I was actually talking about Hillary. She is smart and qualified.

Bill is a different kettle of fish. Bill was very smart and talking to so
me of politicians in Ireland they had a huge amount of respect for him. There was a great reverence for his intelligect in a room. He is a great deal maker on the world stage and personnally believe with a bit more time Israel and Palistine could have been better for both states. Bush's stance of Israel at all costs has dimmissed the US as a mediator in there conflict..

Bill and a Republican congress reduced the size of the goverment and created a fisical responsabilty without gutting every social program going. That's a main conservative aim no matter if it's a Dem or Rep who got it. Bush has failed miserabilly in this. Tax cuts during a war spells naive ecomomics, it just pushes the cost to other generations.

On the darker stuff. I am a european, we don't give a crap about that stuff. We have a differing look on or politicians. Fidelity is not an important issue as social issues divorce, abortion,... are are rigitly enshired in our constituation and not left to a bunch of judges appointed by the president. What is important is the issues he stands for and not his personnal life within reason... We don't elect boy scouts. We elect guys that goto bat for us, be it the EU, treaties, against unions or dealing with burocracy.. Conutries are compete against each others(especially smaller ones), we try and get the best guy/girl we can to fight in our corner...

No way a leader of any European country be asked did you have an affair... It is considered none of our business..

I don't believe that the president has to be friendly and likeable, but I do expect the leader of this nation to respect the people.

You have to have a huge ego to hold that office, you have to be demanding and unforgiving in many instances, but the president must still respect the people and realize that it is the citizens that they are serving.

She is one of the most intelligent individuals on Capital Hill, but that in and of itself does not qualify her for the presidency.

Um no. If I was describing President Bush I would have used his name. I didn't. President Bush and Hilary Clinton have similar personality flaws that I would prefer we did not have in our leaders, but this thread is still not about President Bush. I will be happy compare the two if you really want to discuss it, but start another thread if that is truly your wish.

Wow. That shows how much people care/support her.

What matters the most is not her appearance, but weather she is competent, responsible, and have visions for America - the exact opposite of Bush you might say. There's nothing wrong with planting your foot in the ass of your subordinates when they don't do their job properly. The Danish PM does that all the time because its necessary, and to me that indicates responsibility to the public.

__________________

It all comes down to this on election day: Are you a racist, or do you look down on spastics?

As a liberal independent, I would not vote for Hillary the War Queen under any circumstances.

Hmm... a pastry chef and a florist said so; so it must be true.

btw, Hillary has reached across the isle and worked with many Republicans. Many conservatives in capital hill are eager and excited to work with her. Joe Scarborough, a conservative Republican and former house member, has this to say about Hillary on his show:

And about Hillary's ability to work with Republicans and even energize many Republicans to work with her:

Yeah, what a bitch!!

Clinton is a brand name now. You have to look at it that way. Around the world they are seen as negotiators and uniters. I don't believe that 50% of eligible voters have already made up their minds to vote against Hillary. That's ridiculous. The far right put out all this b.s. when Bill was in office, and none of it ever came true.

I think the right is afraid of her because she is going to be the first presidential candidate ever to raise half a billion dollars, over $150 million more than Bush's 2004 war chest. That's scary. She's tough and she hasn't been pulling her punches, and her rallies in Iowa are huge. Against Giuliani or McCain, most polls put her a little ahead of both.

I think I like Edwards more and more, but Hillary as president would be ten times the president that Bush the chimp is. It would be encouraging after eight years of idiocy to have a president who likes to read.

I don't think the majority of Americans are ready for a President that isn't completely stupid and disastrous for the country. That is why they will continue to pick scumbags like Bush, Hillary, etc...

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

The latest Rasmussen Poll has Fred Thompson, if he decides to run, edging out Hillery.

__________________
Election 2008 – Addicted to Placebos

The way the system works, the odds favor Hilary and Mitt.
Not the Hilary and Mitt we know now, but the reshaped, re-messaged Hilary and Mitt of 2008.
So it's a little difficult to accurately foresee what a contest is like between two people who simply don't exist at this moment.

All this negative stuff about Hilary is actually free campaigning on her behalf. The bar will be set so low for her, that all she'll have to do is not bite off a baby's head, and people will say "Oh, she's not as bad as they said she was"

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

Agreed there. there is a campaign against her for the lat four years at least. I think if she uses Bill properly and just goes with a 'Clinton back in the house' alot of people will just go 'It wasn't that bad the first time'. Obama is a cracker of a running mate.

Bush has created a disaster for the GOP which the next candidate on the other side is going to have to distance themselves from.

It's not over by any means. The republicans have to pull out a candidate which has an unqualified following and not rely on the anti-clinton faction. The Dems tried that for Kerry, it didn't work. The GOP doesn't seem so joined up at the moment Bush's admin is tearing up the party abit.

So nothing can be decided until the candidates are choosen. If they are dudes for some reason or other then the possblity of a third could come...
America should allow a single transferable vote in that case. It is very undemocratic if some could win with over 60% voters hating your guts

What do you mean "American should allow" it. You think we can just change the whole electoral process on a whim because a strong third candidate enters the race? The Constitution would have to be ratified and that takes years.

A candidate has to win a majority of electoral votes to win the presidency. That is 270. If there was a strong third party candidate and none of the them were able to hit 270 then the House of Representatives chooses the President and the Senate chooses the Vice-President.

__________________
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

President George W. Bush, 8-5-2004

Carolina Politics Online

THIS IS REAL HOPE AND CHANGE!

What I was saying is what should be there rather than the fisablity of the idea...

Your second paragraph make no sense because you don't know what single tranfer vote is...