Originally Posted By Mr X Okay, let's talk about why Clinton is a terrible choice and how she'll be very, very bad for the country. And let's go for specific policy or credibility issues here, not just "because Republicans despise her" or similar oft-cited generalities. Discuss.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy I don't think Clinton is a terrible choice. Much like Obama, she is not the best choice, but also not terrible.
Originally Posted By johnno52 As was mentioned in another thread about the "Dynastic" issue. I believe it will continue and she will be re-hiring the previous family circle of advisers just like Bush did with his father's friends. American foreign policy will not change and domestic policies will continue to be controlled by the powerful money contributing lobbyists.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy Well, I think James Carville had a good comment about the continued Clinton "dynasty:" Essentially, he asked, "Which part of the previous Clinton administration was so miserable? Was it the peace? Or the prosperity?" We could do a lot worse than bringing some leadership from the 90s back into Washington.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Because she is a liar and spin meister, and her husband is a liability... From today's news... <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/08/wuspols108.xml" target="_blank">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new s/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/08/wuspols108.xml</a> >>Hillary Clinton had no direct role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland and is a "wee bit silly" for exaggerating the part she played, according to Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and former First Minister of the province. "I don’t know there was much she did apart from accompanying Bill [Clinton] going around," he said. Her recent statements about being deeply involved were merely "the sort of thing people put in their canvassing leaflets" during elections. "She visited when things were happening, saw what was going on, she can certainly say it was part of her experience. I don’t want to rain on the thing for her but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player." Mrs Clinton has made Northern Ireland key to her claims of having extensive foreign policy experience, which helped her defeat Barack Obama in Ohio and Texas on Tuesday after she presented herself as being ready to tackle foreign policy crises at 3am. "I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland," she told CNN on Wednesday. But negotiators from the parties that helped broker the Good Friday Agreement in 1998 told The Daily Telegraph that her role was peripheral and that she played no part in the gruelling political talks over the years. << <a href="http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080308/D8V98FO00.html" target="_blank">http://apnews.myway.com/articl e/20080308/D8V98FO00.html</a> >>Democratic presidential contender Hillary Rodham Clinton tried to backpedal Friday from comments she made in October suggesting Mississippi was a backward place for women's progress. Speaking to radio station WJZD-FM in Gulfport, Miss., the former first lady said the comments she made about the state in the run up to the Iowa caucuses "were not exactly what I said," even though they came directly from an interview she gave to the Des Moines Register in October.<<
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Which part of the previous Clinton administration was so miserable? Was it the peace?<< Hmmm. Carville assumes we will forget about the military operations in Somalia (1993), Haiti (1994), Bosnia (1994-95), and Kosovo (1999). And, of course, the missed opportunity to take out bin Laden, which would have done much to inform the state of world peace today. >>Or the prosperity?<< I assume Carville refers to the dot com boom that went bust. Or possibly the Las Vegas version of Wall Street that we are stilling dealing with. And yes, Hillary will bring a lot of the same people with the same thinking into her administration.
Originally Posted By gadzuux This new "kitchen sink" strategy stinks. The idea is to trip up her opponent using anything and everything they can find - which isn't much. Recently she's been highly critical of obama's positions on NAFTA, yet in the most recent debate, his comment was "I agree with hillary, she's absolutely right" - the classic response of henpecked husbands the world over. Yet somehow she's taking exception to it. Her campaign made a big flap about speaking privately with trade representatives of the canadian government, when she did the same exact thing. The way her campaign has tried to spin the whole NAFTA issue is "rovian" tactics - take an issue where the candidate is weak and vulnerable and attack your opponent on it. It's crazy. She's clearly on record as having been a NAFTA supporter for years - her husband built it in the first place. This very week, her campaign compared obama to ken starr. Now that's a low blow. There is no one more odious than ken starr to clinton supporters, so this is like grade school name calling. Is that all she's got?
Originally Posted By gadzuux And another thing - a new clinton administration can't help but continue the political polarization that we have today. McCain is no better than hillary on this one - both of them represent the political "old guard", two sides of the same coin. Very different sides, to be sure, but more of the same. Obama really does represent a chance to reduce the level of rancor and polarization in the political process. But it has to start with the democrats, and that can't happen with hillary storming around and agitating for business as usual.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << The way her campaign has tried to spin the whole NAFTA issue is "rovian" tactics - take an issue where the candidate is weak and vulnerable and attack your opponent on it. >> Sorry, but Obama started the demagoguery on NAFTA. The topic never would have come up if he handn't introduced it as a way to attack Clinton. Some of the worst pandering in this election cycle -- misleading voters with scare tactics and hollow rhetoric.
Originally Posted By gadzuux NAFTA is an issue where clinton is undeniably weak, and obama isn't. Of course, if you look at clinton's NAFTA positions from a GOP viewpoint, you get a whole different view. She was for it before she was against it. There - does that help?
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Carville assumes we will forget about the military operations in Somalia (1993), Haiti (1994), Bosnia (1994-95), and Kosovo (1999). And, of course, the missed opportunity to take out bin Laden, which would have done much to inform the state of world peace today. >> Hmmm Somalia -- U.S. involvement commenced on 4 December 1992 by President George Bush Haiti -- You mean when Clinton use the threat of force to restore the democratic government in Haiti without a military conflict erupting? Are you suggesting that Clinton should have supported the military coup there that started in 1991 and not done anything to restore democratic rule? Bosnia & Kosovo -- Both soundly denounced by Republicans, but ultimately successful operations. Certainly not the quaqmire like Iraq. Bin Laden -- Certainly a failure to some extent, although the Clinton administration did draw up the war plans for Afghanistan, which the Bush administration sat on and did nothing with until after 9/11. Then they were more than happy that someone had come up with a war plan for Afghanistan that could be dusted off and executed.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << NAFTA is an issue where clinton is undeniably weak, and obama isn't. >> No, NAFTA is an issue that Obama is using to pander to the labor unions. He talks to large crowds of people who have lost their jobs to China and then tries to tell them that a trade agreement between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico is to blame. This is demogoguery pure and simple. NAFTA isn't responsible for a single lost job to China, India, or Southeast Asia -- which for those who aren't paying attention, is where nearly all of our jobs going overseas are headed. It would generally be a good thing if our jobs were just heading over the border to Canada or Mexico. They aren't -- they're going overseas. Obama knows this, but treats the electorate like they are too dumb to know the difference. He's no different from any other poitician out there. Pandering for votes and deceiving the voters with empty rhetoric.
Originally Posted By gadzuux It seems disingenuous for republicans to criticize democrats for failing to get bin laden. Not only has their candidate failed, but he's actually business partners with bin laden's family.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> NAFTA isn't responsible for a single lost job to China, India, or Southeast Asia << You're mixing apples and oranges here. You're right, NAFTA doesn't apply to trade with nations other than those "north american" nations included in the compact. But the topic is NAFTA - not trade with asian nations. In order to address the topic, obama speaks about ways to renegotiate the contract to be more equitable to the US. The whole asia issue is a red herring to NAFTA. And I think it's an unfair attack on obama - essentially saying that his NAFTA positions are inadequate because they don't address trade issues with asia.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << The whole asia issue is a red herring to NAFTA. And I think it's an unfair attack on obama - essentially saying that his NAFTA positions are inadequate because they don't address trade issues with asia. >> No, it's not a red herring. I watched some C-SPAN coverage of Obama on the stump in Ohio. He was speaking to a group of union workers who had been laid off recently because their factory was relocated to China. He acknowledged that fact on the stump -- and then began his rhetoric on NAFTA. It was unbelievable. Later that evening, the news ran some "man on the street" interviews with some of the union members who were at the rally. They all talked about losing their jobs to factories in China, India, and other Asian countries. Not one person said they lost their job to Mexico or Canada. Still, in the interviews they blamed NAFTA for their lost jobs. Absolutely stupid people, and Obama was singing their stupid song.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Did you see the ohio lunchbox guy on 60 minutes last week who said he supports clinton because obama's a "muzzlum"? There's a lot of stupid people out there. That's not obama's fault. His "rhetoric" on NAFTA is stating his positions on the issues surrounding trade with north american nations. By definition, it's not going to address inequities with trade with other nations. You may have wanted to hear his views on asian trade instead of NAFTA. But that doesn't mean that his NAFTA positions are wrong.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper When Clinton was in New York she said NAFTA was a good thing. In Ohio she said it is a bad thing. What will it be in Pennsylvania? Well, that depends on what they want to hear. In terms of bridging the divide between left and right, I think Obama or McCain have a better chance to do that than does Clinton.
Originally Posted By gadzuux I think mccain would be a third bush administration. Or fourth, depending on how you count them.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << You may have wanted to hear his views on asian trade instead of NAFTA. But that doesn't mean that his NAFTA positions are wrong. >> His NAFTA positions are wrong. We don't have a trade problem with Mexico and Canada! We are losing jobs to Asia! By focusing voters on NAFTA he is misleading them. Certainly, any trade agreement has its plusses and minuses. If we were losing massive amount of jobs to Canada and Mexico, it would be far better than us losing them to Asia. If anything, he should advocate making NAFTA a better incentive so companies look to our neighbors before they look across the Pacific to save money.
