|
|
Post by Galactus on Jan 20, 2007 13:34:18 GMT -5
The Republicans really want to Hillary to run...some of the fox news and other conservative pundits are already talking like she's a shoe in but then they have all these guys from the democrats on and not a single one of them gets excited about the idea, they talk about Edwards like he has a chance, Obama even Biden but none of them really back up Clinton very much. She will not get the nomination.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jan 20, 2007 14:26:50 GMT -5
I really hope she doesn't !
Way too politician for her own(and OUR)good ... !!
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Jan 20, 2007 17:11:35 GMT -5
Oh, shes running. No question.
|
|
|
|
Post by shin on Jan 20, 2007 18:46:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Jan 20, 2007 19:38:01 GMT -5
OH NOES NOT HITLERY ROTFLMAO!
|
|
|
|
Post by frag on Jan 20, 2007 23:33:24 GMT -5
She won't get the nomination. Not a chance in hell. She's stupid for even thinking she's got a shot. I honestly didn't think she would go for it, though, to tell you the truth. I was a bit surprised to see her seeking a committee.
|
|
|
|
Post by maarts on Jan 20, 2007 23:42:58 GMT -5
I'm seriously asking: why not? Because she is a woman? Because of Bill?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Jan 21, 2007 0:59:48 GMT -5
Hillary is like waiving a red flag at the religious right in this country. She brings out an unnaturally strong reaction in people who don't like her.
Personally, I think she'd be a fine President. I don't know if she's my top pick (it's still waaaaaaay too early for that call), but she's within the realm of acceptable candidates/office-holders. She's about 10,000 times more credible and qualified for the office than Dubya was/is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jan 21, 2007 3:09:20 GMT -5
I don't want Hillary to be the nominee for both practical and principled reasons. Practically speaking, I'm skeptical she can get elected. Speaking from principles, I don't actually like her politics all that much. I realize in part she is just trying to make herself more palatable to the right, but she's been running so hard to the right on so many issues lately that she has really pissed me off. I do not consider her a person of the left. Granted, most Democratic candidates aren't, but I think she's actually well to the right of both Obama and Edwards.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Jan 21, 2007 9:20:53 GMT -5
I think she's been in the spotlight so long that it's just too obvious she's only changing her politics to get elected, she's done it before and it's worked but all the GOP has to do is gather all her different answers from the last ten years and play the ole' flip flopper card. She's taken a soft position on the war and sort of leans to which ever side she's talking to. She got Bill elected and she feels like it should've been her. As far not liking her politics I don't think she has many convictions other then wanting to be president. She's polling well now off Bill's administration and name recognition but the further we get into the primaries the more those numbers will slip.
|
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Jan 21, 2007 9:37:43 GMT -5
I'd vote for her, no problem, and simply because I don't think we can do better than her in American politics. Yeah, she panders to the public. So does McCain, the current President, Edwards, Bill Clinton, and every other politician I've ever known. I am not crazy about her. But I don't think America can do better.
|
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Jan 21, 2007 9:38:08 GMT -5
Still, I don't think she's electable, so it's pretty much moot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Proud on Jan 21, 2007 9:58:57 GMT -5
Yeah, you win. I'm a flagrant sexist. Good job!
Just to start things off:
A) Voted for the war, and unlike some other Democrats who joined her... hasn't admitted she was wrong. Nobody knows what she thinks we should do now, of course.
B) There's a reason why she waited until 2-3 AM (EST) to make an announcement the night of the troop surge, even though Dems and Republicans alike came out against it before Bush even made the speech.
Hillary has yet to show me she's a competent official of any office, really. Or that she has an ounce of integrity.
*fights to raise the recommended age to play Grand Theft Auto... by a year*
|
|
|
|
Post by dolly on Jan 21, 2007 10:46:19 GMT -5
Isn't American politics all about who has the biggest money-backing? Read: gullibility of joe public in plumping for who produces the shiniest leaflets and who has the least damaging dirt-campaign mailshots run against them? I don't think anyone can discount Hillary with the amount of financial clout she can bring to the Democrat table.
Yeah she's hated by more than one in three voters (just Democrat or anyone with a vote?) and she supported the war - but she can work with both sides and has carved out a political career in her own right away from Bill - surely she's achieved the stepping out from the first lady shadow by now.
As for the accusations of pandering to the public - it works well on these shores (see Blair and future PM David Cameron) - that surely shouldn't be such a big thing in these middle-way times?
But it will be Obama, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Jan 21, 2007 11:19:53 GMT -5
Well, sure every politician panders I just think that Hilary does it the point that it's insulting. Dolly brings up a good point in that for a large percentage of the American public "likability" is one of the number one factors...I, for one, don't think she's very likable. She and McCain are poll the highest right now but think both will lose in the primaries. McCain because he supports the surge will most likely be a disaster and Hilary because I think the more time she spends in front of the cameras the more unlikable she becomes. Most people already have an opinion about Hilary and it's easier to stop liking her then it is to stop hating her.
IMO this is Obama's election if he wants it...of course with the obvious "a lot can change in two years" disclaimer. If he can get Clark or someone with foreign policy and/or military experience on his ticket he's the guy to beat.
|
|
