Hillary Clinton Has A Compassionate Side

Danneus · 02-27-2008, 02:07 AM

She's been helping people all around the world for the past 35 years, in fact:

The Rights of Women and Children, Worldwide: The Candidates Differ : NO QUARTER

Phantom · 02-27-2008, 01:49 PM

If she were only a little less arrogant that side might have shone and she would have wound up her nomination by now.

David Octavius · 02-27-2008, 02:10 PM

I have no doubt in my mind that she is an honorable woman - but being a "fighter" in government is not what we need. Such divisiveness is just going to cause the same old politics and not get the things done we need to get done

motivez · 02-27-2008, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by David Octavius

I have no doubt in my mind that she is an honorable woman - but being a "fighter" in government is not what we need. Such divisiveness is just going to cause the same old politics and not get the things done we need to get done

Right, we don't want someone who's going to fight for their beliefs against the Republican machine.. we've seen that work tremendously for the Democratic Congress, amirite?

Bringing people together is great, but lets not engage in the delusion that Republicans are going to have a collective change of heart and work with Obama or Hillary on stuff like that evil 'socialized medicine' or anything else. They'll fight tooth and nail to stop it, and whoever becomes President is going to have to as well.

If whoever the nominee is isn't willing to fight hard against the Republicans, it wont get done. They'll filibuster and use every tactic they can to impede the Democratic agenda, Obama (or whoever else) is not only going to have to work hard to build a base of support for his ideas among the American people (which he's done well in the primary season), but also fight back, and fight back hard against Republicans who are diametrically opposed to progressive ideology.

Phantom · 02-27-2008, 02:41 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

If whoever the nominee is isn't willing to fight hard against the Republicans, it wont get done. They'll filibuster and use every tactic they can to impede the Democratic agenda, Obama (or whoever else) is not only going to have to work hard to build a base of support for his ideas among the American people (which he's done well in the primary season), but also fight back, and fight back hard against Republicans who are diametrically opposed to progressive ideology.

Part of what makes Obama so interesting is his ability to build support among the people. By doing this, he will be engaged less in "fighting" with the republicans and more "neogtiating" with them.

With the country divided more or less 50-50 on so many issues, it's easy for either party to gum things up and make sure nothing gets done. When the people are closer to 60-40 on an issue, it becomes much more dangerous for a party to screw around.

JaJae · 02-27-2008, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Right, we don't want someone who's going to fight for their beliefs against the Republican machine.. we've seen that work tremendously for the Democratic Congress, amirite?

Bringing people together is great, but lets not engage in the delusion that Republicans are going to have a collective change of heart and work with Obama or Hillary on stuff like that evil 'socialized medicine' or anything else. They'll fight tooth and nail to stop it, and whoever becomes President is going to have to as well.

If whoever the nominee is isn't willing to fight hard against the Republicans, it wont get done. They'll filibuster and use every tactic they can to impede the Democratic agenda, Obama (or whoever else) is not only going to have to work hard to build a base of support for his ideas among the American people (which he's done well in the primary season), but also fight back, and fight back hard against Republicans who are diametrically opposed to progressive ideology.

This is a very pro-liberal ideology to hold. Any minority party will attempt to obstruct. We don't know who will hold the Senate or the House after 08 any more than we know who will be in the White House. We shouldn't be rooting for one party to fight tooth and nail to get their agenda across. Most Americans are independent and prefer a balance of the views and compromise over forcing a single ideology through our government. Obama has the unique ability to appeal to independents and gain their support.

The reason minority parties obstruct so much is typically because the ideology and bills attempting to be passed are too politically leaning towards the opposing ideology. Having a party or leadership ramming their ideology down everyone's throats with no concept of compromise (as we've seen from Hillary in the past) will not get anything done. It's fine to believe in a party so strongly and oppose another, but compromise is how things get done in Washington. Going to Washington with a "fighter" attitude as Hillary is promoting will be counter-productive.

I don't agree with all of Obama's views. And if he were running on a message of "this is how it's gonna be and no way else, and I'm going to fight it to death", etc.. I wouldn't be voting for him. That's not how our government progresses. Our government is divided enough. We don't need another four years of getting nothing done.

David Octavius · 02-27-2008, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Right, we don't want someone who's going to fight for their beliefs against the Republican machine.. we've seen that work tremendously for the Democratic Congress, amirite?

Thank you Captain Sarcasm...what I meant what that a leader is more than just a "fighter". Yes there are times to stick by your guns and not yield but for other things like Healthcare, not a damn thing is going to be done by fighting Republicans, and moderate democrats.

Bush was a fighter, now he is fighting just to stay relevant, his own party is abandoning him. What kind of power does he have now? Regardless of his "lame duck" status, he lost power because he was so hard headed and never compromised. When his party started distancing themselves from him last year, it was the beginning of the end.

The exact same thing can happen to Hillary - she shares the same arrogant traits of Bush. Every politician is arrogant to a point - as is Obama - but to wear on your sleeve will only be counter productive.

motivez · 02-27-2008, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by Phantom

Part of what makes Obama so interesting is his ability to build support among the people. By doing this, he will be engaged less in "fighting" with the republicans and more "neogtiating" with them.

With the country divided more or less 50-50 on so many issues, it's easy for either party to gum things up and make sure nothing gets done. When the people are closer to 60-40 on an issue, it becomes much more dangerous for a party to screw around.

I agree, but my point was really more about being willing to stick by your guns if you feel something is a core belief. Compromise is great and all, but if you let people completely opposed to your plan continually chip away at it, after a time.. it wont resemble what you thought it would. Especially on stuff like universal healthcare.

motivez · 02-27-2008, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

This is a very pro-liberal ideology to hold. Any minority party will attempt to obstruct. We don't know who will hold the Senate or the House after 08 any more than we know who will be in the White House. We shouldn't be rooting for one party to fight tooth and nail to get their agenda across. Most Americans are independent and prefer a balance of the views and compromise over forcing a single ideology through our government. Obama has the unique ability to appeal to independents and gain their support.

The reason minority parties obstruct so much is typically because the ideology and bills attempting to be passed are too politically leaning towards the opposing ideology. Having a party or leadership ramming their ideology down everyone's throats with no concept of compromise (as we've seen from Hillary in the past) will not get anything done. It's fine to believe in a party so strongly and oppose another, but compromise is how things get done in Washington.

Sure, minority parties should represent their constituents by working against the majority party agenda, I don't begrudge them that opportunity.. I certainly didn't when the Democrats weren't in power, not sure why you think I would now.

The point I'm making is that if you're supporting a candidate, it's probably because you like their positions on the issues. You don't want them to flinch and bend over backwards all the time to make people who are diametrically opposed to you happy.. you want them to push forward the agenda you thought you were voting for.

Originally Posted by JaJae

I don't agree with all of Obama's views. And if he were running on a message of "this is how it's gonna be and no way else, and I'm going to fight it to death", etc.. I wouldn't be voting for him. That's not how our government progresses. Our government is divided enough. We don't need another four years of getting nothing done.

But nothing will get done unless he's willing to stand up to the Republicans. That's just the truth. Look at the Democratic Congress for a prime example of that.. they've failed to do much of what they wanted because they continually flinch and defer and compromise on bills until what they end up passing isn't anywhere close to what they were elected to do.

It's only been recently that they've stood up and not blinked, like on this FISA thing.. and that was an important issue , it shouldn't have taken them this long to do it!

Now, I'm not saying not to compromise, but there's a difference between having the backbone to stand up for what you believe in and not. I'm not saying Obama doesn't, but this idea that he'll be President and suddenly the Republicans aren't going to fight every bit as hard to block his agenda is so ludicrous that I don't understand how people can blindly accept it.

He'll have to be willing to stand up for that agenda, and refuse to give in on key points.. or what we'll end up with is a massively watered down version of everything he (and the rest of the country) wants.

motivez · 02-27-2008, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Thank you Captain Sarcasm...what I meant what that a leader is more than just a "fighter". Yes there are times to stick by your guns and not yield but for other things like Healthcare, not a damn thing is going to be done by fighting Republicans, and moderate democrats.

Let's say you're President Obama, and you're working toward your universal health care plan.. Republicans have managed to block you thus far.

What do you compromise on that gets them on board with something they're diametrically opposed to? Give me specifics.

It's great to say "let's compromise!" and I'm all for reasonable compromise.. but when you have a party like the Republican party, that has core beliefs, that will stand up for them and fight for them tooth and nail, what do you give up to placate them?

JaJae · 02-27-2008, 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

He'll have to be willing to stand up for that agenda, and refuse to give in on key points.. or what we'll end up with is a massively watered down version of everything he (and the rest of the country) wants.

The "rest of the country" does not want exactly what Obama, Hillary or Democrats stand for on most issues. Most people would be ok with a watered down version of what they want if the alternative is a divided government that accomplishes nothing.

The reason Democrats in Congress are not "standing up" to the Republicans as you seem to desire is because they have to answer to their home districts. They were elected into power on the promises of compromise and moderate approaches. If they wish to be re-elected they can't follow someone like a Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi into a divisive stalemate. Many of the Blue Dog Democrats recognize that their districts do not want what the Democratic leadership is attempting to push through. Hillary Clinton does not play well with moderates (even Democrats) like her husband did and like Obama most likely will.

6SpeedTA95 · 02-27-2008, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

I agree, but my point was really more about being willing to stick by your guns if you feel something is a core belief. Compromise is great and all, but if you let people completely opposed to your plan continually chip away at it, after a time.. it wont resemble what you thought it would. Especially on stuff like universal healthcare.

Or the nation in general with the nanny state many are trying to implement. It's all about what the government can do, what jobs can government provide, etc etc etc. The nations foundation has been chipped away at since 1776

6SpeedTA95 · 02-27-2008, 04:06 PM

I'd compromise, you implement a flat tax with personal and child exemptions ONLY and I'd be ok with universal healthcare.

RMNIXON · 02-27-2008, 06:54 PM

Originally Posted by David Octavius

The exact same thing can happen to Hillary - she shares the same arrogant traits of Bush. Every politician is arrogant to a point - as is Obama - but to wear on your sleeve will only be counter productive.

Indeed!

Danneus · 02-28-2008, 12:16 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

Let's say you're President Obama, and you're working toward your universal health care plan.. Republicans have managed to block you thus far.

What do you compromise on that gets them on board with something they're diametrically opposed to? Give me specifics.

It's great to say "let's compromise!" and I'm all for reasonable compromise.. but when you have a party like the Republican party, that has core beliefs, that will stand up for them and fight for them tooth and nail, what do you give up to placate them?

Yeah, FWIW, recent history suggests that the republicans in Congress aren't going to be very amenable to reasonable compromise. I didn't follow politics as closely during Bill Clinton's administration as I do now, but didn't Gingrich and the Republicans try to shut down the government when Bill refused to lie down for them?

Granted, the Republicans don't have the Congressional majority as they did in the 90s, but I can definitely see them filibustering or even walking out if they strongly disagree with proposed legislation.