Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Sharia and Sharia-Like | Crazyass Christian Leader Endo... »

Friday, February 8, 2008

How Was It? Hillary Clinton at Pier 30

posted by on February 8 at 3:32 AM

I tried to talk to some really really young voters at the Hillary Clinton event… Next up, I’m going to talk to some really really elderly people at Barack Obama… STAY TUNED.

RSS icon Comments

1

Democrats are lucky to have such strong candidates in Clinton and Obama. Her speech last night was very good. I am going to caucus for Obama though becuase of the Bush-Clinton fatigue.

I am 31 years old and since my birth there has been a Bush or a Clinton on the ballot in the presidential election. I think our democracy is hurt by dynasties which tend to build too much influence in the party.

Posted by Stan | February 8, 2008 7:14 AM
2

Again, much tauter skin on the Obama and Paul supporters. That skin makes policy sense to me.

Posted by tomasyalba | February 8, 2008 7:49 AM
3

Hillary is so COOL! Oh my GAWWWWD!

(two hours later)

Hillary is so late! Awww GAWWWWWD!

Posted by Andy Niable | February 8, 2008 8:07 AM
4

Good news-Obama now agrees to at least 2 debates:

Dallas Morning News:

"After being pestered by rival Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama on Thursday agreed to participate in a Texas presidential debate before the March 4 Democratic primary. Mr. Obama also announced that he would debate Mrs. Clinton on Feb. 24 at Cleveland State University in Ohio. ....
Mr. Obama's decision came after he was prodded by the Clinton campaign to debate the New York senator once a week before the critical March 4 primaries.
While Mr. Obama has agreed to a debate in Texas, he has not accepted an invitation to participate in a Feb. 28 debate on energy issues sponsored by MSNBC, the Sierra Club and the Greater Houston Partnership."

[What's with this Mr. and Mrs. shit down in Texas anyway? They're Senators.]

"

Posted by unPC | February 8, 2008 8:07 AM
5

Does anybody ever sit down with those Young Republicans and have a talk about whether they are helping or hurting?

Posted by elenchos | February 8, 2008 8:09 AM
6

Neither the Bushes or the Clintons have control over their parties much less dynasty control over the country. Neither of the last two Dem nominees has endorsed Clinton. Bush doesn't seem involved at all in Rep side of things.

You like Obama better, fine. McCain is worse than Bush. 100 years in Iraq, please. Neither Clinton nor Obama seem to have a strong chance of beating him. Together they would be stronger.

Clinton/Obama looks like the strongest ticket. But she could go back to her maiden name and we'd have Rodham/Obama.
Because what really is in a name?

Posted by whatever | February 8, 2008 8:12 AM
7

@4--maybe they are just trying to sound all growed up like the New York Times, which uses similar titles.

Posted by Andy Niable | February 8, 2008 8:16 AM
8

I went last night. Besides having to park a mile a way, and then standing on concrete waiting for 2 hours while the room got hotter and hotter, I was really glad that I decided to go. Her speech was great, and I couldn't help but get a little misty eyed at the end thinking I may have just seen the first ever woman president speak in person. I'm sure I would have similar feelings if I was able to see Barack speak today, since he is possibly the first black president our country will see, but unfortunately I can't take off for several hours in the middle of the work day. I'm still on the fence about who I will caucus for on Saturday but I'm leaning more towards Hillary. There was one point that was kind of funny, she was talking about our children being the future (there were quite a few small kids there with parents) and at that point most of them were laying on the floor with their eyes glazed over.

Posted by D | February 8, 2008 10:00 AM
9

Great reporting -- NOT!!

First of all your questions were meaningless. Why not ask questions about foreign policy or health care? Or about something Clinton says that actually affects young people -- like her proposals to get private entities out of the college loan business. That might actually give some useful information to young people -- you know, your supposed target audience.

By your questions you make young people seem stupid. Thanks for making us more irrelevant! It's because of folks like you why politicians don't want to listen to us -- and who can blame them?

Second, your questions were geared towards a pro Obama/ anti Clinton stance. Thanks. Would you ask questions regarding Obama having sex with interns?

And why did you even interview the Young Republicans? You gave them quite a lot of air time to say idiotic things about Clinton. I saw them too last night. There were four of them. There were over 5000 Clinton supporters and this is the best you can come up with?

Third your questions and the people you chose to use for this "reporting" are very mysogynistic. Again, sex with interns, the Republicans calling her a man, talking about Bill Clinton as if Hillary is not her own person. It's widely known that she had a very bright political future before she met Bill Clinton. Way to represent young women! I'm a man and I'd do a better job talking about issues that young women care about.

Please go to the Obama rally today and ask more ignorant questions. Please find Clinton supporters and please interview people that hate Obama. Please find people that complain about important things like what music her aides used or about why a high school student wasn't allowed on the riser which is reserved for the national media. Maybe you can interview the LaRouches as well!

This is why the "Stranger" does not represent young people.

PS Just so you know, Clinton won the youth vote in California and Massachusetts.

Posted by PassionateJus | February 8, 2008 10:02 AM
10

P.S.: Just so you know, Obama won the white vote and the hispanic vote in Illinois.

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 8, 2008 10:10 AM
11

@1:

What Bush or Clinton was on the presidential ballot prior to 1980? You are 31 so I assume you were born in 1977 or 1978, right?

Just curious.

Posted by Blacksheep | February 8, 2008 10:31 AM
12

George Bush Sr. was the vice presidential candidate on the 1980 and 1984 ballots.

Yes, Bush and Clinton do not own the parties as it happens in other countries but you have to admit that they have strong influence in the party that helped them ready someone in their family to be ready. Do you think Bush Jr. would have got the governorship nomincation if his father did not have influence in the party? That basically set him up and then all the connections Bush Sr. had in the party directly helped him get the presidential nomination. Same goes for Bill Clinton. He made sure that Hillary gets the right projects and visibility during his presidency (much to Al Gore's chagrin). He also helped her secure the NY senate seat nomination since no other Democrat could really compete with a president's connections and fundraising prowess. Kennedys also used their influence and celebrity to launch and buttress careers of their young ones. The problem with these dynasties is that it is nepotism at its worst and this is not how democracies should function.

Posted by Stan | February 8, 2008 11:50 AM
13

@11 Since you're so good at math let's see if you can figure this one out.

1980 - 4 = ?.

Posted by Mike of Renton | February 8, 2008 1:27 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).