To waterboard Jeff.
Yes some of it was his doing. Please no penis jokes, I attempted to write a title without one but it was difficult.
Seriously though, he would have been the best choice for NYC mayor. He was one of the most knowledgeable members of Congress on healthcare and I believe helped in the debate to pass the Affordable Care Act.
I know what he did was wrong and not the most classy thing, but considering what other politicians have done from both parties his offenses are small potatoes. Spitzer actually cheated on his wife in person and he is going to win Comptroller in a landslide and that will help pave the way back into political life for him. Bill Clinton exposed himself to a woman in person, not over the internet, IN PERSON, yet that doesn't seem to matter. David Vitter cheated and that didn't matter.
Yet given all this and the offenses of many more, Weiner is treated like garbage by the Clintons and the rest of the elites because he may make them look bad and is not in the "club." Clinton is so he got a pass. Spitzer is so he got a pass. Same with many Republicans.
But Weiner was shafted despite his ability to go toe-to-toe with the Republicans on healthcare.
This situation is exactly what I hate about politics and makes me think nothing will ever change.
The fact that everyone is on her bandwagon is scaring me. I can't figure out what so many people like about her. The only things I can think of are that there are no great candidates in either party, as many successful people choose to stay out of politics and in the private sector, and that her last name is Clinton.
Let's face it guys if she had a different last name or an R at the end of her name we would not want her anywhere near the Presidency.
She's a Neo-Con plan and simple. Voted for all wars. Voted for all funding. Supported torture. Supported drones. Was completely supportive of the Iraq War vocally. There is no disputing any of this. She was an annoying first lady who blew up healthcare reform and was complicit in attacking the women with whom her husband had relations.
She has no new ideas. She's basically just a walking talking point.
I don't want this show in the White House again. I'm perfectly comfortable with the steady family man Obama is as that translates well into his professional life.
Let's stop being lazy and find someone to run against Hillary and ignore the god damn polls. You know, someone who didn't support endless war and torture. Is there anybody out there? Or is the depth in the Democratic party as bad as the Republican party?
If I have to hear this woman fake a southern accent again in 2016 I'm going to go crazy!
Thanks for all the passionate responses from my previous diary. I did not expect nearly 180 responses as of this writing. I'm starting another thread to address the why is Webb different than Hillary question. As I did not want my response to get lost among all the others.
But geez thanks for the passion! Its what makes this site so great!
Why Webb? Well who are the two politicians who fought against the Bush administrations biggest mistake the Iraq War? I mean the most mainstream politicians not far left guys like Dennis K. Although I do respect Dennis K. I would argue Obama and Webb. The two were against the war from the start and spoke about wasting lives and resources instead of focusing on keeping our troops safe, decimating Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and addressing more pressing domestic issues.
You could certainly argue that it was easier for Obama and Webb to oppose the war because they never had to vote on it. Very true. But their voices helped raise opposition and bring in a new wave of Democrats in 06 and 08.
Hillary to me is part of the fake old guard. She vehemently supported the Iraq War from her initial votes and statements down to all the funding. Heck, she was on the Armed Services Committee at the time so surely she had access to good intelligence. At least Biden expressed some doubts and offered some solutions. Not Hillary, her position was no different than Bush.
So ask yourself this question: Do you really want someone with the same position on the Iraq War as Bush and the mainstream Republican party just because she has a D at the end of her name and her last name is Clinton?
Lets look for better alternatives. If we nominate her I think we will lose. Go for O'Malley, Webb, Biden, and others.
I don't think Warren, Baldwin, Booker, etc....and some of the other rising stars in the party are qualfied enough yet. However, they would make great VP candidates.
O'Malley/Booker or Webb/Booker would be great tickets.
Pragmatic and better foreign policy than Hillary (much closer to Obama's version)
Reasonable domestic policy. And I frankly think if immigration reform is passed and healthcare reform keeps plugging along that most of the country will be grateful and it will be very tough for Repubs to get back any part of the minority vote.
However Webb or O'Malley will be better able to win back some of the white male Romney voters Obama lost, more effectively than Hillary. Not that you should vote on the electable candidate but the one who is electable and would govern most effectively. The main reason I support Webb over Hillary is more willing to take a stand against the status quo as evidenced by opposition to Iraq.
I may be in the minority here and I am probably mentioning this way too early. Obama just won and thats a good thing. But it seems like many are automatically giving Hillary the nomination for 2016. I think this would be a big mistake and can think of many other qualified candidates.
My ideal guy is Jim Webb. I feel he is a pragmatic tough guy who would be respected and can appeal to swing voters. Not to be racial but I was surprised Obama lost the white vote by 20%. Some of this may be racism. However, there is no way Jim Webb would lose the white vote by this much.
I think Hillary will suffer from many of the same personality flaws Romney did. The most important factor in a Presidential race is a voter believing the candidate really does give a crap about them. Obama was good at this. Not as good as Bill Clinton. But very solid. LBJ was good at this. So was JFK. Heck, I will even give Repubs their due, Reagan was great at this. Bush was better than Kerry despite being weaker in many areas. This was the one reason Bush eked out a victory vs Kerry. Hillary appears terrible at relating to people. She looked uncomfortable in many ways during the primary in '08. I supported Obama then so I may be biased but the cry moment was absurd. That locked in my vote for Obama. Imagine her during an entire campaign?
Biden would also be a solid choice. The only reservation I have with him is his age. But my nightmare scenario is Hillary losing the personality battle to a guy like Huckabee.
Am I crazy? I would love to hear realistic thoughts. Thanks everyone for getting me through the election. I was a nervous wreck at times.
Positives and Negatives I see from the campaign and my realistic and slightly cautious prediction below:
Would love others to share thoughts.
1) Ground game and early vote - although not as good as 2008 we seem to be still ahead
2) Economy getting better albeit slowly
3) Obama's handling of Sandy -reminds people of how bad Bush's was of Katrina. Don't know if it will help but its possible it gives a 0.1% boost in a swing state - which could matter in the end
4) Ohio polls - we seem to be ahead by 2 on avg
5) Romney has been out of the news for a few days while Obama has looked Presidential
6) Coverage of Bill Jeff (as George Carlin says RIP) relentlessly campaigning
7) Nate Silver
1) Trailing with indys - although that has narrowed slightly in some recent polls
2) Need solid turnout in Ohio - not as good as D + 8 in 2008 but need better than 2004 and 2010. D + 5 should do it.
3) Republican enthusiasm is higher than in 08
4) Enthusiasm of key demographics such as younger people is lower than 08
It will not be glorious but I bet we will prevail.
I think the electorate will be somewhere between 04 and 08. That means about 38% Democrat 34-35% Republican and the rest Indys
I think Obama and Romney will each earn support from their respective bases and about the same amont of crossover votes. This is what I see from polls. And unfortunately I think Romney will win indys by roughly 5%, reflecting some Tea Party voters preference to remain independent by also Obama's recent narrowing in some polls of the wider gap after the first debate
This means: Obama will receive between 49.5-50% of the vote and Romney between 48.5%-49.
Obama wins 6 battleground states: Ohio Wisconsin Iowa Nevada Michigan and Pennsylvania
Romney wins 5 battleground states North Carolina Florida Virginia Colorado and New Hampshire
Obama wins electoral college 277-261
His second term will be far more productive than his first as he continues to wind down the wars, puts together a responsible debt deal, and continues to implement healthcare changes.
I can appreciate the upbeat mood on this site as it has helped bring down my anxiety level re: this election tremendously.
I am really concerned about the independent vote. I realize some of these independent voters may be Tea Party members, but I cannot see how President Obama will win if he loses the independent vote by double digits.
Cause for concern?
Rasmussen: Romney 55 Obama 38
PPP: Romney 51 Obama 41
ABC/WP: Romney 58 Obama 38
IBD/TIPP: Romney 48 Obama 38
This really worries me. I don't see how President Obama wins while only carrying 40% of independents. He carried 52% last election.