melonpan said:
Hillary's a (weak in some respects) uninspirational boring bitch.
This is not true. The people in
this video seem pretty inspired to me. I'm also sure that all the women of the US are inspired by someone who has a decent shot at becoming the first female president ever, don't you think?
She breaks down and crys when things aren't going her way, and she works like a machine.
This is, also, not true. Hillary Clinton is clearly
not "crying" in
this video. In fact, many would agree that this display of emotion helped her win New Hampshire. I think it shows her passion, her humanity and it's very clearly genuine.
She doesn't inspire people.
Again, this is not true. She inspired the people of Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island last week -- enough to give her a victory margin of 10% over Obama in Ohio, actually.
She'll be the same as all the other presidents have been. Her husband is a big reason why people vote for her, and when things aren't going her way she digs up a pile of crap about Obama. She's a loser.
Again,
not true. Do you see a pattern here? All the stuff you are saying about Hillary Clinton is simply not true. Lots of powerful people in the media don't like her, because she's a woman, and they feed you these lies. It's unfortunate that you believe them.
Can you show me one example of Clinton digging up "a pile of crap about Obama"? I know you won't be able to give me an answer.
Clinton has used both negative and positive campaigning; such is the nature of politics. However, Obama has done this too.
He's been calling on Hillary to release her tax returns before their due date, because he's trying to make out that 5 mil. she lent her campaign is suspicious (this is despite the fact both she and her husband have both written wildly successful memoirs, from which they both made lots of money). He's personally attacking her, claiming that there's a "pattern of secrecy" with her, despite the fact that 15 years of the Clinton's finances are freely available to the public. Oh,
and one of Obama's top advisors' recently called Hillary a "monster". Yep, a "monster". And you're telling me, it's just Clinton that's using negative campaigning?
Obama on the other hand is an inspiration. You listen to him and feel his power (cliché not intended). As long as you're competent and can make quick and well informed decisions on things you're good to go, and that's what Obama can do.
Nah, if you properly listen to his speeches, they are just exceptionally vague, and ultimately meaningless, regardless of how "inspirational" they are.
Not that I know a lot of detail about each candidates views, I know that Obama said that he doesn't "do God" because "God" and politics/running a country should not be put together, which is one of the most sensible things I've ever heard an American (in a public position) say.
Well, it's quite obvious from these comments that you really do know very little about about Clinton, and even less about Obama. Barack places more importance on religion than Clinton. He has never, ever made a statement that even remotely resembles that he "doesn't do God". He hasn't, you are ill-informed.
In fact,
he even used a high-profile, gay bashing pastor -- Donnie McClurkin -- to rally the homophobic, religious vote in South Carolina. So, yeah, Obama very definitely does religion. He's quite a hypocrite on this gay issue, actually; he mentioned uniting "gay and straight"
upon accepting the endorsement of (the awesome, btw!) Sen. Ted Kennedy and he also brought up the issue of
homophobia in the black community while speaking on Martin Luther King day. Of course, these are admirable acts, especially considering Hillary Clinton only seems to bring up gay issues when she's in front of a gay crowd. But he doesn't support gay marriage, even though his own church does. And he goes and invites gay bashers like McClurkin to his rallies. Hmm. He's just pandering to everyone; how do we know who's side he's on? Does he want a fair society, where being gay doesn't make you second to straight ffolks, like he's mentioned in speeches? Or does he want an unequal society, like McClurkin wants?
He also feels very strongly about healthcare, and wants to make it free for everyone, and knows that it's not going to happen at the click of a finger. He knows there's a lot of work to be done to make things right, and I think he can do it.
Sure he does. But health care is, in fact, Clinton's signature issue. As First Lady, she chaired and created the
"Clinton health care plan" to give health care to all Americans. As you may know, the US health care system is hideously profit-driven at the moment (just watch Sicko, by Michael Moore to get a basic idea). Clinton wanted to fix this, but she was defeated by health insurance companies and the Republicans who spent millions upon millions to insure she was silenced. So, if health care is your biggest concern, Hillary Clinton is much more dedicated and has a history of trying to fix it.
So, I think I've proven that you hold an innate bias against Clinton, and that most of what you think about her is wrong :]
As an unrelated aside, I think Hillary is such a great role model for marriage, too; she's an example of working through something, instead of just signing divorce papers as soon as something goes wrong (I'm referring, of course, to the Lewinsky scandal). And with divorce rates sky-high in the US, that's the example that should be set!
