Why I support Clinton over Obama

[LBJDemocrat]

I'm an Edwards supporter and a possible Clark supporter. When I joined DU, I thought Sen. Clinton was the worst possible Democratic candidate. My views have changed. Here's why:

1. Hillary Clinton has an extremely low CATO rating of 17%. Obama does not have a CATO rating yet. Given that Obama has more Wall Street support than Clinton, I would play it safe and assume that Clinton, while still a centrist Democrat, is better on the issue of trade policy.

2. Hillary Clinton is a potentially divisive figure. She has little charisma and is loathed by Repubs more than Obama will probably ever be. You may be reading this and thinking it's a bad thing, and it is in a sense. But it's also a good thing. A president that cannot rely on charisma will have to rely more on results. She will also have a tougher time selling Wall Street's agenda to middle America, this includes wars. Bush has gotten very far by pretending to be a simple Texan. President Clinton will not have this luxury. To add to this, she is viewed with suspicion by the base of the Democratic Party. Obama would be a better trojan horse for DLC-type policies in that he would face less opposition.

3. Hillary Clinton is recently displaying more worker-friendly political courage than Obama. Clinton voted against the Guest Worker provision, while Obama abstained. I won't hold that too much against him though because he was out campaigning. Of course, the Guest Worker provision ended up passing. Then there's the issue of the merit-based point system to immigration (which is a tool to screw over white-collar workers just as blue collar-workers are). Obama created an amendment that would phase out that point system after five years, which is honorable. Clinton, on the other hand, proposed her own amendment that would allow families to reunite, saying "Five years in the life of a young child is precious time indeed." Both amendments were rejected.

[joefree1]

1. And we get the Big Dog back

Good points. You got my rec. Sometimes you get a better picture of the trip ahead when you're in the middle of the road.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

8. I love your sig

:party:

[joefree1]

69. Thanks, steal it.

... or anything else that takes your fancy from my site. Only cost a couple of bytes.

[katmondoo]

10. She has proved to be one tough lady

None of the other candidates have had to deal with continuing adversity for such a long period of time. I don't always agree with her policies but I do admire her courage. Some of the things said about her and her daughter have been down right mean. I would have become a screaming lunatic under the same circumstances.

[Tellurian]

60. Hillary is wired to stick with the facts..

It has nothing to do with being tough...it's called being "ALL Business!" Men understand that coming from men...and they very well understand it coming from a woman...ie.."Lets not Bull Shit around and get down to the nitty gritty. Whats the bottom Line?"

[MiaCulpa]

2. Who to support?

I'm not going to support any Dem candidate who doesn't take a pre-emptive strike against Iran off the table. Clinton won't take it off the table, Obama won't, I'm not certain of Edwards. Kucinich is the only one I know for certain wouldn't launch an attack.

[Tellurian]

61. I wouldn't want a candidate to pre-empt my plans..

as Kucinich has done with his Peace Dept. We can only achieve Peace by Private Treaty which would involve Trade and a Win-Win situation where everyone involved benefits. Otherwise, why bother. We've left Iraq in shambles. How would they feel if we told them..."OK, we'll leave and thats it.." How many, but, but, buts would it take, saying look at what your country did to our country? And you're going to up and leave? No accountability for all the civilians killed, when Iraq didn't attack the WTC? It's just not going to happen!

So, for now...Kucinich 's plan has to be shelved.. Nice ideology, but not at this time!

[Hippo_Tron]

3. Do you have a source for Obama's more Wall Street support than Hillary?

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

4. Yeah I'd like a source for that

I thought the Wall St. support was about the same.

[LBJDemocrat]

5. Yup

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/17/AR2007041701688.html

[NYCGirl]

17. Not according to the FEC:

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F07

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F03

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

18. Not all Securities and Investments are Wall Street

Sorry.

[NYCGirl]

23. So the ones NOT located on Wall Street are alright with you, eh? NT

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

26. Not necessarily. I'm just saying that his point was correct, if a bit misleading n/t

[LBJDemocrat]

27. No.

But they're not as dangerous as the Wall Street firms, partly because they're more fractured and numerous. Their bargaining power is lower.

[LBJDemocrat]

22. Valid, but doesn't disprove my point

The fact that there are investment banks and securities firm outside of Wall Street probably accounts for the difference. For example, Romney's Bain Capital doesn't count as Wall Street because it's not New York-based.

The fact remains that the Wall Street firms, which are more internationally involved and monolithic, prefer Obama.

[NYCGirl]

25. So Romney's money is cleaner? NT

[Hippo_Tron]

53. It says from individual employees

I'd be interested to see where the PAC money is going.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

13. He has even more Wall Street support than Giuliani and Romney nt

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

19. That's scary

And yet people keep swooning cuz...like...he's a rock star :banghead:

Or something like that.

[flpoljunkie]

28. Wall Street Antes Up for 2008. Hillary Clinton was the biggest winner.

Wall Street Antes Up for 2008
Financial Sector Leads Early Giving
To Presidential Candidates

By BRODY MULLINS and DEAN TREFTZ

WASHINGTON -- Wall Street ranked as the top source of large campaign donations for presidential candidates in the early part of the 2008 campaign, aided by traditional contributors and new donations from the private-money industry, according to newly released campaign-finance reports.

Every major presidential candidate found the financial sector to be a lucrative place for political contributions in the first three months of the year, though New York candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton and Rudy Giuliani fared the best.

Mrs. Clinton, the state's junior Democratic senator, raised well over $4 million from donors in Manhattan and Greenwich, Conn., home to many hedge funds and private-equity firms. That accounted for about one in every six dollars she raised, according to a Wall Street Journal review of fund-raising reports released over the weekend. Mr. Giuliani, a Republican former mayor of New York City, received about $2 million, more than 10% of his money, from the Manhattan area.



Mrs. Clinton was the biggest winner on Wall Street. Her top source of contributions included Morgan Stanley ($77,000), Goldman Sachs ($63,000) and Citigroup ($63,000).

Despite making much-publicized inroads on Mrs. Clinton's turf, Mr. Obama raised about half as much as Mrs. Clinton in the wealthiest parts of Manhattan: about $2 million. Mr. Obama's top donors were employees of UBS AG ($139,000), Illinois electric utility Exelon Corp. ($138,000) and Goldman Sachs ($120,000.)

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB117677059183372030-JHZbTKi7NuPiIFNdxom0WDgi7f4_20080418.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top

[LBJDemocrat]

34. When was this?

The link doesn't work.

In any case, you may be right.

Wall Street determines the winner. When was the last time the winner of the general presidential election didn't go to the one with more corporate support?

[flpoljunkie]

54. Article evidently written April 17, 2007. Link works for me. Try it again.

[Hippo_Tron]

57. I'm confused about why we're looking at the individual employee contributions

I want to know where the PAC money is going. The employees of the financial industry aren't inherently representing the interests of the companies that they work for when they make political contributions. The PACs, on the other hand, most certainly are.

[Bucky]

80. Except that fatcats use employees' private donations to work around donation limits

You have to understand the herd mentality at large investment firms. The guys around the cooler say, "Hey, we're all getting together to support Mitt/Fred/Hillary/Barack for the coming election. You do wanna join us there, don'tcha, Frank? Some of our top clients'll be there. Hate to see ya miss that, Franky-boy. We'll get a chance to talk with the candidate right there on the spot. You in, Frank?"

It's clubby and it's all back-slappy and not a penny of it ever goes to Kucinich. But it's bad business sense for a business person not to show up at these events. And it's only $2000 per candidate. There's only four to six candidates he needs to do this for--say $10,000 this year for the primaries, $4,000 next year for the general election. Chump change since he probably makes that in one week of good commissions. Our friend Frank gets to rub elbows and make connections. He'd be insane not to go since all his competitors will be there too.

So these figures represent a pretty good index of the extent to which Wall Street financiers think they own a candidate.

[MH1]

6. Clinton has no personal honor.

None, zero, zilch.

See: her siding with Rove against Kerry, just before the 2006 general elections. She blithely pretended not to know what Kerry had actually meant, nor the context of what he said, nor his LONG history of supporting veterans; not the least to say it bothered her not a whit to kick a colleague on an issue he cares about more than any other.

If that sort of lack of character is just hunky-dory with you, than perhaps it's worthwhile to look at the rest of her record. For me, it isn't.

[politicasista]

12. She could have said "no comment" and left it at that n/t

Sorry :(

[rinsd]

7. Point 3 is wrong on a few points.

3) "Hillary Clinton is recently displaying more worker-friendly political courage than Obama. Clinton voted for the Dorgan amendment on the immigration bill. This amendment would end the "guest worker" (i.e. slave class) program after five years. Obama was absent. Luckily, the vote succeeded."

The vote did not succeed. The effort to strike the guest workers program failed 64-31. Obama's vote would not have made a whit of difference. Obama is worker friendly.

And I say the above as a diehard Hillary Clinton supporter.

[flpoljunkie]

15. Both Obama and Clinton voted for Dorgan's amendment. Link to roll call vote below.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00201

[rinsd]

21. D'oh!

I was thinking of this one

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00174

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

29. There's a difference between striking a provision and sunsetting it

Obama did not vote for striking it.

He therefore unworthy of my vote unless he apologizes.

[Colobo]

37. He doesn't deserve the vote of a troll like you, I agree.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

44. Who's trolling?

When I post on threads that support your position and candidate, I am always respectful.

[Dawgs]

48. Apologizes for what, not voting for something?

Boy, you have a lot to learn about politics if something like this will sway you.

My guess is you were never planning to vote for Obama anyways.

[flpoljunkie]

33. Duh! Doesn't matter a whit!

[LBJDemocrat]

16. Fixed. nt

[flpoljunkie]

39. Please see post#28 regarding point number two.

[HughBeaumont]

9. Worker Friendly?

With speeches like this?

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GC01Df03.html

Hillary Clinton made it apparent where she stood on outsourcing during her India visit, in an attempt perhaps to clear the Indian misgivings received during the Kerry campaign. "There is no way to legislate against reality. Outsourcing will continue," she told an audience of Indian big-wigs. She pointed out that there were 3 billion people who feel left behind and are trying to attack the modern world in the hope of turning the clock back on globalization. "It is not far-fetched to imagine ... if the Indian miracle would be the one of choice of those who feel left behind," said Hillary.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

11. Obama's said similar things in praise of globalization

He thinks the New Economy is just grand.

Screw em both.

[HughBeaumont]

20. It's what the handlers want to hear.

Politicians are merely here to tow the corporate line. Because we can't have a lefty, elfin, anti-war, whack-job conspiracy theorist like Kucinich giving you ideas that things can be equal between us. :sarcasm:

Our local paper endorsed Mike DeWine for Senator, astoundingly, based on Sherrod Brown's pro-worker stance that "sounds like it comes from the playbook of Dennis Kucinich or the AFL-CIO". You know, because when CEOs and their companies shit on you, it's actually peaches and cream oatmeal; it's YOUR fault for believing it tastes like shit.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

24. Sometimes I feel it's all hopeless

No matter what, the MSM will always decide which candidates are electable and which ones aren't.

And people here, of all places, eat it up.

[LBJDemocrat]

14. I know.

They're both wretched in many ways. Though if the outsourcing continues too harshly under Clinton, you can bet that middle Americans will notice it more than under someone more likable.

[HughBeaumont]

36. The mainstream press will sure call attention to it, for certain.

Much unlike the "everything is coming up ROSES!" economy sung today by the MSM in praise of BewshCo, despite the reality that many Americans aren't reaping the benfits of corporate gains.

[LBJDemocrat]

41. Yeah; possibly

The choice is similar to a hypothetical Bush I vs. Reagan. Both want to rig the economy against you, but one is better at doing it and more media-friendly.

[Colobo]

30. Support whoever you like. Obama's my candidate no matter what.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

31. Hillary looks attractive in your picture

Obama looks like a little kid.

I don't get it. It's not flattering for your candidate.

[Colobo]

32. I don't get your constant attacks on him either.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

35. Because I'm waiting for you to give me a concrete reason to support him

Something having to do with policy. Instead I hear he's a uniter and all that.

If you can give me Obama's leadership on trade, economics, jobs and immigration, I won't have to continue trying to unveil him for what he seems to be to me: a trojan horse for Wall Street with a pretty face.

Don't get me wrong, I'll vote for him if he's the nominee, but I wish you guys would stop taking him for granted as a shining beacon of hope.

I'm still waiting...

And yes, I have an open mind and I DO want to like him.

[Dawgs]

49. Are you for the war?

Because Obamas always been against it, while Hillary and Edwards voted for it.

[LBJDemocrat]

50. That's part of why he'll be a better salesman

of corporate-friendly DLC politics. And a more credible advocate of future interventionism.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

51. Exactly nt

[draft_mario_cuomo]

52. He is so against it he wants to keep a "limited" number of troops there for an unspecificed time nt

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

==The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces. If the Iraqis are successful in meeting the 13 benchmarks for progress laid out by the Bush Administration, this plan also allows for the temporary suspension of the redeployment, provided Congress agrees that the benchmarks have been met.==

[tammywammy]

65. But, Hillary says troops will need to stay as well

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/14/washington/14cnd-clinton.html?ex=1331524800&en=205ab0561a633900&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

[draft_mario_cuomo]

77. Exactly. If you want the war to end, don't vote for HRC or Obama nt

[mckeown1128]

59. I have a reason to vote for Obama instead of Clinton

He voted to ban the use of Daisy Cutters on civilian populations and Hillary voted against the ban. I do have a link but I don't feel like looking it up but I will if asked.

[LBJDemocrat]

38. If we're going to get DLC fiscal policies,

we'd rather get it from someone who won't be as good at putting the wool over our eyes.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

46. Exactly. nt

[Colobo]

40. This "Ignore" function is a wonderful thing.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

42. So you really can't give me a concrete reason for supporting one DLC-type over another

Wonderful

[rinsd]

55. Who pray tell is your candidate? Assuming you're not voting for Ron Paul.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

56. Undecided

[LBJDemocrat]

43. I'm waiting for proof that Obama is more fiscally liberal than Clinton

Until I see it, I'll support the one that doesn't have a blinding halo around him/her.

[Capn Sunshine]

71. Um, your agenda is showing

damn this place is funny sometimes.

[politicasista]

45. I will look at her until she apologizes for stabbing good Dems in the back

It's a shame cause I grew up during the Clinton years. Flame away.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

47. Those Clinton years stabbed good Dems in the back

NAFTA, Welfare reform.

Gingrich didn't even have to try! Big Dog did his work for him on those issues.

[Colobo]

58. The logic here seems to be: The obstacle between Edwards and Hillary is Obama, so let's attack him.

[LBJDemocrat]

62. Not really

The logic is that the corporations and the media won't let Edwards win the nomination. Why? Because

1. He threatens their interests more than the others do.
2. Demographically, and due to his run in 2004 he's not as entertaining and doesn't generate as much rock star buzz as candidates such as Obama and Clinton.

Given that Edwards won't be the nominee, I'm doing my best to make sure Clinton takes the nomination because Obama is a better salesman for DLC-style policies.

[Colobo]

63. Go campaign for Clinton then. I don't think you will achieve much over here.

[Ethelk2044]

64. and we LOSE another election

I am tired of the dems not winning because we choose the wrong candidate. They are going to eat her alive and turn around and ask for desert if she wins. Which I hope and pray otherwise.

[Tellurian]

66. Oh, quit..

which election has Obama actually won where the candidate didn't withdraw?

[LBJDemocrat]

67. Thank you. nt

[zulchzulu]

76. Even though Clinton IS DLC, Obama would be better "salesman for DLC-style policies"?

Oh...I get it....

:freak: :crazy:

[zulchzulu]

68. Errors in your points.

1. "...Obama has more Wall Street support than Clinton..."

First of all, is Wall Street bad? What is "Wall Street" that is "bad"? Is business bad? Is money and capitalism bad? Should a president run against "Wall Street"?

Secondly, Obama has more supporters who work on Wall Street than others, according to a recent poll. These are people who work on Wall Street. If someone works at Citibank as a financial analyst, are they a bad person? If they support Obama, does Citibank then support Obama?

2. You are correct that Senator Clinton is divisive. That's easily verified with polls and other information backing that claim. Is that therefore good? So she doesn't have "charisma"? I think she does. Your point gets really muddled that it is a good thing that Republicans loathe her and somehow that's "positive".

"...Obama would be a better trojan horse for DLC-type policies..."

Senator Clinton IS part of the DLC. Read this:
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=85&subid=108&contentid=253475

3. By Obama not voting on the Guest worker provision, does that mean that he doesn't support controls on worker permits and/or does that mean he is perhaps an isolationist who wants guest workers to be run out on a rail after their visa is nearly overdue and become citizens or never be allowed into this country? Is America a nation of immigrants or not?

Obama released this statement on May 17, 2007:

“Without modifications, the proposed bill could devalue the importance of family reunification, replace the current group of undocumented immigrants with a new undocumented population consisting of guestworkers who will overstay their visas, and potentially drive down wages of American workers. We may need a new worker visa to bring in people at all levels of our economy, but these workers should not be forced out of our country or into hiding after two or three years if they prove themselves worthy of an opportunity to stay and join the American family. These and other problems with the proposed deal should be substantially modified.”

http://obama.senate.gov/press/070517-obama_statement_on_immigration_reform_developments/index.html

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but perhaps this information may sway your opinion to be a little more factually accurate.

[LBJDemocrat]

73. Response

1. Financial analysts at Citigroup will vote for who benefits them. What benefits them is usually what benefits Citigroup. Sometimes, there will be decent people with higher values, but it's reasonable to assume that the donations of Citigroup employees (and the ones who donate the big cash are mostly people in higher ranks, like VPs and Managing Directors) tend to go for "growth"-friendly politicians.

I understand that you need Wall Street support to get elected, but at this stage, with so many candidates, you can use that evidence to gauge how liberal-or-not they are.

2. It's not muddled at all. I know Clinton is part of the DLC. Given how unpopular the DLC is these days, it makes sense that Obama didn't join; but that says nothing about his policies. Similarly, the neocons of tomorrow won't likely become members of the AEI.

3. I'll admit that their voting records are VERY similar. I agree that that's nice what he said. On the other hand, it contains the same equivocating crap that he uses in his book. "We may need a new worker visa to bring in people at all levels of our economy, but these workers should not be forced out of our country or into hiding after two or three years if they prove themselves worthy of an opportunity to stay and join the American family." Law school taught him well. I feel like every statement he makes is calculated to give him wiggle room. At least Clinton is direct.

[zulchzulu]

74. So, by your "conclusions"...

I assume your support for Edwards will cease if he gets any support from those evil Wall Street bastards. As you might not suspect, Wall Street does have lawyers and law firms. This from OpenSecrets:

"Edwards has taken in nearly $4.4 million from lawyers and their firms since January (2007), or $1 out of every $3 he has raised."

If you want to play the Purity Test with Wall Street, have you asked the Edwards campaign to return the $193,250 the FEC reported he took from Wall Street interests?

And since Edwards calculated he couldn't get re-elected to his one-term Senate seat, his membership with the DLC did allow him some support for his failed presidential bid in 2004.

Furthermore, your apparent disdain for people who became lawyers and could craft what you suspect are insidious calculations confoundedly doesn't apply to your preferred candidate, a former trial lawyer.

A lawyerly apology from someone who knew from the catbird seat in the Senate Intelligence Committee that Bush's intelligence data was bogus didn't stop this lawyer from teaming up with Joe Lieberman with the Iraq War Resolution. Now this lawyer can only catcall from the sidelines and make it appear that his tarnished protestations are relevant...

Wow.

Three strikes. You're out. Trying to triangulate an Obama vs. Clinton "argument" to make Mr. Edwards seem cool doesn't jive, brother.

[Capn Sunshine]

70. Dude, if you think Wall Street gives more money to Barrack than Hillary, well...

I'd like to see a citation or get some of what yer smokin' there pard.

[LBJDemocrat]

72. The citation's up there.

But here it is again: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/17/AR2007041701688.html

[zulchzulu]

75. When is Edwards giving back the $193,250 he got from "Wall Street"?

I looked all over his site and didn't see a press release...

:rofl:

[etnpoliticalguy]

78. Having trouble voting for a democrat

I am a fomer democrat now moderate who is disgruntled with the democratic movement. I have a very detailed account at http://www.topix.net/forum/source/wbir/T6UMD847EMJ8FCE7C and really encourage you, as democratic faithfull to give me answers to overcome my troubles. Thanks.

[Apollo11]

79. Pay attention: Rudy 52, Hillary 45

These are the numbers from the latest national poll for USA Today.

Hillary Clinton cannot win back the Whitehouse.

We need a winning ticket with credible candidates.

Ideally GORE-OBAMA or more likely CLARK-OBAMA.

Please let's go with a winning ticket in 2008! :)