HIllary Clinton
- Thread starter Dork
- Start date
P
PelyKat
Guest
Since when does 1 1/2 terms in the Senate qualify you for the Presidency? Sleeping with Bill sure doesn't do it, or we would have a lot more women running. 
AndyMarquisLIVE
New Member
She might win, but I ain't voing for her/him.
AndyMarquisLIVE said:
princess73
just one of those days...
PelyKat said:Since when does 1 1/2 terms in the Senate qualify you for the Presidency? Sleeping with Bill sure doesn't do it, or we would have a lot more women running.
AndyMarquisLIVE
New Member
pingrr said:
We're ready for a woman president, just not her.
SkinkTyree
Member
How about another option? I'd classify myself in the "I'd vote for her (in the general election) and she might win." But I don't think she's a sure bet to get the nomination and if she does it's still to early to see if things are aligned in her favor.
Unlike most conservatives and even some strong liberals, I don't dislike her. I think she's a smart woman who I think would be qualified to serve as president if elected. With that being said, I think her strongest attribute to me is the person who she is married to. I've come to like Bill a lot, moreso in retrospect than how I felt when he was actually in power. And if Hillary gets in, I'm not going to lie--I'd be excited to see Bill Clinton back in the public spotlight and giving speeches on a regular basis. But keeping that all in mind, Hillary doesn't have the same energy and charisma that her husband is so good at, so she would be rather overshadowed by Bill's presence.
But if she's the nominee (which I think it is way to premature to proclaim at this time), I don't think I would have a problem voting for her. I don't see anyone in the Republican field who I think would be preferrable at this point. I had a decent amount of respect for McCain back in 2000 but since that he's come off as too much of a political opportunist for me to support. And I don't think he would have the whole-hearted support of Republicans, either. Guiliani--there's something about that guy that really irks me. I never bought into that whole "America's Mayor" deal--he always struck me as a shady egomaniac who I never found particularly inspiring. The guy has some major baggage to deal with, plus I don't think the Republican base will be all that enthused for him. I think the Republican's strongest candidate would probably be Mitt Romney--I think he has the most presidential-like presence and the widest appeal to his party. But with that being said, I would still vote Hillary over Romney based on where I lean.
Hillary's problems are going to be apathy amongst the Democratic base in the primaries, and widespread negativity from hardcore Republicans. Whether she can overcome either of these things remains to be seen. Personally, my preference as it stands right now is Edwards, with Obama second. Both of these candidates are more inspiring on their own merits and vision than Hillary. But I've got no real problem with the lady herself, and given the choice in the general election would probably vote for her, if mainly for her husband's sake.
Unlike most conservatives and even some strong liberals, I don't dislike her. I think she's a smart woman who I think would be qualified to serve as president if elected. With that being said, I think her strongest attribute to me is the person who she is married to. I've come to like Bill a lot, moreso in retrospect than how I felt when he was actually in power. And if Hillary gets in, I'm not going to lie--I'd be excited to see Bill Clinton back in the public spotlight and giving speeches on a regular basis. But keeping that all in mind, Hillary doesn't have the same energy and charisma that her husband is so good at, so she would be rather overshadowed by Bill's presence.
But if she's the nominee (which I think it is way to premature to proclaim at this time), I don't think I would have a problem voting for her. I don't see anyone in the Republican field who I think would be preferrable at this point. I had a decent amount of respect for McCain back in 2000 but since that he's come off as too much of a political opportunist for me to support. And I don't think he would have the whole-hearted support of Republicans, either. Guiliani--there's something about that guy that really irks me. I never bought into that whole "America's Mayor" deal--he always struck me as a shady egomaniac who I never found particularly inspiring. The guy has some major baggage to deal with, plus I don't think the Republican base will be all that enthused for him. I think the Republican's strongest candidate would probably be Mitt Romney--I think he has the most presidential-like presence and the widest appeal to his party. But with that being said, I would still vote Hillary over Romney based on where I lean.
Hillary's problems are going to be apathy amongst the Democratic base in the primaries, and widespread negativity from hardcore Republicans. Whether she can overcome either of these things remains to be seen. Personally, my preference as it stands right now is Edwards, with Obama second. Both of these candidates are more inspiring on their own merits and vision than Hillary. But I've got no real problem with the lady herself, and given the choice in the general election would probably vote for her, if mainly for her husband's sake.
This morning we had on the news and they had a split screen with Hillary on one side and Obama on the other. I thought, now there's some foreshadowing. That may well be the democratic ticket.
I'd only vote for her if Satan was the other option. Even then, I'd have to think about it.
I'd only vote for her if Satan was the other option. Even then, I'd have to think about it.
SkinkTyree
Member
I'd personally put the best odds as Edwards-Obama. Don't know if Hillary can overcome some of her negatives. (Although as I said before, I've got no beef with her.)
From an objective standpoint, the Republican's best bet is Mitt Romney (I'm not cued into GOP circles enough to strategize a VP pick.) McCain and Guliani are both going to have some negatives which are going to hinder them.
Now, of course from a subjective standpoint, I'd love to see the Republicans nominate somebody like Brownback or Hunter or Tancredo. But that will be as likely as having Dennis Kucinich headline the Democratic ticket. Ain't going to happen.
From an objective standpoint, the Republican's best bet is Mitt Romney (I'm not cued into GOP circles enough to strategize a VP pick.) McCain and Guliani are both going to have some negatives which are going to hinder them.
Now, of course from a subjective standpoint, I'd love to see the Republicans nominate somebody like Brownback or Hunter or Tancredo. But that will be as likely as having Dennis Kucinich headline the Democratic ticket. Ain't going to happen.
SkinkTyree
Member
What really fascinates me about the 2008 election is that this is probably the first election since 1968 where the race is pretty wide open on both sides. I.e., no incumbent or vice presidential heir running on at least one party ticket. Think about it:
2004: Kerry v. Bush Jr. (incumbent)
2000: Bush Jr. v. Gore (sitting VP)
1996: Dole v. Clinton (incumbent)
1992: Clinton v. Bush Sr. (incumbent)
1988: Dukakis v. Bush Sr. (sitting VP)
1984: Mondale v. Reagan (incumbent)
1980: Reagan v. Carter (incumbent)
1976: Carter v. Ford (quasi-incumbent)
1972: McGovern v. Nixon (incumbent)
2004: Kerry v. Bush Jr. (incumbent)
2000: Bush Jr. v. Gore (sitting VP)
1996: Dole v. Clinton (incumbent)
1992: Clinton v. Bush Sr. (incumbent)
1988: Dukakis v. Bush Sr. (sitting VP)
1984: Mondale v. Reagan (incumbent)
1980: Reagan v. Carter (incumbent)
1976: Carter v. Ford (quasi-incumbent)
1972: McGovern v. Nixon (incumbent)
Bill Richardson just tossed his hat into the ring. I don't know a whole lot about him, but I don't recoil at the sound of his name like I did Al Gore and John Kerry, not to mention the current line-up of candidates.SkinkTyree said:
Ken King said:
Larry Gude
Strung Out
That can be taken...
...a step further; in '68 Nixon had at least been Vice President before. This time around, 2008, no one will have had anything to do with the Whitehouse with the arguable exception of Hillary, unless Gore runs.
SkinkTyree said:
...a step further; in '68 Nixon had at least been Vice President before. This time around, 2008, no one will have had anything to do with the Whitehouse with the arguable exception of Hillary, unless Gore runs.
SkinkTyree
Member
Larry Gude said:
With that in mind, the last time there was an election without an incumbent or Vice President (sitting or former) would be....
1952, Dwight Eisenhower versus Adalai Stevenson.
The more you know....