As a democrat, if given the choice between the two I'd really have to think a lot.
Hillary, for my taste, is too much of a Washington insider. That has good and bad aspects, but what worries me is the way she is situated on the lobbying issues. And yet, when I watch her actually inter-acting at interviews, and in debates, I find she is a quick and capable mind, and while I don't approve of about half of her shtick, I think she could be an effective president to clean up after Bush.
Barrack I know less about. He speaks well enough, but he seems a little dodgy on the stump... I find myself agreeing with the front end of his thinking, but not the conclusions, and I'm frankly concerned, ironically, that he isn't enough of a Washington insider, and therefore won't be able to get things done.
It's reall a tough call, and I refuse to take a stand so early on in the campaign. I find it good that I don't hate them or any of the other Democrats. I really worked against Gore in 2000, which I regret.
I want the next president to be a democrat, but I want them to be the kind of person that's more than whatever dumb party they are in. Because the party politics is the problem; it's tearing our country apart.
2007-09-24 13:07:39
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
3⤋
not ether.
I will give the low down about Obama and you may not like it but if you follow the links to the policitco.com articles and read it all you will not like or trust Obama.
He is the biggest liar on the campaign trail.
1.. He used an innocent man in Iowa to get free new and his PR people lied to keep the spin going. This man is a Armenian Physicist here doing some work with some of the most important programs for Universities and the Government. And he was helping a friend in Cincinnati Ohio out with his novelty card business when Obama used him read the links.
2. He is not a Christian as you will not find one Muslim saying a word about his so called conversation from Islam. You can convert to Islam but not away as it is called a fatwa or to us a death sentence. No one word about this.
3. He stated he would invade Pakistan who is an alley on terrorism and barely holding on with eh Islamic extremist there. Which was done by Obama to destabilize this country that has a nuke and I will add the only Muslim country that does. Why would he do this even Hillary knows this is very bad.
4. He last week said he would never use the Nuke which was a signal that if he wins that they the Islamic terrorist who wishes us all to be dead can do it and he will not act. Id this what you want for a president? No look at what Turkey did to Christians and they will end all of the things you love on the left as we are all infidels to them and the left here is satin itself.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0707/Enter_the_Armenians.html
2007-09-25 08:56:34
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
As of today one of them ( Hillary / Obama) has to be the choice for the next president since there is no one in the Republicans who can boldly endorse or disassociate himself from President Bush's policies.None of them has any clear mind on whether or not to continue with Iraq War. None of them has got the audacity to express himself in any forum, what is right and what is wrong with GWB policies.Only GWB has to solve their predicament by doing some thing that redeems faith of American public in his attempts to bring some honorable solutions. Unfortunately he has very less time to define his course, as he is now caught between the Devil and the Deep sea.
The above being the situation it is well with in American interests that the public makes up its minds for the democrats who are not burdened with the blemishes of GWB / Republican policies . Experience, substantial following, good exposure to international political / economic / social situations , clear and analytical mind to grasp and react responsibly should be some of the considerations. Rather it is very disappointing to find not so serious matters like some one is a woman, socialistic with welfare state concepts: some ones wife said he stinks have become the concern of the voters( Do they really vote when it matters?). Americans would be better advised to recall the lines " Awake, arise .......be fallen"
2007-09-24 20:49:53
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Which would you prefer to be? Blind and Deaf, or retarted? The choice is yours, just pick one...
Of the two, Obama is much better in my opinion. While I still say he probably wouldn't be a great, or a good president due to his lack of experience, but Hillary is a Communist. How much worse can you get than a Communist, unless we elected Osama Bin Laden to be president. Between a guy who will probably at best be mediocre, and an all out Communist, I choose Obama.
2007-09-24 21:19:35
·
answer #4
·
answered by William E. Roberts 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
I am a democrat, and neither is a good choice. Hillary, has already been in office and did not do a good job. We are not ready for a woman, and she bows down to moveon.org, they control her and Obama, you will see neither go up against move on.....ever. Obama, does not have the experience, or the leadership abilities. Plus he was born and raised a Muslim, and no matter what he says about his religion now....you cannot remove those beliefs when you have been raised in that faith, and the schools that you attend while growing up were Muslim. Neither is capable of holding this important job. If we elect a woman, no matter who she is said to have killed while in office, the Muslims will take advantage of that and see the US as weak, and will they prove it by, attacking us, and we already know that she will not do anything about it, because move on is against attacking any terrorist who attack us and kill our families and children. Obama will not attack because it is against his belief to attack his own people.
2007-09-24 21:27:00
·
answer #5
·
answered by mrs_endless 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
Hurry, before the Repubs block it. They are running around like chickens with the heads cut off because they know they ain't got no chance to retain the White House.
Hillary: Lawyer, experienced in government, First Lady, could have one very experienced adviser (HER HUSBAND)
if she wants to use him, having been around Washington long could be a plus or a minus.
Barack: What a catchy name, lawyer, state senator, looks and acts different, Has the guts to be different than all the others who simply regurgitate, rehash or reword what everyone had been saying in Washington, will not cater to lobbyists.
If I had to make a choice now? Barack Obama
2007-09-24 20:17:39
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
3⤋
Obama, clearly. He has sworn off taking big money from special interests and hasn't been in Washington long enough to fall into the Washington ways as Hilary has. He has more regular people donating almost as much money as Hilary has from these special interest groups .She has decided to take the money from these special interest just as all the politicians of the past have. Obama hasn't been in Washington long enough to fall into those type of ways of thinking and sees how they actually need to be changed. He's already begun Ethics Reform whilst still in the Senate, trying to make fundamental changes to the way Washington is run. And if you don't believe fundamental change is needed in Washington and the people need to be heard instead of the special interests and corporations like the Hilary campaign, I don't know know what to tell you.
2007-09-24 20:16:59
·
answer #7
·
answered by bungerman 2
·
0⤊
3⤋
Its the lesser of two suits. Obama being a completely empty
suit, Hilary being a suit which has White House experience.
Hilary is the best choice if that is the only two to choose from.
2007-09-24 20:19:39
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
who cares. they both suck and that's all that matters. why do they suck? because they are in a position of power, seeking an even higher position of power, and have no intention of defending freedom. they can't because they're socialists, and socialism and freedom are in a constant battle with each other. for a good idea of what socialism is, read..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
look closely and you will see their platforms fit into that catagory rather nicely. being a big pro freedom guy that i am, i firmly oppose both the democrats and republicans. i am a libertarian, and anybody who claims to love their freedom should be as well. for an idea of what that is, read...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
2007-09-24 20:24:36
·
answer #9
·
answered by White 5
·
3⤊
2⤋
Barack is "better." He's got no history, no experience, no enemies. We need fresh ideas and a major change to get the American people to have faith in their country again.
Hillary would probably make a very good president, except she's so polarized. She hasn't even run for President yet, and everyone already seems to have formed a strong opinion of her. We don't need another polarizing president.
2007-09-24 20:08:20
·
answer #10
·
answered by M 3
·
3⤊
4⤋