shouldn't this technically be called the 113 reasons to vote for hillary?

Is this the same Hillary Clinton who destroyed the safety net for aid for dependent children?

shouldn't this technically be called the 113 reasons to vote for hillary?

Yea, I was in a hurry and cut some corners :P

From my perspective it comes down to what you think the country needs at this time.

If you support Hillary, you want a technocrat. You see our problems coming more from sloppy management than a lack of effective leadership. You see that we have a flawed system but now is not the time to rock it. Now is the time to clean it up and make it fly as right as it can. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_(bureaucratic)

Technocrats are individuals with technical training and occupations who perceive many important societal problems as being solvable, often while proposing technology-focused solutions.

If you support Obama you want a reformist. You see the problems of the country linked not just to an incompetent executive, but a whole culture of politics that allowed things to go wrong. You feel the whole thing needs reworking and a populist movement is the way to apply that reform to all levels of government at the same time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformist

Socialist Reformism is the belief that gradual democratic changes in a society can ultimately change a society's fundamental economic relations and political structures.

Fuck…I'm a rechfocratist!!

What, no "Hillary for you and me" video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FvyGydc8no

Not new, I know, but since we had that corny video of the singing kids on the Obama top-ten list...

she's not a liberal. she's a neocon. that pro-war vote was no accident, and there's no excuse for it, any more than there is any excuse for the war. obama for president.

Hillary just said she'd support John "I want 100 years of war" McCain over Obama. She's getting desperate. What a dirty, nasty creature she is.

Hillary doesn't care about her party, the people, or the country. The only thing she cares about, is that she becomes President, and she'll do anything to achieve it. I'm surprised she hasn't hired on Karl Rove -- her methods wouldn't have become any more dirty as a result of it, but at least her tactics might start working a little better.

Gah.

As a European with nothing to gain on either side, and an avid reader of this site I feel the urge, after all the bickering of the past few weeks: Why are you still discussing over this? It's game over. Obama has won. I also wish it would've been Kucinich, but sadly enough it wasn't. Look here http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/graphs/graph_DConv08.cfm (prediction market), and read this : http://www.newsweek.com/id/118240

It's Obama, and Hillary supporters and Hillary herself should learn to live with it. The degree of hysteria in American politics will never cease to amaze me, though. Man, you people can turn up the volume! Cool down already.

wow, Dzwonka, where did you read that? holy crap.

I've gone back and forth between supporting Hillary and Obama, but I've settled on Obama.

Hillary is I think more knowledgable and would probably have the ability to work the system better to get things done. However, how effective will she be if she can't popularize her public vision? Image matters. Public leadership matters. Barack handles himself better than Hillary. He appears completely comfortable in his own skin. When I see Hillary, she appears disingenuous. She appears phoney. I want to like her and get behind her, but every time I see her (e.g. on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart), I feel like she's uncomfortable. This is not a trivial aspect of the job. There's a significant amount of the country rabidly out to get her. Hillary's discomfortable public persona feeds that mob and eats away at those who are on the fence.

This by itself was not enough for me to move to support Obama. Ultimately I sided with Obama because of the public relations mess that Bush has caused for the United States world wide. Both the message and the packaging of a message matter. There's never been a "black" president among the "Western" nations. The fact that this could happen in the United States says something important about the U.S.

The impact of America electing a "black" man named "Barack Hussein Obama" will create a powerful image and message. That can't be denied. The fact that this man also taught Constitutional law for ten years at the University of Chicago Law School is another fact that makes me feel good about my support for him. Someone who knows something about the Constitution ... how refreshing.

Dzwonka and amorphousblob,

I saw this last night and was trying to find the link again when I noticed Theowne posted it on another 1gm post:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/23456568#23456568

It was off-topic for that post, but perhaps Theowne posted to the wrong place by mistake.

"...he (McCain) will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002." Source: CBSNews.com

Incredibly, what she refers to is an anti-war speech that Obama gave... It boggles my mind that she'd criticize such a speech, since any reasonable person can clearly see that Obama actually was right. She's a freakin' neo-con -- and/or just plain falling apart at the seams.

I still don't understand why people feel the Federal government should be in charge of social programs like healthcare, education, etc. If any government is involved, it should be the State and Local government. It's not the job of the government to give me healthcare--really not the state's either. Why is it that Democrats sound more like Socialists? What happened to free markets and capitalism and limited government? I guess by now, you guessed that I'm a Ron Paul supporter. It's tragic that his views have been ignored. The country will now have to endure more pain until it bankrupts itself. Maybe then they will listen.

I still don't understand why people feel the Federal government should be in charge of social programs like healthcare, education, etc. ... Why is it that Democrats sound more like Socialists?

Why do you think that Socialism is such a horrible thing? What do you think you know about Socialism?

It's said that Democracy is the worst system with which to govern a country -- except for all the other ones. They're all flawed. As is, of course, Socialism. But what is the alternative?

If health care were to be socialized there would certainly be some negative sides to it, but there'd be some positive ones also -- are you absolutely certain that the negatives would outweigh the positives?

If a child that would normally have died under the current system, were to survive under a Socialist system, I think that would be a helluva big positive -- and you'd need a helluva big negative to outweigh it.

Health care for profit is simply morally reprehensible.

"Health care for profit is simply morally reprehensible."

Damn those nurses! Greedy bitches!

Socialism always sounds good at first but it always comes down to Big Brother telling everyone what to do with their money and that leads to control which means less liberty. Why don't they have a Socialist party instead of a Democratic party? Call it what it is if you're going to run under a certain ideology. Limited government and free markets have been shown to work much better than Socialist governments. The Founders would not have wanted a Socialist government--they were very close to Libertarian/Republican--just not what the Republicans run on today--just as the Dems don't represent the "people" as they should. And it's not morally reprehensible to make money while helping others--people need to make money and if they can do it while helping others--so be it! I don't think you'd have the best healthcare if the doctors didn't get paid well. What is tragic, is that people think they just deserve everything--free lunches for everyone. That creates a welfare state! If you lose an arm, do you feel entitled to a state-of-the-art bionic arm? Where does it end? In a free market, the people will get taken care of naturally with charities, churches and private hospitals that will help those in need.

But first..just call it what it is..it's Socialism plain and clear.

In a free market, the people will get taken care of naturally with charities, churches and private hospitals that will help those in need.

And how has that been working out? Are people "naturally" taken care of now? No.

Look to the Nordic countries. Have their societies collapsed under the strain of providing state of the art bionic arms and welfare to everyone? Their countries provide cradle-to-grave coverage, yet they are still holding down their jobs and being productive citizens. In fact, their standard of living is head and shoulders above the US...

Lincoln once said that what made the US the greatest country in the world, was its capacity for charity. Things have changed. Now it's "I've got mine, fuck you." Sad.

You're right, it's not happening naturally right now because the conditions are that of a welfare-like state. That needs to change before it will happen naturally. Less government is what we need..all these programs involve more government.

This is not the land of the handouts..it's the land of opportunity. If the state or local governments want to institute some sort of healthcare plan, that's fine..but it's not something I want my Federal taxes going towards. The government at the Federal level has no business being involved with healthcare.

THIS is a welfare state?! You have gotta be kidding me... Have you lived in other, modern, western, industrialized nations?

The welfare systems of Scandinavian countries means you could have a vastly better living standard living there, while never doing a day's work in your life, than a minimum age earner here in the US. Yet, there are no slums there. Because they consider it a priority for everyone to have a decent standard of living -- they have compassion for their fellow citizens, as opposed to the selfish dog-eat-dog mentality that exists here.

Just because they can live on government hand-outs, doesn't mean they will do so. People need to work, just for their own sanity.

Considering the amount of tax money that is used on warfare, "faith-based initiatives," and corporate welfare, I really wouldn't mind if they spent some of it on giving an innocent kid some healthcare.

No wonder this country is so fucked, with these kind of brainwashed attitudes...

"Considering the amount of tax money that is used on warfare, "faith-based initiatives," and corporate welfare, I really wouldn't mind if they spent some of it on giving an innocent kid some healthcare."

I don't want my money spent on any of these either--that's the point! And, I have lived in Germany for 4 years and I know a number of people from the UK that tell me how bad the nationalized healthcare system is over there.

My main point is that the government's job is not to provide healthcare. And what may be true in Scandanavia might not be true here..the work-ethic of Americans is pathetic! Do you live here?? How can you not notice that? I think we actually may agree on the underlying concepts here but it's very hard to express these views in detail in just a few paragraphs...I've said what I have to though.

Show your support for Hillary Clinton with free business cards!

http://www.ooprint.com/clinton

Order your 100 Hillary Clinton cards FREE!

Plus benefit from FREE SHIPPING until April 15th with the promotion code "CLINTON"

Be politically proactive and order now!