PDA

View Full Version : Hillary Up, Obama Down



SSanf
May 12th, 2007, 10:04 PM
Sen. Hillary Clinton's upward bump in Democratic presidential polls is viewed by insiders as a delayed reaction to Sen. Barack Obama's mediocre performance in the opening debate April 26.

Not many people actually watched MSNBC's telecast of the debate from Orangeburg, S.C., but press accounts and word of mouth have spread the news of Obama's performance. When asked by moderator Brian Williams what he would do as president if he learned that "two American cities have been hit simultaneously by terrorists," Obama replied -- citing Hurricane Katrina -- that "the first thing we'd have to do so is make sure that we've got an effective emergency response." In contrast, Clinton responded that she would "retaliate."

Obama's unsatisfactory answer generated criticism in Democratic circles that he is too inexperienced and that his managers are relying on his personality and biography rather than taking vigorous positions.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20676I watched the whole debate on YouTube. Yeah, that answer seemed kind of weak to me, too.

Nox_Mortus
May 12th, 2007, 10:07 PM
Obamas answer wasn't that great, but IMO Hillary's answer was worse.

Findarto
May 12th, 2007, 11:05 PM
Who the hell do you retaliate against when you don't know who did it?

Deet dee deeet

Nox_Mortus
May 12th, 2007, 11:15 PM
Who the hell do you retaliate against when you don't know who did it?

Deet dee deeet

exactly.

PeatBog
May 13th, 2007, 05:33 PM
I'd vote for Obama before Hilary. I thought the answer was okay.

Wulfleaf
May 14th, 2007, 09:42 AM
I mean, if some wacky group claimed it, right off the bat, I am all for retaliation, but at the same time, emergency response would be needed anyway. Depending on what the attack was, collateral damage, and more death could occur, if areas aren't taken care of. So, if I had to choose between the two responses, I would have picked Obama. Generally, if a group openly admitted that they attacked the US, then it would not only piss the US off, it would piss off its allies and trade partners, so the US wouldn't be going it alone, most likely.

CoolJ
May 14th, 2007, 09:47 AM
As much as I don't want to vote for Obama, I have thousand-fold less will to vote for Hilary. I'd prefer she loses the primary, the less chance she gets to be president the better.

SSanf
May 14th, 2007, 10:23 AM
As much as I don't want to vote for Obama, I have thousand-fold less will to vote for Hilary. I'd prefer she loses the primary, the less chance she gets to be president the better.
Well, I am starting to lean toward her. Not because I dislike her any less but because I am starting to like Obama less. I was neutral on him at the start but the guy really has gone over to the negative in my view.

I have posted most of the things he has done and said that have been causing me to think that he just plain and simply is not presidential material. He just doesn't seem to have his act together. And, I don't think we can afford a personable screw up heading the country at this time.

I guess, I am more comfortable with Hilary. While she sets my teeth on edge, I think of the candidates so far, she is the best qualified in foreign and domestic affairs. And, I tend to agree with her stated goals and policies even if I don't like her on a gut level and think she is probably one dishonest, mean, tough old bitch. Who knows? Maybe, that is what is needed to get us out of this Bush created mess.

PeatBog
May 16th, 2007, 12:39 AM
Hilary is complete republican-lite. Her answer to that question was republican-lite. I'd only vote for her versus a Republican ... or Joseph Lieberman.

Birdy
May 16th, 2007, 01:51 AM
Hillary's answer was the weak answer IMHO.

It's not like terrorists have big, well known HQ's you can just bomb the hell out of. It's not like you even automatically, magically know the responsible organization.

America is already at war with the likely terrorist organizations. So what, are there some cells somewhere that the military already knows about but has for some reason decided to do nothing about, perhaps just waiting for them to strike in order for the US to be able to retaliate? I should hope not.

BTW the correct answer to this question would be to suspect more attacks to possibly follow shortly and depending on the method implied take preventative measures. :nyah:

pawnman
May 17th, 2007, 10:35 AM
Of course. If we were hit by terrorists in two major cities, the obvious answer would be to surrender immediately and cave to their demands. Retaliation? How could she even CONSIDER such a thing!?:lol:


In all seriousness, I think Hillary is trying to move into the mainstream after a long history of being a far-left liberal. If the only thing I knew about her was presented in that debate, I'd move her into my top 5 of people to vote for. But one good performance doesn't erase a long voting record and the socialized medicine fiasco.

HetHert
May 17th, 2007, 12:50 PM
Hillary is a rotting douche bag.

Phoenix Blue
May 17th, 2007, 01:39 PM
Unsatisfactory? It was realistic. Is Hillary really suggesting we start bombing other countries before we've even seen to the safety and well-being of our own citizens?

Findarto
May 17th, 2007, 01:50 PM
Unsatisfactory? It was realistic. Is Hillary really suggesting we start bombing other countries before we've even seen to the safety and well-being of our own citizens?
TERRORIST!

Vote Hill 2008; the Candidate who knows how to bomb the F* out of unknown countries just for the heck of it. ;)

Shadowulfe
May 17th, 2007, 01:54 PM
personally i feel that emergency response should be the first thing done, as well as gather information on who did it, if nobody has claimed it yet. Once you find out who did it, then retailiate. People may think Obama's answer was weak, but imagine Hillary's image if she retailiated frist, just to find out...oops, the people we retailiated against had nothing to do with it

wolfjan1
May 17th, 2007, 01:59 PM
WHEW! By the title of the thread, I was nearly afraid to come in here, but curiosity got the best of me.

pawnman
May 17th, 2007, 10:35 PM
personally i feel that emergency response should be the first thing done, as well as gather information on who did it, if nobody has claimed it yet. Once you find out who did it, then retailiate. People may think Obama's answer was weak, but imagine Hillary's image if she retailiated frist, just to find out...oops, the people we retailiated against had nothing to do with it

I can't believe I'm defending Hilary Clinton...what is the world coming to?

She said retaliate "as soon as was prudent". I would think that means finding out who was responsible, and where they were, prior to retaliating. She didn't say "I'd bomb the hell out of every country I thought might be responsible".

Pawnman
can't understand why we don't just surrender already.

Birdy
May 18th, 2007, 12:39 AM
Of course. If we were hit by terrorists in two major cities, the obvious answer would be to surrender immediately and cave to their demands. Retaliation? How could she even CONSIDER such a thing!?:lol:


How insulting, I don't think any body suggested such a thing and I doubt anybody thinks that way.

Is it my post you read this into? By preventative measures I mean grounding planes etc.. the key words are shortly after.

Birdy
May 18th, 2007, 12:41 AM
Hillary is a rotting douche bag.

...and your in the other thread moralizing people for hating the late Jerry Falwell.

pawnman
May 18th, 2007, 08:09 AM
How insulting, I don't think any body suggested such a thing and I doubt anybody thinks that way.

Is it my post you read this into? By preventative measures I mean grounding planes etc.. the key words are shortly after.

It wasn't yours specifically. It was everyone who said retaliation would be a bad response. Basically, everyone up to my first post.

John Birmingham wrote a series of books centered on a Multi-National Naval Task Force in 2021. In the "history" of his novels, we've been at constant war with the terrorists for 20 years. The name of the flagship US carrier? The Hilary Clinton, the "best damn war-time president we've ever had".

pawnman
May 18th, 2007, 08:10 AM
...and your in the other thread moralizing people for hating the late Jerry Falwell.

Ah, well, it's OK to hate people while they're alive.

Phoenix Blue
May 18th, 2007, 08:36 AM
She said retaliate "as soon as was prudent". I would think that means finding out who was responsible, and where they were, prior to retaliating. She didn't say "I'd bomb the hell out of every country I thought might be responsible".
Well, that would be a refreshing change from the current administration ... "Al-Qaida's responsible for this. Bomb Iraq!"

Gemini
May 18th, 2007, 09:04 AM
Well, that would be a refreshing change from the current administration ... "Al-Qaida's responsible for this. Bomb Iraq!"

:rotfl: :veryweird


It appears Obama gave a thoughtful answer and Hilary just said what a lot of people wanted to hear......tis the case with politicians though.