Which Democratic candidate do you prefer? - Page 2 - Political Forum

Oregon Elephant · 11-02-2007, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

I would expect that ALL of Hillary's policies will be the same as her husband's. Hillary is a populist and she runs all policies by what the polls say and by what her political base says. She is left of center. So she primarily caters to her liberal and Democratic base, but she will reach out to the center and the right wherever possible.

She will probably withdraw most troops from Iraq and leave 30,000 behind to train the Iraqi's and fight Al Qaeda. She will pursue a middling course with Iran and she could bomb them OR she might not. Clinton bombed Iraq in a major campaign, lead a war on Serbia and launched a missile strike on Somalia and Afghanistan. It is highly like that the US under Hillary will strike some target. It entirely depends upon the circumstances. It is likely that she has no real foreign policy ideology.

As for Obama, well I guess his foreign policy would be to pull every last person out of Iraq. I highly doubt he would ever go to war with Iran. Obama has little foreign policy experience compared to the likes of his senior colleagues:

Bill Richardson
Joe Biden
Chris Dodd

That hurts, it really does. Hillary will never catter to anyone besides those that support her. She will never "reach out" to conservatives except to try and trun them into liberals.

micfranklin · 11-04-2007, 04:15 PM

I voted Obama because even though he's new to the game, he seems more genuine and well-rounded and I can't help but like some of his positions.

Plus, he's "opposed to dumb wars," and that's an automatic qualifier for me.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 11-05-2007, 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oregon Elephant

That hurts, it really does. Hillary will never catter to anyone besides those that support her. She will never "reach out" to conservatives except to try and trun them into liberals.

What are you basing that on? Blind hate towards Hillary?

Bird of Prey · 11-05-2007, 06:38 AM

Clinton or Dodd. I want somebody that actually respects polls. . . and I want a Democrat that can actually win.

Biden is not a trustworthy man and the Reps will tear him to pieces. Richardson is too "short," and I mean that in every sense of the word. His track record is not noteworthy. It's more that he's been innocuous as a UN ambassador and a Secretary of Energy. As a Governor. . .the same. Obama definitely doesn't have the experience. The rest have noteworthy image problems: ambulance chaser; married to somebody old enough to be his daughter; a big mouth with an old bankrupcy. . . .

Oregon Elephant · 11-05-2007, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

What are you basing that on? Blind hate towards Hillary?

She has always cattered towards her democartic supporters. When the majority of the country was republican, she didn't cattered to them. She has always and will always catter to the populist views of the liberal side only, and even that she is going to be getting it from the media interpertation of the liberal main stream.

micfranklin · 11-05-2007, 12:15 PM

Can't say that I'm surprised that most people here prefer either Obama or Kucinich....

Bird of Prey · 11-05-2007, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by micfranklin

Can't say that I'm surprised that most people here prefer either Obama or Kucinich....

Why? I'm curious.

micfranklin · 11-05-2007, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bird of Prey

Why? I'm curious.

Because they're more genuine, likable and they seem to agree with their views on given subjects.

Caltex · 11-10-2007, 06:16 PM

I just don't get why so many Democrats are piling on to support Clinton, because they think she can win. Richardson would probably stand the best chance in a general election.

Bird of Prey · 11-10-2007, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caltex

I just don't get why so many Democrats are piling on to support Clinton, because they think she can win. Richardson would probably stand the best chance in a general election.

Well, I probably shouldn't comment since I used to be a Republican, meaning a person who believed in personal responsibility and didn't want a nanny state. . .until the Republicans became worse than that: a spend us into the toilet, militant, fascist state paving the way toward 1984 and Brave New World with a Metropolis twist. . . .

But O.K. I'm here so let me explain Clinton.

She strikes me as responsive. People don't like what she's doing? She'll listen and alter her course. I like that. I don't want some headstrong freak hellbent on doing whatever he wants despite the needs of the people he represents.