that put us even further behind in the Middle East?

Because if the female can do 100X better job at DOMESTIC politics than the man running against her, I don't think we should let another country's view of what's "proper" dictate our country.

#1 Priority should be taking care of THIS country.

honeychile · #8 08-27-2007, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

Because if the female can do 100X better job at DOMESTIC politics than the man running against her, I don't think we should let another country's view of what's "proper" dictate our country.

#1 Priority should be taking care of THIS country.

I agree about domestic policy - but keeping this country safe from terrorists is a huge priority, too.

FYI, I have nothing against having a woman run for president, as I have voted for a woman running for president in the past.

NutBrnHair · #9 08-27-2007, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

Because if the female can do 100X better job at DOMESTIC politics than the man running against her, I don't think we should let another country's view of what's "proper" dictate our country.

#1 Priority should be taking care of THIS country.

How nice if we could live in our own little bubble.

AlphaFrog · #10 08-27-2007, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NutBrnHair

How nice if we could live in our own little bubble.

How nice if I tell you where to put that bubble.

Would you not vote for a President of ChiO because LXA would have a problem with it?

Kevin · #11 08-27-2007, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

How nice if I tell you where to put that bubble.

Would you not vote for a President of ChiO because LXA would have a problem with it?

Is that LXA pursuing state supported terrorism and a nuclear weapons program?

Tom Earp · #12 08-27-2007, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

How nice if I tell you where to put that bubble.

Would you not vote for a President of ChiO because LXA would have a problem with it?

Hm, interesting post or not.

Maybe if you put ASA in I could comment more but I won't.

Oh, you have no comment? Amazing!

GeekyPenguin · #13 08-27-2007, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by honeychile

Please realize first that I don't feel that I have a dog in this fight - yet.

What bothers me is that I've been told by someone in foreign policy that a devout Muslim man cannot be touched by a woman to whom he's not related, that he cannot enter Paradise if it happens. This person then explained that's one of the biggest reasons we're not getting very far with our Middle Eastern policies, as Condeleeza Rice is our Secretary of State.

Now, assuming that he's correct, why would we even entertain the concept of a female president? Wouldn't that put us even further behind in the Middle East?

If you can, put your thoughts about me aside, and discuss this. I'd be interested in hearing if anyone knew if that was correct or not.

I did a little Googling because I had never heard of this and was curious since I've seen Muslim classmates of mine shake hands with other women, and I don't think it's true they can't enter Paradise, but I do think it's a forbidden practice. Several articles also mentioned that Orthodox Jews have the same practice.

I wouldn't really consider this when I voted anyway - maybe Secretary Rice just doesn't shake hands when she meets Muslim men. A bow or head nod would probably suffice.

mulattogyrl · #14 08-27-2007, 08:01 PM

I was really torn about this, but the more I learn about him, the more I'm leaning toward Obama.

mulattogyrl · #15 08-27-2007, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by honeychile

Please realize first that I don't feel that I have a dog in this fight - yet.

What bothers me is that I've been told by someone in foreign policy that a devout Muslim man cannot be touched by a woman to whom he's not related, that he cannot enter Paradise if it happens. This person then explained that's one of the biggest reasons we're not getting very far with our Middle Eastern policies, as Condeleeza Rice is our Secretary of State.

Now, assuming that he's correct, why would we even entertain the concept of a female president? Wouldn't that put us even further behind in the Middle East?

If you can, put your thoughts about me aside, and discuss this. I'd be interested in hearing if anyone knew if that was correct or not.

I don't know where this person got this info from, because there have been female Muslim leaders throughout history:

http://www.guide2womenleaders.com/Muslim_Leaders.htm