Hilary Clinton: 'I’m in and I’m in to win'

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by kermitology

God forbid she win too.. She'd be horrible at trying to get the US out of the mess they are in considering their foreign policy right now. Obama shouldn't do it either. I think it needs to be a Republican who's sole job is to get the US out of Iraq tactfully.

Which part of Republican practise over the last 6 years suggest to you that they know how to get out of bed properly in the morning?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

The key for the dems is will they run a race based on GW Bush or will they run a race with a vision for the future. The status quo is not an option but I'm not sure the DNC is smart enough to leave Bush out of it.

Well, if history's any kind of guide, the Dems will start out as frontrunners, having been given a nice boost by the Bush administration's total ineptitude on matters domestic and foreign, and proceed to royally crap the bed over the following months, ending up losing in another squeaker coming down to a few hundred votes in one swing state. Don't get me wrong; I'm a liberal, and I'd like to see the Democrats win. But there are two problems: 1. They're bad at politics and 2. They can't agree on a vision for the country. It's a horrorshow, and I'm starting to resign myself to it.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Well, if history's any kind of guide, the Dems will start out as frontrunners, having been given a nice boost by the Bush administration's total ineptitude on matters domestic and foreign, and proceed to royally crap the bed over the following months, ending up losing in another squeaker coming down to a few hundred votes in one swing state. Don't get me wrong; I'm a liberal, and I'd like to see the Democrats win. But there are two problems: 1. They're bad at politics and 2. They can't agree on a vision for the country. It's a horrorshow, and I'm starting to resign myself to it.

and that's sad for Republicans or Republican leaning voters like myself. It means that we end up with bad candidates who have to reveal and promise very little to get a leg up.

My vote is up for grabs and I think Obama and Richardson are both more interesting than anything on the right at this point.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Well, if history's any kind of guide, the Dems will start out as frontrunners, having been given a nice boost by the Bush administration's total ineptitude on matters domestic and foreign, and proceed to royally crap the bed over the following months, ending up losing in another squeaker coming down to a few hundred votes in one swing state. Don't get me wrong; I'm a liberal, and I'd like to see the Democrats win. But there are two problems: 1. They're bad at politics and 2. They can't agree on a vision for the country. It's a horrorshow, and I'm starting to resign myself to it.

Early to be deciding that all the runners don't have a vision. And what's worse no vision or totally incompetant vision that you stick with?
I like Joe Biden myself too from what I've seen of him. To be honest I don't see America being ready for either a female or black president.
I used to like McCain until he went and visited that religious evangelical group.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

The Republicans have to find somebody fresh. Where is J.C. Watts when you need him?

He was a pretty good CFL QB, would he actually have a shot at the nomination?

I see the Democrats with a few worthy candidates, where are the Republicans?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Flame On

And what's worse no vision or totally incompetant vision that you stick with?

That depends. Are you talking about politics or governance? In governance, sticking dogmatically to a vision that clearly isn't in line with facts on the ground is the worst possible approach. In politics, on the other hand, having simple, easy-to-communicate principles, however stupid those principles may actually be, is vital.

People are busy--they don't have the time (or the inclination) to read an 800 page proposal on medicare reform. So politicians make it easy for them to understand the gist of what their "vision" is without getting into details. They communicate their ideas in ways that are concise and persuasive rather than detailed and practical. Democrats have yet to figure that out in any election cycle that I've seen--though granted I've only lived in the states since '98.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

He was a pretty good CFL QB, would he actually have a shot at the nomination?

I see the Democrats with a few worthy candidates, where are the Republicans?

4 years ago he might have had a shot if there wasn't an incumbent Republican. He's no longer in Congress. Didn't seek re-election in 2002 if I remember correctly.

http://www.jcwatts.com/jcwatts.htm

Sam Brownback, senator from Kansas declared the other day. No chance and no clue.

[La Flames Fan]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

4 years ago he might have had a shot if there wasn't an incumbent Republican. He's no longer in Congress. Didn't seek re-election in 2002 if I remember correctly.

http://www.jcwatts.com/jcwatts.htm

Sam Brownback, senator from Kansas declared the other day. No chance and no clue.

Funny you say that about Brownback....I was just listening to his "I'm in the race" speech and what stood out to me is he continually harped on "We need to strengthen our families" and he would scrap the current tax laws, never sign a tax hike and make sure marriage was between a man and a woman.

As you say DFF, no chance, no clue. With all the rigamaroll going on right now with Iraq, Iran, healthcare, gas prices etc....You'd think he'd be a little more in-tune with the mainstream.

Personally I think the right has put much of their chances in McCain, and while I don't mind him, I think there's been a big backlash in him supporting the "surge". Other than that I can't think of anyone in the Republican party who is right for the job. Unless they roll out Rudy G, I see a Dem president.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by La Flames Fan

Funny you say that about Brownback....I was just listening to his "I'm in the race" speech and what stood out to me is he continually harped on "We need to strengthen our families" and he would scrap the current tax laws, never sign a tax hike and make sure marriage was between a man and a woman.

As you say DFF, no chance, no clue. With all the rigamaroll going on right now with Iraq, Iran, healthcare, gas prices etc....You'd think he'd be a little more in-tune with the mainstream.

Personally I think the right has put much of their chances in McCain, and while I don't mind him, I think there's been a big backlash in him supporting the "surge". Other than that I can't think of anyone in the Republican party who is right for the job. Unless they roll out Rudy G, I see a Dem president.

Nothing wrong with strengthening families except that's not really what he is talking about, is it. It's code for running on moral issues like abortion, gay marraige (as you mentioned) which IMO aren't even issues that should be discussed in a Presidential election.

I wouldn't rule out an entry from Condoleeza Rice.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

I wouldn't rule out an entry from Condoleeza Rice.

I would, atleast until this iraq situation is sorted out.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I would, atleast until this iraq situation is sorted out.

Yeah, I guess she is perceived as going down with the ship.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Yeah, I guess she is perceived as going down with the ship.

A black, female, republican candidate partially responsible for an unpopular war? She'd get 20 votes.

A run in 2012 might not be out of the question, though. I think she definitely has aspirations for higher power.

[automaton 3]

Good Article in today's L.A. Times - "Anyone but a Bush or a Clinton"

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...nion-rightrail

[Calgaryborn]

Clinton is too hard looking to win the Presidency. Who would want there
daughter to grow up and be like her? She appear cruel and ruthless. She's not a lady. She's the business women whose co-workers would hate behind her back. That's the image she portrays.

Hilliary is a danger to the Democratic party's hopes. She's got the money and Bill going for her. She will get the feminist vote which resides within her party and maybe the black vote (I'm thinking Obama will get smeared earliy and often). Hilliary will not get soft Republicans or independents to vote for her. She lacks the charisma to take on anything but a very weak Republican candidate. She won't be facing Bush who ordered the troops into Iraq. She will be facing a Republican who probably voted for the war like she did and has plans for with drawl like she does.

Obama was trained in an Islamic religious school of some sort. I'm guessing that that in itself will cause him to fail in his bid for President. The media and politicians can repeat the mantra all they want that " Islam is a religion of peace" but as long as you have folks killing Americans in the name of Allah you are going to have distrust.

[La Flames Fan]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Nothing wrong with strengthening families except that's not really what he is talking about, is it. It's code for running on moral issues like abortion, gay marraige (as you mentioned) which IMO aren't even issues that should be discussed in a Presidential election.

I wouldn't rule out an entry from Condoleeza Rice.

Right. It wasn't about strengthening family, it was about what you mentioned above, that's why I shook my head when I heard it.

I can't see Rice running, at least not in '08. Reasons are obvious I think and mentioned above.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Clinton is too hard looking to win the Presidency. Who would want there
daughter to grow up and be like her? She appear cruel and ruthless. She's not a lady. She's the business women whose co-workers would hate behind her back. That's the image she portrays.

[MacDougalbry]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Clinton is too hard looking to win the Presidency. Who would want there
daughter to grow up and be like her? She appear cruel and ruthless. She's not a lady. She's the business women whose co-workers would hate behind her back. That's the image she portrays.

Funny how easily one can replace "Clinton" with "Margaret Thatcher" in the above quote.

As for her running, whatever happened to the Presidential term limit... she already ran the country for 10 years!

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Obama was trained in an Islamic religious school of some sort. I'm guessing that that in itself will cause him to fail in his bid for President.

Uh, what? Do you mean Columbia or Harvard?

You should really do a little research before saying this kind of stuff. Obama is a U.S. citizen, born and raised in Hawai'i. He did attend a parochial school in Indonesia, and a college prep school in Hawai'i.

He's a member of the United Church and a lifelong Christian. You know, sometimes it's unwise to just parrot Sean Hannity without doing a little fact-checking.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Uh, what? Do you mean Columbia or Harvard?

You should really do a little research before saying this kind of stuff. Obama is a U.S. citizen, born and raised in Hawai'i. He did attend a parochial school in Indonesia, and a college prep school in Hawai'i.

He's a member of the United Church and a lifelong Christian. You know, sometimes it's unwise to just parrot Sean Hannity without doing a little fact-checking.

By the time the Republicans finish with him, half the population will believe he trained with Osama.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by MacDougalbry

Funny how easily one can replace "Clinton" with "Margaret Thatcher" in the above quote.

I don't think you could compare the two. Margaret Thatcher portrayed herself successfully in the model of the courageous British women who were so vital during World War ll . The stiff upper lip, never say die kind of thing. Her toughness didn't appear to be a rejection of Femininity. It helped that she was from the Conservative party as well. Women tend to vote more liberal than men but, a certain percentage would vote for a women over a man if she seemed competent. Thus Margaret got a few votes which would have probably gone elseware because of her gender.
Queen Elisabeth II made it easier for Thatcher as well. She is widely loved in England for her courage and strength during World War ll as a teenage girl. Margaret Thatcher just had to convince the voters that she represented this model of feminine strength in leadership.

Hilliary doesn't have the charisma of Margaret Thatcher. Her money and her husband's personality has got her to where she is. Where is the strength in that? Her marriage appears to be more of a business partnership than a marriage. As I said before she acts and dresses like a cold business women. The only time she appears to be smiling is when something nasty is being said about Republicans.

People want a President they can identify with and would want as a friend. Both Bill Clinton and Bush had that friendly air about them; Bill more so than George. Hilliary just doesn't have it. Maybe they can soften her image in the next two years but, I doubt it.

The first women President will come from the Republican party. She will
be a moderate conservative who will appeal to women voters and not scare male voters away with her policies.