MERGED--> NH predictions + Hillary's win + NH recount?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Earnie Shavers said:


Compared to what - George W Bush's wealth of foreign policy experience circa 2000?

We live in very different times than we did in 2000. Radical Islam was not a major focus the way it is today. I would say Americans fear terrorism much more than in 2000. Since then, 9/11 happened and the subsequent wars have developed. In my opinion, foreign policy experience is always important to have, but even moreso right now. In 2000, I don't think foreign policy knowledge was quite the crucial criteria that a lot of people see it as today, or at least I do.
 
Wow. Just wow. I come to FYM for the discussion, but I stay for the
waffleszp4.gif


Holy shit....

And regarding radical Islam..you're joking, right?

2861U2 said:


We live in very different times than we did in 2000. Radical Islam was not a major focus the way it is today.

deltaforcepi9.jpg
 
Last edited:
2861U2 said:


We live in very different times than we did in 2000. Radical Islam was not a major focus the way it is today. I would say Americans fear terrorism much more than in 2000. Since then, 9/11 happened and the subsequent wars have developed. In my opinion, foreign policy experience is always important to have, but even moreso right now. In 2000, I don't think foreign policy knowledge was quite the crucial criteria that a lot of people see it as today, or at least I do.

Yes we live in different times, although we've helped create those different times. But W's experience didn't somehow change drastically from when he was brought in to 9/10, 2001. And you've been fine with his performance. You also don't seem to understand that Presidents hire cabinet members who apparently are experts in their fields. I really don't see Obama hiring cabinet members who don't even know what a Sunni is to be dealing with the Middle East, like our current president.
 
And while I completely disagree with the common belief that Bush is an idiot, the stories about him having close to zero intellectual curiosity seem all too common to not at least have some truth to them. Don't know if you could say that about Obama.
 
Earnie Shavers said:
And while I completely disagree with the common belief that Bush is an idiot, the stories about him having close to zero intellectual curiosity seem all too common to not at least have some truth to them. Don't know if you could say that about Obama.

Why do you disagree that Bush is an idiot?
 
you know what would be great? if it were McCain vs. Obama, we'd have an actual discussion on what to do about global warming and not this "needs more study" garbage.

that's exciting.

but i do worry about McCain's chances after New Hampshire. sure, he's winning by about 6 points, but he beat Bush here in 2000 by 18 points. and he has no prayer in South Carolina.
 
and as for Obama's foreign policy experience, i think he has much more than Romney, Giuliani, and Huckabee (who's fretting about Pakistanis coming over the border).

yes, i'd agree that McCain has more experience, but i don't agree that he has better judgment.
 
Irvine511 said:
and as for Obama's foreign policy experience, i think he has much more than Romney, Giuliani, and Huckabee (who's fretting about Pakistanis coming over the border).

yes, i'd agree that McCain has more experience, but i don't agree that he has better judgment.

It's funny you should mention experience and judgement. I was watching a rerun of the Daily Show tonight, and Obama was the guest. He brought up a great point of how most people who talk about wanting an experienced leader mean they want one who has better judgement. Yet, experience, does not mean good judgement. Obama said we probably all know older people, 50-60-70, years old who supposedly have "experience", yet they continue to make poor decisions and cause pain in their lives. It's no different as a government leader. As has been said over and over again, including by Obama on this particular Daily Show interview, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld had years of "experience" in their past, yet they've showed nothing but extremely bad judgement in the past few years. They literally are walking advertisements that experience means nothing when it comes to judgement. Experience, in my opinion, can lead to bad judgement because it can create a false sense of confidence, which is really arrogance. It becomes an attitude of, "I've done this years, I know what I'm doing" that leads to ignoring reason and logic and acting impulsively based on what's worked in the past or what solution seems best at the time. That may work sometime, but most of the time it leads to disaster as evidenced by many of the decisions of the "experienced" Bush administration. A lack of experience, on the other hand, can lead to better judgement for the opposite reason. It forces you to consider all the options, and employ reason and logic simply because there is no prior knowledge to fall back on. Does this always lead to a correct decisions? Of course not, but I believe it has more of a chance.
 
U2democrat said:
How much foreign policy experience did Reagan have before he was elected?

Yet many Republicans hail him as the man who ended the Cold War :shrug:
Being Governor (chief executive) of California for two terms very credible experience for high office.
 
DIXVILLE NOTCH, New Hampshire (CNN) -- Citizens went to the polls in Dixville Notch a moment after midnight Tuesday to cast the first ballots in a 2008 presidential primary.

They gave Sen. John McCain an early lead in the GOP race and denied Sen. Hillary Clinton any votes in the Democratic contest.

McCain garnered four votes, followed by former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney with two and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani with one.

Sen. Barack Obama, fresh off a victory in the Iowa caucuses, was a favorite among Dixville Notch Democrats, with seven votes. Former Sen. John Edwards won two votes, and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson got one.

Clinton drew no votes among the 10 Democrats casting ballots in Dixville Notch, a hamlet of about 75 people near the Canadian border.
 
And this:


Obama's double magic

By allowing voters to both vent their anger and overcome it, while embodying the transcendence of America's racial wound, Barack Obama offers not just hope, but alchemy.

By Gary Kamiya


Salon \
U.S. Democratic Party Presidential candidate Barack Obama

Jan. 8, 2008 | Barack Obama's stunning victory in Iowa was a moment of national alchemy. It represented an outpouring of righteous Democratic anger, and its simultaneous transformation into hope. That double process -- the cathartic expression of rage, and its purification -- is exactly what Democrats have needed after seven nightmarish years of Bush. It is politics both as payback, and as spiritual transcendence. And the fact that it is a black man who is serving as America's philosopher's stone, turning the base metal of bitterness into the gold of forgiveness, is extraordinarily moving. The possibility that our nation's deepest wound, and the source of our political divisions, could also be the agent of our redemption is like a banner appearing in a darkened sky.

"Redemption" is a big word, perhaps too big for the profane world of politics. It is important to remember that the idea of Barack Obama and the reality of the man are not necessarily the same thing. If the senator from Illinois becomes president, he may or may not do a better job than his two worthy Democratic rivals. But there are times when the symbolic aspect of politics is inescapable -- and creates its own reality. Obama offers something neither Hillary Clinton nor John Edwards does: The chance to decisively slam the door on the Bush era, the Bush war and its Democratic enablers, while simultaneously forgetting them. It is a politics of therapeutic forgetting. And after the Bush years, both anger and creative oblivion are necessary.
 
Anu said:
And this:


Obama's double magic

By allowing voters to both vent their anger and overcome it, while embodying the transcendence of America's racial wound, Barack Obama offers not just hope, but alchemy.

By Gary Kamiya


Salon \
U.S. Democratic Party Presidential candidate Barack Obama

Jan. 8, 2008 | Barack Obama's stunning victory in Iowa was a moment of national alchemy. It represented an outpouring of righteous Democratic anger, and its simultaneous transformation into hope. That double process -- the cathartic expression of rage, and its purification -- is exactly what Democrats have needed after seven nightmarish years of Bush. It is politics both as payback, and as spiritual transcendence. And the fact that it is a black man who is serving as America's philosopher's stone, turning the base metal of bitterness into the gold of forgiveness, is extraordinarily moving. The possibility that our nation's deepest wound, and the source of our political divisions, could also be the agent of our redemption is like a banner appearing in a darkened sky.

"Redemption" is a big word, perhaps too big for the profane world of politics. It is important to remember that the idea of Barack Obama and the reality of the man are not necessarily the same thing. If the senator from Illinois becomes president, he may or may not do a better job than his two worthy Democratic rivals. But there are times when the symbolic aspect of politics is inescapable -- and creates its own reality. Obama offers something neither Hillary Clinton nor John Edwards does: The chance to decisively slam the door on the Bush era, the Bush war and its Democratic enablers, while simultaneously forgetting them. It is a politics of therapeutic forgetting. And after the Bush years, both anger and creative oblivion are necessary.

I love that article. It articulates exactly what I love about Obama. I also happen to think he has the policies and plans to take this country in the right direction, but the hope he gives is a major factor.
 
I voted this morning. I tried to gauge other people's preferences while waiting in line.

I now think Obama is going to win in a blowout. At least that was the feeling I got.

Still, I don't truly understand the animosity towards Clinton at times. It really seems unfair to me. Damn her for being a woman with a brain.
 
It's not the gender card that has hurt Hillary among Democrats if we mean that Democratic men cannot support a woman who is smart. It's a bit more complicated than that.

But if you want to bring up the gender card because female Democrats dislike her dispassionately and love Barack passionately, well that's another story.
 
From a somewhat anti-Hillary site, so probably a bit biased:

Message, not gender, turns voters off Clinton

...

"None of the polling or the focus groups indicate that people are ... (snubbing) her because she is a woman but because of a deficit in how she is projecting leadership," Wolf said.

"If anything, she is too entrenched, too competent a leader. She ... has been on the world stage and people (voters) are sick of people who are ... on the world stage," she said.

Obama captured overwhelming support among young voters in Iowa. Clinton, on the other hand, was flanked by politicians from years past on the night of the Iowa result, including her husband and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

...

http://www.hillaryproject.com/index.../message_not_gender_turns_voters_off_clinton/

ETA:
It's also on Yahoo now:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080108/pl_nm/usa_politics_clinton_leadership_dc
 
Last edited:
I'm really torn on this whole Hilary thing. Yes, I can see why voters would be turned off by the possibility of having another Clinton in the White House after 8 years of another Bush, but when you think about what happened the last time a Clinton was in office as opposed to Bush now, it's not exactly a bad thing. :scratch:
 
ABC News' Karen Travers Reports: New Hampshire Deputy Secretary of State Dave Scanlan told ABC News that turnout among primary voters today is "absolutely huge" -- and there are concerns about running out of ballots in towns like Portsmouth, Keene, Hudson and Pelham.

"Turnout is absolutely huge and towns are starting to get concerned that they may not have enough ballots," Scanlan said. "We are working on those issues. Everything else seems to be going smoothly."

Scanlan said that the Secretary of State's office is sending additional ballots to Portsmouth and Keene (traditionally Democratic strongholds), Hudson (Republican leaning with significant numbers of independents) and Pelham (large number of independents).

According to Scanlan, the ballot strain seems to be on Democratic ballots, which suggests that the undeclared voters are breaking for the Democratic primary. New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner predicted that 90,000 undeclared voters would vote in the Democratic primary compared to 60,000 voting in the Republican primary.

Deputy Secretary Scanlan said based on a formula anticipating higher turnout, they printed additional ballots, but in most cases towns will go "right down to the wire with ballots they need." The extra ballots will be insurance ballots in most places so election officials have a comfort level.

Scanlan said reports from polling places show that turnout has been steady and high though the morning but typically high activity periods will be lunch and after work.
 
phanan said:

Still, I don't truly understand the animosity towards Clinton at times. It really seems unfair to me. Damn her for being a woman with a brain.

I've never understood it either. I think it might be just be she has personality that tends to "rub people wrong" but I personally think she'd make a fine president.
 
LarryMullen's_POPAngel said:
I'm really torn on this whole Hilary thing. Yes, I can see why voters would be turned off by the possibility of having another Clinton in the White House after 8 years of another Bush, but when you think about what happened the last time a Clinton was in office as opposed to Bush now, it's not exactly a bad thing. :scratch:

Ya, but this election is not about the establishment. It's a cliche now, but it really is about change. People are sick of the way the system works now and she typifies that system. Yes, she is very smart, but she is politics as usual. She is bought and paid for by corporate America which means she will work for them, not us. People are SICK of that.
 
Back
Top Bottom