DUer Challenge #2

[radfringe]

open for all manner of bashing

tell me why:

1. Clinton would be a bad President

----or----

2. Obama would be a bad President

----or----

3. _______ would be a bad President (dem only - we know why a repub would be bad)

[radfringe]

1. crickets? amazing

from the posting in GDP - I would think you would take advantage to slash and burn the candidates, tar and feather them, draw and quarter and then scatter the remains in a big vat of radioactive acid

[kdmorris]

2. It's probably just the time of day

It's 9:40 here on the east coast and I'm barely awake enough to tell you why I'm a good (or bad)HUMAN BEING, much less why Clinton and Obama would be good (or bad) presidents.

That makes it 6:40 on the west coast, and I'm assuming many people are still asleep. Give it time, keep bumping and you shall get what you seek (are you sure you want to?)

:donut:

[Adelante]

7. Partly it could be your title is not informative

A lot of people scan the forum listing. They may pass by threads unless they are interested in the subject or if there is no discernible subject.

[radfringe]

11. I think I got some attention

91 views so far on one challege, 91 view on the other...

nothing good to say? nothing bad to say?

crickets are deafening


posted this at 8:54am... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4363912&mesg_id=4363912

7 replies, 4 of them mine

posted this at 9:21am...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4364052

6 replies, 1 of them mine

[Cooley Hurd]

3. I guess I'm not fond of your premise...

...I'd rather see it worded as "Why X would be a great president.":)

[radfringe]

8. posted this at 8:54am...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4363912&mesg_id=4363912

[Cooley Hurd]

12. I stand corrected...

:hi:

[stillcool]

4. The tone and content..

expressed in the campaign has been the deciding factor in my choice. I believe it is indicative of a candidates approach to problem solving. Their history and experience. Their understanding of the root cause regarding various issues, and their experience of listening to many voices and crafting solutions.

[Uben]

5. I don't want to bash either candidate

It is counter-productive for our party. They both have short-comings, but I concentrate on the favorable aspects of each. I will be happy if either is elected president. It will be historic either way, and we will be better off than we are now regardless of which one wins.

[Cooley Hurd]

6. .

:thumbsup:

[radfringe]

10. then try this challenge

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4363912&mesg_id=4363912

[Uben]

13. Already have, thanks nt

nt

[radfringe]

9. kick

[radfringe]

14. kick

[LWolf]

15. Okay. Since you asked.

Neither of them will get private insurance companies out and provide universal, single-payer, not-for-profit health care. I want a president who will work for just that from the presidential bully-pulpit.

One of them admires the Reagan presidency. I lived through that, and I know better. I have no interest in living through an updated version.

One of them won't take responsibility for some monumentally wrong-headed votes: IWR, Patriot Act, Kyl-Lieberman. I want a president who can see through bullshit, who won't sign it when in the WH, and who knows how to admit wrong when it occurs.

One of them has every intention of continuing the "war on terror," complete with possible unilateral military action. I want a president who will halt the march to empire and whose efforts at international diplomacy don't include military action.

One of them has unsavory connections to Wal Mart. Neither of them will end NAFTA/CAFTA. I want a president who will end this corporate excuse for environmental and labor abuses.

One of them allows homophobes to campaign for them, and then gives eloquent speeches about how wrong they are: while still allowing them to campaign for the homophobic vote.

One of them has an unsavory campaign strategist with unsavory connections to blackwater. I want a president who is not in bed with the enemy.

One of them thinks my profession would be improved by merit pay. I disagree. I want a president who will end the concerted efforts to degrade, defame, and privatize public education, of which "mentor pay" is a part.

One of them would like to claim delegates she didn't earn. I'd like a president with more integrity than that.

One of them does not keep an acceptable separation between church and state. I want a president who will strengthen and broaden that separation, not narrow it.

I could go on; there are many more reasons why BOTH of them would be bad presidents, from where I sit. This is enough, though.

Edited to add:

I don't consider offering legitimate reasons for non-support to be "bashing."

[radfringe]

16. kick

[Armstead]

17. I believe Clinton would be divisive and would block the prospects for change

Both on a personal level and a "tactical" level, she represents divisive but impotent Democratic politics.

We'd have eight years of the same old, same old.

It's time for a fresh start. Obama has the potential to lead that fresh start.

(Now you can kick my own sinking post. :)

[Yuugal]

18. They all suck

Since all that is left to vote for is corporate milk sops, why even leave the house?

[radfringe]

19. cricket kick

[radfringe]

20. kick