Hillary: Pros and Cons, Facts and Fiction

Remove all ads!

The fact is that parties are tied closely to their representatives. I would have a VERY difficult time voting for any Democrat were I an American because that party's core ideals conflict so drastically with mine. I don't agree with them on abortion, capital punishment, justice in general, gay marriage, affirmative action, radical feminism, taxation and pretty well most other issues. It would take a candidate who agreed with me on at least SOME of those issues to get my vote, and that candidate, if he wants Deocratic party support, isn't likely to come out of the Democratic party. It sure as heck isn't Hillary.

That said, though, at the present time I'm not really happy about what the Republicans stand for at the present time, either (wars based on lies, deficit financing to finance said war, ignoring the desperately helpless during Katrina, etc.)

 

Wow. I guess I need to explain myself a bit better. First of all, I would think long and hard before voting for a 3rd party canidate, because I don't like the idea of throwing my vote away. Unless something changes radically in the next year and a half, the person taking the White House in January of 2009 will hail from either the Republican or Democratic party. If by chance some strong canidate decides to run as an independent, he/she could theoretically earn my vote, but if I'm getting the typical choice of 3rd party canidates like Buchanan or Nader, then by throwing their switch on election day I'm throwing my vote away. I may as well not even bother showing up to vote.

As for the two things you "know" about me. 1. Of the people likely to win the nomination, I rank Hillary above all the Republican canidates likely to win the nomination. That is not the same as saying that I actually rank her above all the republican canidates, which I do not. 2. Kind of self-explanatory based on my response to #1, but my list does not include ALL democrats, nor is Hillary my 2nd choice. The top of my list is someone who isn't even running. It's just that the realist in me tells me the people who I currently rank ahead of Hillary are unlikely to receive the nomination, and I'm much more inclined to vote for one of the two major canidates, as then my vote actually matters at the end of the day. Anyway, if you really want my list here it is, and I would vote for any of the following canidates in the order I present them (note Hillary is 5):

1. Al Gore
2. Ron Paul
3. Barack Obama
4. Bill Richardson
5. Hillary Clinton
6. John McCain

Logically, then the list of people who I won't vote for include Giuliani, Huckabee, Brownback, Romney, Kucinich, Chris Dodd, and many others.

I don't even know why I bothered responding to you Darkwolf. As if you haven't a list of people you already KNOW you won't vote for reagardless of what they say or do between now and election day. I usually decide on my vote by process of elimination - I haven't decided anything yet, and won't until election day. However, I already know there are some canidates I won't for, and I already know that my top choices are unlikely to win the nomination. Since I want my vote to have value, it may very well mean I will have to go to the 5th choice or lower or waste my vote.

Just so I'm clear here - it's OK when you reject a canidate over a year before election day, but it's not OK when I do it? That doesn't seem very logically consistent.

 

Aldeth,

Thank you for the clarification...but just to be perfectly clear, what you are saying now conflicts with your earlier statements. Your second post lists the following:

You clearly stated in your first post that if Hillary wins the nomination that you will vote for her...yet you say Ron Paul is ahead of her on your list, and it is likely that both of them will be on the ballot...you see the dilemma?

Addressing your comment to me and my supposed inconsistency:

You are quoting me out of context both in fact and by implication...I did not say that that there is no way I would vote for Hillary...I said that I could not "foresee" this happening unless something dire happened (like another Bush trying to get into the Whitehouse). I did not make an absolute statement as you did in your first post. If I said their was no way I would ever vote for her it would have been a closer analogy...though not perfectly as I am only rejecting a current candidate, not making an absolute decision as to who I am voting for over a year out from the election (when all the candidates haven't even declared yet).

For my personal stance, should it end up an all New York race I am going to have a major issue, and will probably "waste" my vote on a 3rd party candidate as I see them both as equal disasters. In fact, unless someone new enters the Republican primary, I will most likely "waste" my vote on a 3rd party candidate regardless of who comes out of the Democratic primaries as I have no doubt that any of the current crop of Dems could beat any of the current crop of Reps, so I will make a statement of distaste of both parties by "wasting" my vote. However, should a worse individual than Rudy somehow manage to win the Republican nomination I would be forced to vote for Hillary just to do what I can to make sure that the worse candidate didn't win the election (sounds an awful lot like '04).

Finally, please understand that I am not tying to pick on you personally...you are one of a small group of people on this board that I actually respect. I believe that you are one of the few here who doesn't suffer from delusional dreams of the grandeur of socialism and also doesn't have a major case of irrational Bush induced rabies. In fact I am glad to hear that you have not already decided to anoint Hillary in the White House. You may see a vote for Ron Paul as a waste of a vote...but as long as people continue to feel that way it is impossible to create a viable Libertarian party. Be bold, take a stand and vote for who you truly want as your President...to do anything else leaves you in the difficult position of wanting to complain about the person you voted for. And yes, I am in that uncomfortable position at the momment!

 

Unless polls have changed dramatically, I do not see how Ron Paul will be on the ballot, unless he changes his mind after losing in the Republican primaries and runs as an independent. Admittedly, the assumptions I was working on when I made the Hillary statement were unstated at the time, so there was no way you could have known my reasoning. Namely:

1. That I will likely NOT vote for a 3rd party canidate
2. As a direct result of #1, my vote would go to the winner of either the Democratic or Republican Primaries.
3. That Ron Paul would NOT be the Republican nomination.
4. That the Republican nomination WOULD BE Guliani or Thompson.

Given those parameters, since I am quite confident that nothing will change my mind about not voting for either Guliani or Thompson, if Hillary wins the nomination, she'd get my vote. Hopefully, my initial statement is clear now.

True - but the chances that your conditions for voting for Hillary actually come to pass are so remote that to me you basically were saying that there's no way you're voting for Hillary. Again, unless you are looking at very different news sources than me, Jeb isn't running in '08. As that appears to be about the only way you'd vote for Hillary, I feel pretty confident in saying that you wouldn't vote for Hillary.

You see, I look at it differently than you. I enter the voting booth with the thinking that either the Republican or Democratic nomination is going to win the office. Since I am virtually guaranteed to be stuck with one of those two, I would rather place my vote with the one I prefer of those two rather than giving my vote to a 3rd party canidate who has no realistic shot of being elected. Granted, if I voted for the person I liked the best that had no shot, technically I could complain no matter who won, but I'd rather place my vote in for the one I like more (or perhaps dislike less) of the two realistic possibilities.

[ July 18, 2007, 21:45: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

A few questions, DW. Of the republicans vying for nomination, how many of them are against the war in Iraq (none)? How many of them are going to roll back Bush's tax cuts in an attempt to fix our (now even more massive) deficit (none)? Now that it's obvious that McCain has no chance of winning, how many of them have stated that they condemn torture (none)? Again, now that McCain is gone, how many want to close (or, at least, reign in) Guantanamo and provide the prisoners with due process (none of the front-runners)? With these questions out of the way, I think it's obvious that your typical anti-war, anti-torture, anti-deficit, anti-Guantanamo democrat already knows he is not going to vote for a republican.

One more question. Has a third party candidate ever won a presidential election...even once? Since we both know that we have never elected a third party candidate (and if you didn't know, you know now), it isn't unreasonable to assume that your typical anti-war, anti-torture, anti-deficit, anti-Guantanamo democrat already knows he/she will be voting for the winner of the democratic presidential ticket. At least if he wants his candidate to, you know, actually win.

 

"I would have a VERY difficult time voting for any Democrat were I an American because that party's core ideals conflict so drastically with mine. I don't agree with them on abortion, capital punishment, justice in general, gay marriage, affirmative action, radical feminism, taxation and pretty well most other issues. It would take a candidate who agreed with me on at least SOME of those issues to get my vote, and that candidate, if he wants Deocratic party support, isn't likely to come out of the Democratic party."

You know, that is so refreshing - to hear (okay, read) someone work with the implicit presumption that a party-supported candidate for office will stick to what their party supposedly stands for - and, in fact, that the party will try to push for any of those things if it actually gets into office. Cheers to you, I guess .

 

@The Shaman:

Was that sarcasm? I'm not sure, as it did sound pretty sincere. I'm assuming you know that there is not universal support in either party for a lot of those things. There are pro-choice republicans, and anit-gay marriage democrats for example. Just because the current administration keeps to the script that the speech writer hands them, does not mean that everyone else in the party is like that.

That's why I felt that LKD's post was quite uninformed when it comes to American politics. I didn't bother to correct him, because he's Canadian and doesn't have a vote here anyway, so he can feel however he wants about how our system works. Granted, if you are an uninformed voter, then chances are you'd be right if you simply assumed that the canidate running was for or against certain issues based on their party affiliation. However, it's a pretty big tent on both sides (it has to be with only two political parties of significance), and not everyone feels one way or the other just because they are in a particular party.

 

Drew,

Granted, none of the R candidates who have any hope of winning are strongly against (or even significantly) the war in Iraq...but then I am not either, I am just pissed at how poor of a job Bush has done managing it. I am in the camp who believes that we are past the tipping point (and were before Bush came into office) with the radical Islamic movement. Every major conflict in the world (as recognized by the UN) involves an Islamic group on one side (if not both sides). Islamic groups are in armed conflict with every major religion in the world (even itself), and it is the belief of these groups that the time has come for the 12th Imam (Mahdi) and the Caliphate of prophecy to rise and place the world under its domain. These groups are growing in numbers and power (and again we are past the tipping point of stopping them peacefully IMO), and we are at a point where negotiations are futile. These groups see negotiations and concessions as weakness, and they will not be appeased. I will not vote for any candidate that does not recognize this threat, or who believes that the answer to this threat is to fall back to American and negotiate. I will only support Pax Americana if we are to use military force to seal our borders and to provide swift and devastating responses to any attacks on America or our interests. Call me a barbarian if you like.

As far as your desire to raise taxes, it is a poor and ignorant wish. Would you rather have 40% of $100 or 35% of $130? Tax revenues are at record levels, and are rising. Increasing taxes will drive funds overseas and out of channels that grow the economy. This is one of the critical failures of the liberal mentality. Liberals always want to cut the pie into smaller pieces...conservatives want to make a bigger pie. The only problem is that there are very few conservatives (or true liberals for that matter) in politics. Bush certainly doesn't qualify as a conservative, and very few Republicans do. Unfortunately the pioneering blood that ran through the founders of this nation has been watered down, and the Greatest Generation was the last generation to still hold the values that made this country the great nation that it was...and I do mean that in past tense. If people think the Government is the answer to their woes then they are probably asking the wrong questions.

Sorry, Aldeth you are correct...I was trying to take care of a sick child while I was typing that and messed up and dropped an entire paragraph out in my cutting a pasting to try and put some flow into that post...I meant to have a "supposing that Ron Paul wins" in there, but it got lost somewhere between "daddy I don't feel good" and the 5th time I flushed puke down the toilet...so yes a Ron Paul is and incredible (lighting strike) long shot. But I still stand by my statement of voting for 3rd party candidates...if we all believe that one can never be elected, and thus we never vote for one, then we have created a self fulfilling prophecy.

Sorry if this post is equally screwed up...I have been interrupted about half a dozen times and after being up most of the night with my son I am too tired to care, so I am not proofreading it.

 

I may not be an American, but I'd hardly say I'm uninformed -- I'm the mouse living close to the elephant, remember? We mice tend to watch the elephant VERY closely.

In any event, the Democratic party, as near as I can tell, has pushed quite strongly for major policy and law changes in the social areas I mentioned. That party line is why I could never vote Democrat.

Conversely, while there are certainly pro-choice, gun-control supporting, equal-opportunity policy supporting Republicans out there, they are pretty rare, I think. In order to get a nomination, however, it is my understanding that a candidate will court the favour of the party whose nomination he seeks, and if he wants to keep their support, he will vote and act according to those policies of the party the plurality of the time, if not the majority.

 

It really depends on whether you are talking about those items individually, or cumulatively. You are correct that there probably aren't any Republicans out there that are pro-choice, against capital punishment, favor gay marriage, promote radical feminism and support stell cell research. Heck, there probably aren't that many DEMOCRATS out there that favor all those things.

However, if you look at things individually, then you'll see the numbers aren't as rare as you imply. There are many Republicans that are pro-choice for example, but aren't as left leaning on the other issues. There are gun-control Republicans too - but that doesn't necessarily mean they are also pro-choice. You are, of course, correct in saying that it would take quite a strange person indeed to sign on to one party and then support all of the other party's agenda items. However, I felt like you were painting all Democrats with a broad brush and saying that all of them supported all of the things on your list. If that's not what you were saying, then I apologize for the mischaracterization.

 

Aldeth,

Are you dismissing LKD's comments because he's Canadian or because he's conservative? There are many other non-Americans on these boards who profess to know an awful lot about our politics and I don't see their comments being dismissed very often even when they are dead wrong. LKD's comments didn't seem so uninformed to me. Sure you can't always paint everyone in a party with the same brush but in general what he says is correct. Most Democratic politicians do toe the mark when it comes to party policy. The same obviously holds true in the Republican party. Mavericks are relatively rare in either party. Considering that your posts are normally very thoughtful and respectful I'm going to assume it really was the Canadian thing. Regardless, I do think that you were wrong to dismiss LKD's comments out of hand.

{Edit - Aldeth beat me to the punch. My post is now rendered irrelevant. My faith in the universe is restored.]

[ July 19, 2007, 20:01: Message edited by: Dinsdale ]

 

Ahh, heck, broad brushes are par for the course when talking politics, sadly enough. I'll concede that my experience with the Canadian political system (which has much tighter controls on party members) has colored my views, but I know well enough that individual elected representatives in the U.S. have more latitude on their voting habits.

That said, though, I still contend that the baseline values of the Democratic party (as symbolized by their usual position on social issues) makes it extremely unlikely I'd vote for one. To be honest, I like Obama as a human being. I like the way he writes and comes across. But I would find it difficult to get past his party identification. As for Hillary, well, I'll bring up something completely new when I say this, but I would argue that the whole Bush dynasty thing has been a nightmare for the U.S. -- and the world -- and having another dynasty on the other side of the political equation would also be problematic. Let's see what THAT one touches off!

 

LKD, much to my surprise, that's the first time anyone has brought that concept into this thread. I was wondering when someone would. Thank you.

That's another big reason why I'm opposed to Hillary: the competing dynasty factor. I'm so sick to death of both the Clintons and the Bushes that the thought of another 8 years of hearing from and about either family makes my skin crawl. I think it's a safe assumption that much of our constant partisan bickering will be dialed down a few notches when we get some fresh blood in the White House. So much polarizing, negative sentiment has been built up on both sides that the issues are nearly always overshadowed by the personas.

 

Politics in America are divided by region. Regional differences account for a large part of the political make-up of the parties. Looking at the differences between Red states and Blue states only scratches the surface. Yet, looking at the distribution of those states and their collective votes, helps in many ways to understand how polorarized America has become. The wedge issues, of which Ragusa commented on, are a real and a substantial problem for the unity and continued success for America as a whole nation.

It's easy for a Republican like Rudy to be pro-choice, pro gun control and pro women, as many in his state favor those issues anyway. Right now he is a serious contender for the nomination on the Republican side, but he has to get past the Red states in the South to get the nod (I don't know what LKD will do here). People often joke that there is no difference between a Democrat or a Republican from Texas - It's no joke.

 

What LKD will do here is watch and pontificate, because as was so kindly pointed out to me, I have no vote in America!

Kidding aside, if I were a U.S. citizen, it would be a frosty friday in hell before I'd vote for Rudy if he espouses the views you enumerated, Chandos -- unless the other fellow espoused similar views I felt were even more contrary to mine. There's also a bit of a regional streak in that as well -- in Canada the East / West divide is stronger than the one in the States (correct me if I'm wrong) and that said I'd be most likely to vote for a Western candidate than an Eastern one, all other things between the two contenders being equal.

 

Well there is a pretty sharp divide georgraphically in the US as well, although it's not along an east/west line. The Democratic states are along the west coast, New England, and the mid-Atlantic states, whereas the Republican bastions are the entire middle portion of the country as well as the southeast. The states in the middle - specifically in the midwest like Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin - are also the ones that likely determine the outcome of national elections.

 

And if the dollar is falling so fast that it is no longer the "standard" unit of trade because we aren't paying off the national debt (we spend over $400 billion on interest alone), and thanks to Bush's massive deficit the debt just keeps getting bigger? With high inflation, a big number is not necessarily better than a small one. In the long run, our money will be more stable if we weren't carrying a growing debt of $8.8 trillion dollars and only paying interest on it.

Regarding your assertion that the Fed is getting more tax money with lower taxes than higher, you're quite off. Even taking into account the stronger revenue growth now projected for fiscal year 2006, real per-capita revenues have simply returned to the level they reached more than five years ago, when the current business cycle began in March 2001. Overall, our economic recovery has actually been weaker than the average post-World War II recovery....even with Bush's tax cuts.

Arguments that tax cuts pay for themselves, that stronger revenue growth in 2005 and 2006 represents the beginning of a new trend, and that the tax cuts could pay for themselves over the longer term are supported by neither the historical record nor current revenue projections.

Now for a bit of a history lesson:
Way back in '81, Congress approved very large supply-side tax cuts and dramatically lowered marginal income-tax rates. In '90 and '93, by contrast, Congress raised marginal income-tax rates on the well off. Despite the very different tax policies followed during these two decades, there was virtually no difference in real per-person economic growth in the 1980s and 1990s. Real per-person revenues, however, grew about twice as quickly in the '90s, when taxes were higher, as in the '80s, when taxes were cut.

See? Bush's tax cuts are not only not generating more revenue for the government, but they are also de-valuing the dollar, which will drive away a lot more foreign investors than a higher marginal tax rate on income over 100K.

 

There is something to be said for lower taxes... but something to be said against them, too. Taxation revenues seem to follow a bell curve - you get nothing at both ends of the spectrum, with an optimal amount somewhere in between.

True, lower taxes can stimulate the economy. Even better, they can get some of the grey economy into the open, including when it comes to paying taxes. However, I would presume that in the US, unlike in say Nigeria, a lot of the companies are already paying taxes, so the returns might not be as big as it seems. On the other hand, a country does need some revenue every now and then. Sometimes, depending on where on the curve you are, decreased taxes give more revenue. Sometimes they give less. It is a complex system and I can not make a pretense that I understand it fully. In fact, many of the scientists that deal with it have been wrong at some point or another.

Drew talks about funding the federal deficit, but there are also other things to mind. For all this talk of "war" against crime, terror, extremism and all that, there is also something else to mind - such things are expensive. Military operations in Iraq and elsewhere cost money that has to come from somewhere. There are usually three options: borrowing, cutting of other budgetary programs or taxes. Now, afaik the Bush administration has had tax cuts with arguable value, while presiding over a massive increase of expenses in the military budget, and maybe other ones as well. This is quite the gamble, and it might bode poorly for the US - and world - economy if it does not pay off.

[ July 22, 2007, 02:48: Message edited by: The Shaman ]

 

I'd like, once again, to get this topic back on track. Hillary now seems to be suring up her lead, and many who once denounced her and said they'd never vote for her are warming up to her. I'm one of them. She's still not my favorite, but the more I hear her speak the less uncomfortable I become at the idea of her being president.

In fact, especially since Bush's idiotic speech yesterday, in which he's now comparing Iraq to VietNam and endulging the silly Rambo-inspired fantasy of "if the democrats hadn't made us cut-and-run, we'd have won," Hillary at least inspires the notion that she'd be a president who's read a history book or two.

Anyway, discuss. And please, no more welfare.

 

When it comes down to the election, the fact that Hillary is a woman will probably be pretty important even if most voters don't want to admit it. Think about you hear how Hillary's weakness is her "lack of warmth". Not her competence or intelligence, but something about her personality. Bush might be a nice folksy guy with whom you can have a beer (or at least he'll appear that way), but his administration, is, well, incompetent and belligerent. A poster on another forum has remarked that a lot of reactions to Hillary are going to be along the lines of "A woman is supposed to be warm and nurturing, not like a... a... politician!"

I'm willing to bet that the candidacy could come down to Clinton and Giuliani, which troubles me, because Giuliani has that whole tough-New-Yorker attitude that will probably win voters. Which isn't good, considering his really insane foreign policy. I'll vote for Clinton over any of the Republican candidates, of course, but I think I prefer Obama and Edwards over her right now -- just because of her rightist politics. However, the smear machine will vomit as much on any Democratic candidate as Hillary. If Obama wins the candidacy, Fox News will be blaring out crap about Madrassas and his middle name , for instance. An African-American named Barack Hussein Obama can become a bogeyman for as many people as Hillary Clinton is right now.