Hillary Clinton: "I'm in to win" - Page 3 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Rakkasan · #31 (**permalink**) 01-21-2007

how could hillary be good for the country?

bush has been so devisive and look where it has gotten us...

Hillary would be worse .........

Rakkasan · #32 (**permalink**) 01-21-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Opa

I love all you guys who say "she has zero chance of being in the White House"
Let me tell you something. This lady has been under estimated for a long time. First: She would not run for the Senate. Than She won't win the Senate. Than "The people of New York can't wait until the next election so they can throw her out. Now, "she can't win the nomination and if she does good, we can plan the next republican presidency." But what I do not see is any of you people saying that you will go to Vegas and put some big money on it. What we will see in the next year or so is garbage, slime, name calling and sexual innuendos. All the things that other candidates do not have to deal with. SNL had the opening skid about her tonight. No other candidate has yet been featured on SNL. That's just the start. Don't worry, she knew all this better than we do. As for me: I wish she had not run. She's too valuable in the Senate. Having said that: Let's just listen what the lady has to say. If she gets beat in the primaries, so be it. If not, compare her to the republican nominee and than let the chips fall where they may. My guess is that two years from now as of today, we will call her Madam President.

WOW just watched the skit.......(i tape SNL on my DVD recorder every week and then watch sunday morning.)...you know that skit is written by liberals right? i mean SNL is not on FOX and can no way be construed to be a CONSERVATIVE show

everything i have ever read about her, my one time visit with her, that skit though over the top was grounded in truth.........

Rakkasan · #33 (**permalink**) 01-21-2007

further to add to the commentary

who wrote the weekend update this week? MOVEON or DEMOUNDERGROUND?

they are usually pretty anti bush / war but damn that was pretty harsh for even SNL

doniston · #34 (**permalink**) 01-21-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swoop187

Atleast Condi is smart....Hillary is just a dumb fool. Condi would have a way better chance at winning an election among smarter America then Hillary would. The majority of Hillarys votes will be because she's "Hillary" and not because she could actually run this country. Condi has far more credentials to run this country then Hillary does, I dont care what the left says....Put Condi's resume up against Hillarys betty crocker ass, Condi is by far the better choice of the 2.

I wonder what you would say about this if you weren't a rabid Bushnik. Condi would be no better, and when people get off this Repo/Demo Kick, maybe we will finally get a good Presidential Candidate. At the present time, I'm for Hagel.

pramjockey · #35 (**permalink**) 01-21-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rakkasan

further to add to the commentary

who wrote the weekend update this week? MOVEON or DEMOUNDERGROUND?

they are usually pretty anti bush / war but damn that was pretty harsh for even SNL

Actually it was the Underground Front for Liberal Politics in Unfunny Television.

DGG · #36 (**permalink**) 01-21-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

If Hillary's the best they have, then look for a Republican President in 2008!

I think not, I believe Bill Richardson is the best they've got. He looks like a likely candidate now.

Rakkasan · #37 (**permalink**) 01-21-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by pramjockey

Actually it was the Underground Front for Liberal Politics in Unfunny Television.

OH ya the UFLPUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

hairballxavier · #38 (**permalink**) 01-21-2007

The President of the USA holds what is arguably the most important executive position in the world.

Let's take a look at the 5 most recent US presidents' executive experience before they were elected for this important job.

George W. Bush - Held an executive position for MLB's Texas Rangers baseball team franchise. Governor of Texas for 8 years, another very important executive position.
.
Bill Clinton - Held an executive position as Governor of Arkansas for over a decade.
.
George H. W. Bush - Held an executive position at Dresser Industries for many years. Was also the Director of the CIA. Another challenging executive position.
.
Ronald Reagan - Held an executive position as President of the Screen Actors Guild. Also held an executive position as Governor of California for 8 years.
.
Jimmy Carter - Owned an agricultural business. Was Governor of Georgia for 4 years.

Now let's look at the executive experience of 5 potential presidential candidates.

Hillary Rodham Clinton - Zero experience as an executive. She's just a lawyer from Arkansas that carpetbagged to New York to snag an easy Senate position from a guy that retired.
.
John Forbes Kerry - Another lawyer with zero executive experience.
.
Barak Hussein Obama - Again, zero executive experience.
.
Michael Bloomberg - He ran his own extremely successful company. He is currently the Mayor of New York City. Lots of executive experience there.
.
Bill Richardson - Lots of executive experience here too. He was Energy Secretary for the Clinton admin. He is currently the Governor of New Mexico.

Notice that only 2 of the candidates listed can reasonably be considered to be qualified for a job as a chief executive.

Hillary isn't one of them.

iamwhatiseem · #39 (**permalink**) 01-21-2007

Hillary is too polarized.

She has a fan base (mabye 30% of her party) - and she has the media - both will support her no matter what..outside of that support she has nothing.

She is not her husband.
She is a manipulative, malignant creature who would eat her own children if it benefited her political career.

She doesn't have a prayer, despite what the well wishing media dreamers might tell you.

Traveler · #40 (**permalink**) 01-21-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

The bases for both are already going to be rallied.

True 'Anti-Hillary' voters come from committed Republican circles, IMO. Picking a social conservative will make others, even if they would have rathered Obama or Edwards, etc, to choose Hillary unless they are already social conservatives, who in turn will vote for the Rep anyway.

Guiliani might have crossover appeal (and if he wins NY, will take away a huge number of electoral votes for the Reps that now mostly go to the Dems), but will the GOP base back him in the primary and rally hard to vote him in? He's a social liberal, a hawkish New York Democrat for all intents and purposes. He also has alot of personal baggage, something the base may not also like.

I think McCain already has problems. He is a social conservative, yet social conservatives don't like him at all. He is already getting pidgeonholed as being an Iraq escalator, and this theme will be driven hard and fast, fair and foul, on him. Independents are tracking left on social issue and Iraq. Many like McCain's mavarick style, but not his social conservative views and Iraq hawkishness even this late in the war.

Your thoughts?

The part above where i strongly disagree is that the notion of the anti-Hillary vote being mainly GOP voters. I think she is villified by the GOP but independants have a stronger unfavorable than favorable opinion of her. Or was it the case in 2004 that the anti-Bush vote was from Dems? If the independant were the ones furious at Bush in 2004 then they'll be furious at Hillary come 2008...or if it was party lined then Hilary might actually win if she actually had a grass roots base to rally, i'll go and refference a point that you made earlier which may have some food for thought.

Traveler · #41 (**permalink**) 01-21-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

Many of those independent voters are also younger or career single women, a favourable pool for her if the Republican candidate will be a social conservative, something I think the candidate would need to be to clear the primaries and get the base motivated. I'm sure that Hillary also noted that she drew well and/or chipped away noticeably in the traditionally very Republican 'red' areas of rural upstate and western New York in her Senate races through women voters.

Be that as it may she only chipped away in NY which is one of the most liberal states in the land. As far as women go, women from the midwest and south absolutely villify her, she makes them sick.

Quote:

That is why I am really curious as to who will finally be the Rep candidate for 2008--it's a critical choice.

Well ok say a social conservative like Gingrich runs against her...name one state she'll manage to win that Bush carried in 2004, just one. Including Arkansas. She may well win the popular vote bu she just can't win the electoral vote.

Say a social conservative like McCain runs..she'll lose every state that Bush won plus New Hampshire and PA, NJ, OR and WA will become active.

As for Giuliani runing against her i think the only electoral vote she could put in the Blue corner would be the sole vote of DC.

Andrewl · #42 (**permalink**) 01-21-2007

Is Hagel going to run? If i were a yank i would vote Hagel all the way. He seems to be the only person with a brain these days in Washington.

Andrew

jviehe · #43 (**permalink**) 01-21-2007

Hillary is a wild card. I really didnt think she would run as she wouldnt risk losing, which is likely. But, as someone else mentioned, she will do whatever she needs to do to win. FURTHERMORE, congress has been doing anything it can to weaken civilian interest groups, INCLUDING the Fairness Doctrine, whose intent is to destroy conservative talk radio. Congress would love to silence groups like the Swiftboat Veterens that took down Kerry. Look at how damagin campaign finance reform was. Given all that, Clinton might simply legally rig the election.

I can only hope that people really dont want Bill in the White House again.

hairballxavier · #44 (**permalink**) 01-21-2007

The way I look at it... There is a alot of irrational partisans that will always vote for a democrat presidential candidate no matter if they are qualified for the job or not.

On the other hand there is alot of irrational partisans will always vote for a republican no matter if tthey are qualified or not.

Then there is the rational people like myself. The Ohio swing voter that doesn't really give a fuck about what party someone is in. We vote for the person we think is best qualified for the job.

We decide who wins the presidential election. Not the idiot partisans.

O'Sullivan Bere · #45 (**permalink**) 01-21-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrewl

Is Hagel going to run? If i were a yank i would vote Hagel all the way. He seems to be the only person with a brain these days in Washington.

Andrew

Hagel would make very interesting competition but the question for me is his chances of clearing the primary. I do think the Rep's best chance is to move centre for this POTUS race to douse the negativity over certain moves made in the Bush period. Hagel and Guiliani have different appeals in that regard as well as McCain.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode