This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - hegemonyhog
Pages: 1 2  4 5 6 7 8 9
« on: January 08, 2008, 07:04:42 AM »
If Obama and Hillary concentrate on the same issues to push through Congress that they've voiced on the campaign trail, the Republicans aren't going to budge.
Both, for example, want to reduce our greenhouse emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.
Either of them will be shot down by Republicans.
Are you arguing otherwise?
You're not looking at the overall picture.
The issue isn't just Republicans - it's Blue Dog Democrats and soft/liberal Republicans in a House that's likely to be strongly Democratic and a Senate that's likely to be 55-45 Democratic or better. Clinton is unlikely to go in with the political capital to move those numbers, and is likely to lose many of them. She's also much less likely to be able to effectively sell the changes she can make on foreign and domestic policy from the office of the presidency without permanently damaging Democratic power in the legislature.
People are fetishizing experience so much they're not looking at what that experience is. I'm amazed that nobody seems to remember the unbridled insanity and hatred of the Clintons that still pervades conservative politics to this day.
« on: January 07, 2008, 02:07:45 PM »
Again, I agree to a large extent. However, I think you are slightly over-exaggerating.
Speaking from experience, I'm not.
« on: January 07, 2008, 02:01:47 PM »
At the same time, I think you should also keep in mind that the differences between Obama and Hillary are smaller than many think. Their policies on major issues are virtually identical, and ones that many (if not most) Republicans dislike (e.g., continuing tax breaks for those making over $250,000).
Their opposition for these type of issues is not going to change based on the Democrat President.
It will be drastically worse if Hillary's president. Drastically.
Read virtually any conservative columnist since Iowa. They're so happy that bad things are happening to Hillary Clinton that they don't even care about Obama, or that their party is headed towards a brokered convention.
Again, it's not just policy, and it never is. It's about political capital, and Hillary has none.
« on: January 07, 2008, 12:09:36 PM »
What are you talking about? There's a Democratic majority and plenty of swing Republicans to make it possible. Why would you think that Obama has the better chance?
You think a single Republican will swing to vote with Hillary? She's the reddest red meat the GOP has.
Clinton starts out as the most divisive candidate by far, with the strongest Republican opposition. Obama's smartly building himself up as a man of principle and consensus, allowing him some room to run populist appeals for his positions with necessary. Clinton essentially undermines the bully pulpit of the presidency from the get go, setting us up for years of filibustering, holds and legislative tricks so nasty it'll make Tom Delay look like a pansy.
Republicans are far more effective as an obstructionist party than the Democrats - another four years to toss out victories over Hitlery Clintoon is just what they're salivating for.
« on: January 07, 2008, 11:55:05 AM »
No chance whatsoever I'd vote for a Republican.
Being an Ohioan, Dennis Kucinich has as much chance of getting my vote as Pat Buchanan. Clinton's out, because the Republican Party will take a perverse, competitive joy in doing everything possible to ensure that her presidency goes horribly. I think that Edwards touches on a lot of issues that don't get much play (poverty, for example), but overall I like Obama the best both from a policy and political perspective.
Plus, I think he's the best choice to beat Romney in a way that fundamentally realigns the political process for years to come.
« on: January 03, 2008, 11:17:12 AM »
Has anyone else not been able to pull up the status checker since the new year?
« on: December 31, 2007, 03:00:47 AM »
The funny thing is, I don't have many I'd leap up and praise, but there are a few that I absolutely despise.
« on: December 30, 2007, 08:47:09 PM »
So, you're asking: Should Harvard or Yale say Yes, is the full ride at Mich or NU too good to pass up? That's a harder question to answer. My answer would be a definite "Not necessarily".
That's the question I'm going for. (I have no idea why I'm being this inarticulate tonight.) Is the additional debt worth the prestige/opportunity?
« on: December 30, 2007, 07:19:52 PM »
Congratulations! Very nice deals there.
What reason do you have to commit yourself anywhere before seeing what Yale or Harvard says? Why not wait?
I think I used the wrong concept. Basically, is it worth waiting for those schools (where my numbers put me in the very outside range of possible admittance), or is the Michigan/NW deal too good to pass up?
« on: December 30, 2007, 06:45:34 PM »
I've got a weird* predicament on my hands.
I'm in at two of my top choices with full rides (Michigan and Northwestern). When my cycle began, those were my realistic top choices, and I'm ecstatic about them. However, I've had some doubt creeping in recently about whether or not I should hold out and see what happens at Yale and Harvard before committing myself anywhere. My numbers are at the link below, and I have strong work experience (5 years out of school and 7 years including school) and the other kit and kaboodle of soft factors. Thoughts?
*And by "weird", I mean "great".
Pages: 1 2  4 5 6 7 8 9