NationStates Jolt Archive

There is little doubt the world would elect Bill Clinton Secretary-General if George W. Bush appointed him to represent the U.S.

So, do all you rabid Clinton haters put your politics before the best interests of the U.S. (how could it not be in the U.S.'s best interest to have an American heading the U.N.?) or would you support making the Big Dog Secretary-General?

I don't really like Clinton (no, I'm NOT a US Republican), except for that stuff he did in NI.

He would never get the job. First of all, neither Bush nor the Republican congress would ever appoint him. Second, they don't let people from the big countries get the top job in the UN. Countries like the USA already have plenty of power in the UN. They don't need more.

Why would we want a proven philanderer, liar and probable corrupt politican as UN Secretary General? I mean, I'm no Republican (far from it) but the Clinton idolisation frankly baffles me. It's not even as if his foreign policy record is particularly golden.

Why would we want a proven philanderer, liar and probable corrupt politican as UN Secretary General? I mean, I'm no Republican (far from it) but the Clinton idolisation frankly baffles me. It's not even as if his foreign policy record is particularly golden.
I agree. I'm even baffles by the love American liberals show for him when you consider that Clinton acted more like Reagan than any liberal.

There is little doubt the world would elect Bill Clinton Secretary-General if George W. Bush appointed him to represent the U.S.

So, do all you rabid Clinton haters put your politics before the best interests of the U.S. (how could it not be in the U.S.'s best interest to have an American heading the U.N.?) or would you support making the Big Dog Secretary-General?
You know what? I really can't believe that I'm going to agree with YOU on anything, but this might not be too bad an idea. Besides, then Slick Willie could molest on an international scale! LOL! :D

I agree. I'm even baffles by the love American liberals show for him when you consider that Clinton acted more like Reagan than any liberal.

He did one thing I value more than any politics: he united the country. The UN Secretary General isn't much more than a talking piece(as much of the UN is) and having an orater like Clinton at its head would be great.

He did one thing I value more than any politics: he united the country. The UN Secretary General isn't much more than a talking piece(as much of the UN is) and having an orater like Clinton at its head would be great.
Clinton? An ORATOR? ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!

A disbarred, disgraced, lying-under-oath scandal ridden fool for UN SecGen. Sounds about right.

He did one thing I value more than any politics: he united the country. The UN Secretary General isn't much more than a talking piece(as much of the UN is) and having an orater like Clinton at its head would be great.
I won't deny that he is charismatic, like Reagan. He is also corrupt like Reagan. We have already seen that the UN has capacity for corruption (even tho i say that I'm not some neocon who wants to dismantle it), and him in that position would not help that matter.

Did he really unite the country? He was popular, but he never got a popular vote majority and Republicans HATED him. Attack politics reached new levels in America in the 1990s.

A disbarred, disgraced, lying-under-oath scandal ridden fool for UN SecGen. Sounds about right.

That's sounds about right

Good idea. Send him to Africa to investigate the UN peacekeepers and their rape squads. He might even give them a few pointers. ;)

You know what? I really can't believe that I'm going to agree with YOU on anything, but this might not be too bad an idea. Besides, then Slick Willie could molest on an international scale! LOL! :D

LOL

There is little doubt the world would elect Bill Clinton Secretary-General if George W. Bush appointed him to represent the U.S.

So, do all you rabid Clinton haters put your politics before the best interests of the U.S. (how could it not be in the U.S.'s best interest to have an American heading the U.N.?) or would you support making the Big Dog Secretary-General?

Absolutely not under any circumstances. He is a corrupt individual, not that Bush isn't as well, with little or no moral cumpunction. He values nothing more than power and would attempt a world coup as U.N. Sec. General and spread his hippie brand of free love and socialism. :gundge:

I sat he shouldnt be involved in any more political stuff

He cheated on his wife.

He lied under oath, never mind chaeting on his wife.

Kofi Anan is a fool. He does nothing for the U.N. or the world.
I'm not American so it would be crazy for me to have an American in his position.
Kofi Anan is weak and does not have the worlds best interest at heart.
The United States was in clear breach of U.N. law and he did nothing.
But Bill Clinton is a good man and would serve the U.S. well in the U.N.

He lied under oath, never mind chaeting on his wife.
He cheated on his wife. Which is immoral.

bill clinton is an excellent choice for amb to the UN. he has incredible international prestige. he would be a great sec-gen too. the man knows how to get stuff done

but bush would never appoint him and no matter what his prestige, the UN wouldnt elect him.

i dont know squat about NYC but it cant possibly be significantly farther from his house to UN headquarters than it is to his office in harlem.

win/win.

He cheated on his wife.


Well son, if she were a lesbo and if she looked like this (http://www.jeremiahproject.com/graphics/hillary2.jpg), wouldn't you cheat as well. Darn it, people have needs!

A disbarred, disgraced, lying-under-oath scandal ridden fool for UN SecGen. Sounds about right.

Acquitted of all charges and was never fully disbarred. He was disbarred from practicing law before SCOTUS, but that's it. Many things Clinton has been accused of ... but nothing ever managed to stick.

I know that just eats ya'll Reagan-dick-sucking-neocons alive, but deal with it. You tried your petty crap and failed miserably.

He cheated on his wife.

Most Presidents have ... including Jefferson. However, that's neither here nor there ... the Clintons' marriage is none of your business.

Acquitted of all charges and was never fully disbarred. He was disbarred from practicing law before SCOTUS, but that's it. Many things Clinton has been accused of ... but nothing ever managed to stick.

I know that just eats ya'll Reagan-dick-sucking-neocons alive, but deal with it. You tried your petty crap and failed miserably.


He was acquitted, but he still lied. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewisnky." I believe he DID say that under oath. And have you read his book, of course you have, you seem to be his fan. Its in there, he did have sexual relations with her. Uhm, if thats not lying under oath, what is?

I'ld be more concerned w/ his politics, like trying to get that statue of a mangled pistol outstide the U.N. to become a reality in the U.S.

He was acquitted, but he still lied. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewisnky." I believe he DID say that under oath. And have you read his book, of course you have, you seem to be his fan. Its in there, he did have sexual relations with her. Uhm, if thats not lying under oath, what is?
Wrong ^.^

For the purposes of this deposition, a person [the deponent, in this case, Clinton] engages in sexual relations when the person [Clinton] knowingly engages in or causes:

1. Contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person [that is, any other person, in this case, Monica Lewinsky] with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person [Lewinsky];

The definition of sexual relations as pertaining to Bill Clinton during the time when under oath he stated that he did not have sexual relations with that woman. Even if he interpreted the statement wrong, good luck proving that he did it with the intent to lie (which you'd need to prove for perjury) not just a misunderstanding.

They belong together.

They belong together.
I'm surprised more people don't take Mr. Busters' position, I mean, what harm could he do but hurt the UN if he is as bad as he says.

I thought people from the permanent members of the UN cant become Secretary General.

I'm surprised more people don't take Mr. Busters' position, I mean, what harm could he do but hurt the UN if he is as bad as he says.

He's a sleazeball, a piece of dung, a traitor, an arch-criminal, a wretched sexual psychopath. What better person to head the UN?

He's a sleazeball, a piece of dung, a traitor, an arch-criminal, a wretched sexual psychopath. What better person to head the UN?
Ollie North?

He's a sleazeball, a piece of dung, a traitor, an arch-criminal, a wretched sexual psychopath. What better person to head the UN?

A Kennedy?

Ollie North?

He's an anticommunist, though. How could he head a communist organization?

A Kennedy?

A Kennedy would be perfect, even better than Clinton.

He's an anticommunist, though. How could he head a communist organization?
Money.

No.

Simply, because I dislike the UN, I don't want the US meddling in it.

No.

Simply, because I dislike the UN, I don't want the US meddling in it.

Spoken like a true libertarian. ;)

*Throws Superpower07 a taco*

Having Clinton in the UN would certainly put all female employees and janitorial staff on red alert.

Nope. He's an American. Snowball's chance in Hell.

I thought people from the permanent members of the UN cant become Secretary General.
apparently thats just a tradition, and isn't actualy a rule, though i'm not sure, my source for that is a post on Free Republic where I first heard of this proposal.

This is a good idea if Hillary decides to stay out of presedentail politics, other wise it'll look bad...
When does Kofi's term run out any way? and who else is in the running for the position?

Why would we want a proven philanderer, liar and probable corrupt politican as UN Secretary General? I mean, I'm no Republican (far from it) but the Clinton idolisation frankly baffles me. It's not even as if his foreign policy record is particularly golden.

It's not baffling. Liberals rallied behind him because he was attacked by the neo-cons in the Lewinsky thing. The right created their Frankenstein's monster and now you have to live with him.

I guess that's why they just don't hate Clinton, they REALLY HATE him.

A Kennedy would be perfect, even better than Clinton.

Ahahahahaha oh god

Who would you choose, Teddy? Honestly.

Maybe I'm a Reagan-dick-sucking whatever that idiot says, but honestly:

1. He lied. We know he lied. The Senate didnt convict him because they didnt find it impeachable enough.

2. Do we really want a president who argued about the meaning of is heading the UN?

Clintin would make an excellent U.N. secretary. He hs good realationships worldwide and is also very well liked in most 3rd world countries. I also believe he would add sanity to U.S. foreign policy by balancing the power of George Bush against Clinton representing the world. Though I must admit the conspirator inside is screaming foul. This is just about perfect as if straight out of a political thriller.
To offer one more point. The U.S. does virtually bankroll the U.N. The U.S. has enormous capital investment in the U.N. over decades. We do have the right and interest in the name of preserving the U.N.'s existence to appoint a well respected American statesman to the top. Bring back Clinton...the eternal optimist!!!

Virtiu and vitrol. The avid hatred for the man almost forces me to like him. I really didn't approve of his policies while in office, but I refuse to condemn a man because he fooled around.

I refuse to condemn him on some petty technicality, and I refuse to condemn him because it would mean condemming all of the other government officials who cheated on their spouses, lied about it to the american people, slept with secrataries, had bastard children, did drugs before taking office, did things that were in their own best interest and not the american people's.

I'm wondering just how many politicians can you think of that did some or most of these things? I've thought about every single major US politician and I haven't found one who DIDN'T. Did it not come out that almost half of the Clinton impeachment panel had had mistresses and sex scandals in their terms of office? Talk about a jury of your peers.

Strom Thurmond anyone? Whatever you may think of him, he was a longtime senate leader and very much a veteran lawmaker; he also happened to have a child out of wedlock and refused to acknowledge her in life because she was black. I personally think this in no way harms his legacy as a lawmaker in the US; a belief that I think should carry over to clinton.

Nobody in Washington is up for sainthood thank you very much; I really wish these people who hate clinton beyond all scope of reason would grow up a little. But the Clinton haters showed us the shape of things to come, it seems that one must hate SOMEONE to be in politics these days.

I don't really like Clinton (no, I'm NOT a US Republican), except for that stuff he did in NI.

He would never get the job. First of all, neither Bush nor the Republican congress would ever appoint him. Second, they don't let people from the big countries get the top job in the UN. Countries like the USA already have plenty of power in the UN. They don't need more.

Problem is that the US Congress DOES NOT appoint the UN Secretary General. Hell Bill O'Reilly said yesterday it'll be a great idea to have him there!

Kofi Anan is a fool. He does nothing for the U.N. or the world.
I'm not American so it would be crazy for me to have an American in his position.
Kofi Anan is weak and does not have the worlds best interest at heart.
The United States was in clear breach of U.N. law and he did nothing.
But Bill Clinton is a good man and would serve the U.S. well in the U.N.

How were we in clear breach of UN Law?

Iraq was in violation of UN Law too and the UN did nothing. All we did was follow through on UN law (even though the UN doesn't have laws but pass Resolutions but I doubt you know the difference) and your saying we're in breach of them?

Your right! Kofi is a fool and needs to be dealt with. Kick the fool out and put Clinton in.

bill clinton is an excellent choice for amb to the UN. he has incredible international prestige. he would be a great sec-gen too. the man knows how to get stuff done

UN Secretary General! Not UN Ambassador. Big difference between the two.

but bush would never appoint him and no matter what his prestige, the UN wouldnt elect him.

Actually, I think he will support him.

i dont know squat about NYC but it cant possibly be significantly farther from his house to UN headquarters than it is to his office in harlem.

win/win.

Probably!

Acquitted of all charges and was never fully disbarred. He was disbarred from practicing law before SCOTUS, but that's it. Many things Clinton has been accused of ... but nothing ever managed to stick.

Because the evidence never got in thanks to the Democrats in the US Senate! Look at the evidence and you can see that he clearly DID VIOLATE US Law and therefor should've been tossed from office. At least the evidence got into the House Deliberations and was impeached for his crimes.

I know that just eats ya'll Reagan-dick-sucking-neocons alive, but deal with it. You tried your petty crap and failed miserably.

Pity Crap? Violation of US Law and calling him on it is pity crap? Send him to the UN! At least there he can do something worthwhile with his life.

He cheated on his wife. Which is immoral.
And lying under oath ISN'T? Hmmm. :headbang:

Wrong ^.^

Lying under oath is Purgery and therefor, an impeachable offense.

The definition of sexual relations as pertaining to Bill Clinton during the time when under oath he stated that he did not have sexual relations with that woman. Even if he interpreted the statement wrong, good luck proving that he did it with the intent to lie (which you'd need to prove for perjury) not just a misunderstanding.

Its been proven that he lied under oath! Lying under oath is purgery. Purgery is in violation of US Law as is obstruction of justice.

Nope. He's an American. Snowball's chance in Hell.

He's well liked by the international community. He does have a chance. Bill O'reilly even endorsed him for UN Secretary General.

Corneliu, please apply those same high and noble standards to both parties.


Now watch as the halls of congress empty. Repeat as needed.

Corneliu, please apply those same high and noble standards to both parties.


Now watch as the halls of congress empty. Repeat as needed.

*sighs*

I do Niccolo! I can bash Republicans just as I can Democrats. However, Bill Clinton got caught lying under oath and was impeached for it! I wish he was tossed from office but that is in the past.

I do think he'll make a great UN Secretary General.

I don't think Clinton should become Secretary General, but that is not anything I hold against him personly. Only because I also think the US should get kicked out of the UN in general. If they don't follow the rules (see Napalm in Fallujah), then how can they head the organization?

I don't think Clinton should become Secretary General, but that is not anything I hold against him personly. Only because I also think the US should get kicked out of the UN in general. If they don't follow the rules (see Napalm in Fallujah), then how can they head the organization?

Russia should be kicked out, China should be kicked out, France should be kicked out too for not following through on the UN Promises OR following through on UN Resolutions!

Iraq could've gotten kicked out too just letting you know!

Amazing how so many people are quick to blame the US for the UN Failures when all we do is expose them for being a very corrupt nation. Its amazing they want to throw us out (and I still think we should pull out but that veto is nice to have :p) when other nations have violated their oaths too!

STOP BLAMING US FOR ALL THE WORLD PROBLEMS!!!!!!!!!

I know that just eats ya'll Reagan-dick-sucking-neocons alive, but deal with it. You tried your petty crap and failed miserably.
Knock off the flaming.

Unfree People
Forum Moderator

Too all you people who keep bashing Clinton just because of the Lewinsky scandal: Almost every president from the 1920's on had an affair with somebody (remember, there are always ho's that are attracted to money and power). The only exceptions I could think of are FDR(cripple, cant really engage in sexual activity that well) and Reagan(closest president to sainthood, although still not a saint).

The neo-cons just threw everything against this impeachment case because it was the only ammo they had! If the libs were in the same position with Bush, they would have dont the same thing! And the neo-cons call liberals spineless... Anyway, it's fortunate that Bush can be easily bashed.

Lying under oath is Purgery and therefor, an impeachable offense.



Its been proven that he lied under oath! Lying under oath is purgery. Purgery is in violation of US Law as is obstruction of justice.
Did you miss that entire part where at worst Bill misinterpreted the definition of sexual relations (remember, he is a lawyer and he has to think that way), which isn't perjury, for perjury you have to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that he lied intentionally?

He wasn't proved guilty of lying under oath, he was acquitted of lying under oath. You need to check your facts.

Did you miss that entire part where at worst Bill misinterpreted the definition of sexual relations (remember, he is a lawyer and he has to think that way), which isn't perjury, for perjury you have to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that he lied intentionally?

He wasn't proved guilty of lying under oath, he was acquitted of lying under oath. You need to check your facts.

Doesn't matter! Lying is lying. Its been proven that he lied! Since he lied, the bum should've been tossed out of office. However he was not and I accepted it. Doesn't mean I agree with it but I did accept it.

As for Being the UN Secretary General, I think he'll make a good one. The world will accept him.

Doesn't matter! Lying is lying. Its been proven that he lied! Since he lied, the bum should've been tossed out of office. However he was not and I accepted it. Doesn't mean I agree with it but I did accept it.

As for Being the UN Secretary General, I think he'll make a good one. The world will accept him.
Where has it been proven that he lied?

Where has it been proven that he lied?

The House found him guilty of it! I am going to have to check but this has NO BEARING on this thread!

He was found in violation of the law and the Senate acquitted him. The system did work in my opinion even though it didn't end the way it should have.

Can we please get back to the topic of this thread. I won't comment anymore on the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Its over and in the past.

I don't really care that Bill Clinton cheated on his wife. While I do not support putting convicted liars into public office, I will disregard that.

I would like a Clinton supporter to name for me one thing that Clinton did during his presidency that still has an effect on the daily lives of Americans.

Clinton was a "good" president because he did not make anyone angry (aside from the whole impeachment thing, but I'm disregarding that, remember?). How did he manage to not make anyone angry in 8 years? By not doing anything. He pretty much rode the wave of the dot-com boost, and since he allowed all those dot-coms to do whatever they wanted unchecked, he left Bush with the depression after the dot-com bubble bursted.

The House found him guilty of it! I am going to have to check but this has NO BEARING on this thread!

He was found in violation of the law and the Senate acquitted him. The system did work in my opinion even though it didn't end the way it should have.

Can we please get back to the topic of this thread. I won't comment anymore on the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Its over and in the past.
The house didn't find him guilty of anything, they mearly passed the charge on to the Senate who would deside if he was guilty or not. He was found not guilty on both charges.

The house didn't find him guilty of anything, they mearly passed the charge on to the Senate who would deside if he was guilty or not. He was found not guilty on both charges.

Drop it! No bearing on this thread. Please return to the topic

Drop it! No bearing on this thread. Please return to the topic
:roll:

It has lots of bearing on this thread. It has to do with his fitness to lead the UN.

:roll:

It has lots of bearing on this thread. It has to do with his fitness to lead the UN.

And haven't you noticed that I support him for UN Secretary General as does Bill O'Reilly?

Wow, there seems to be more hatred of Clinton here by the Left than the right. He wouldn't be perfect, but even I, as a Republican, feel it would be good to have a US Secretary General.

Wow, there seems to be more hatred of Clinton here by the Left than the right. He wouldn't be perfect, but even I, as a Republican, feel it would be good to have a US Secretary General.

You know why this is don't you?

They want Hillary to run in 2008. If Clinton becomes UN Secretary General, that'll blow Hillary's chances of running.

Why would it? It would give Clinton the ability to keep his name in public, and thus buoy interest in him and Hillary.

Why would it? It would give Clinton the ability to keep his name in public, and thus buoy interest in him and Hillary.

The people wouldn't tolerate having one Clinton in charge of the UN and the other in charge of the USA! Problem is, Koffi's term will be up BEFORE the presidential election.

If Bill Clinton becomes UN Secretary General, Hillary Clinton won't be able to run for Political Reasons. The left wants her to run for President in 2008.

You know why this is don't you?

They want Hillary to run in 2008. If Clinton becomes UN Secretary General, that'll blow Hillary's chances of running.

I shudder to think of what might happen if Hillary is elected in 08. As scared as I am of Bush with nearly limitless power, Hillary scares me even more.

I shudder to think of what might happen if Hillary is elected in 08. As scared as I am of Bush with nearly limitless power, Hillary scares me even more.

It scares me too! I don't think she'll win anyway if she does run for President. In this country? You just never know.

The house didn't find him guilty of anything, they mearly passed the charge on to the Senate who would deside if he was guilty or not. He was found not guilty on both charges.

Bill Clinton :fluffle: , OJ Simpson :mp5: , NOT GUILTY! :headbang:, CHEERS :D !

The people wouldn't tolerate having one Clinton in charge of the UN and the other in charge of the USA! Problem is, Koffi's term will be up BEFORE the presidential election.

If Bill Clinton becomes UN Secretary General, Hillary Clinton won't be able to run for Political Reasons. The left wants her to run for President in 2008.
I hope you're right, but then again, the type of people who vote for Hillary are not the kind who would be dissapointed with having two Clintons in power...

I hope you're right, but then again, the type of people who vote for Hillary are not the kind who would be dissapointed with having two Clintons in power...

You are right however, I don't think the American People as a whole would tolerate it!

At the risk of appearing sexist, I do not think the American public would elect a woman to be President. I think that a lot of people would get to the ballot box, think, "Do I really want a woman as my president?" and then cast their vote for someone else.
I believe the same thing about the first minority candidate that runs. I do not believe that America is ready to elect a woman/minority candidate yet.

At the risk of appearing sexist, I do not think the American public would elect a woman to be President. I think that a lot of people would get to the ballot box, think, "Do I really want a woman as my president?" and then cast their vote for someone else.
I believe the same thing about the first minority candidate that runs. I do not believe that America is ready to elect a woman/minority candidate yet.

I can actually agree to this. Given time though, it will happen.

At the risk of appearing sexist, I do not think the American public would elect a woman to be President. I think that a lot of people would get to the ballot box, think, "Do I really want a woman as my president?" and then cast their vote for someone else.
I believe the same thing about the first minority candidate that runs. I do not believe that America is ready to elect a woman/minority candidate yet.
That is flat out wrong. You're listening to the liberal media who seem to believe Americans are racist, misognyist bigots, which is patently untrue.

Anyway, I think Condi Rice is going to win the '08 election.

On the contrary. I tend to pay no attention to liberal media at all. I do not believe that Americans will not vote for a woman or a minority out of racism or sexism. I think it will be because of tradition. For 200+ years, we have not deviated from a white, male president. While I do think that a woman will be elected before a minority, and while I do think that it will happen, I think a minority vice president candidate would be a more likely event to happen first.

Here comes the shocker.
I think a Hispanic candidate, not an African-American, will be the first minority to be elected president.

Anyway, I think Condi Rice is going to win the '08 election.

Hillary would be elected before Condi. Condi is too tied to Bush to win an election, and the black Liberals (Al Sharpton, etc) would run her reputation into the ground.

On the contrary. I tend to pay no attention to liberal media at all. I do not believe that Americans will not vote for a woman or a minority out of racism or sexism. I think it will be because of tradition. For 200+ years, we have not deviated from a white, male president. While I do think that a woman will be elected before a minority, and while I do think that it will happen, I think a minority vice president candidate would be a more likely event to happen first.

Here comes the shocker.
I think a Hispanic candidate, not an African-American, will be the first minority to be elected president.
The only reason that hasn't happened because there have been no serious women/minority candidates. I mean, Karen Mosely Brown? Al Sharpton? Jessie Jackson? I feel Condi will win because she is the only prominent Republican woman right now, and the Reps will probably have to counter Hillary's woman status with a woman/minority combo.

Hillary would be elected before Condi. Condi is too tied to Bush to win an election, and the black Liberals (Al Sharpton, etc) would run her reputation into the ground.

Actually I think just the opposite. Condi would get elected before Clinton.

Hillary would be elected before Condi. Condi is too tied to Bush to win an election, and the black Liberals (Al Sharpton, etc) would run her reputation into the ground.
How is being tied to Bush a bad thing, politically? He did win after all. Anyway, anyone who listens to black liberals like Sharpton probably wouldn't vote for a Republican anyway.

The only reason that hasn't happened because there have been no serious women/minority candidates. I mean, Karen Mosely Brown? Al Sharpton? Jessie Jackson? I feel Condi will win because she is the only prominent Republican woman right now, and the Reps will probably have to counter Hillary's woman status with a woman/minority combo.

And that'll drive the liberals mad but that won't stop them from insulting them and then play some type of card to negate her rebuttals and I do believe that the race card would be played by the left.

The only reason that hasn't happened because there have been no serious women/minority candidates. I mean, Karen Mosely Brown? Al Sharpton? Jessie Jackson? I feel Condi will win because she is the only prominent Republican woman right now, and the Reps will probably have to counter Hillary's woman status with a woman/minority combo.
You guys got in a lot of trouble for running a minority against Obama, why do you think it would work for the Presidential election?


I don't think many people sit there and vote on what race/sex the presidential candidate is as compaired the opponent.

"That is flat out wrong. You're listening to the liberal media who seem to believe Americans are racist, misognyist bigots, which is patently untrue."

God bless the liberal media, we need more of it in America. Not enough of the press question the events going on. People need to realize it is our patriotic duty to question, if we do not question then we grow complacent, and complacency does not breed anything good.

If americans are n ot bigots why in a recent poll did 44% of Americans support limiting the rights of muslims living in America? Of that 44%, 26% supported having Muslims living in America register wiht a national registry of some sorts.

If America is fair and equal, why have we not had a minority president or a female president?

You guys got in a lot of trouble for running a minority against Obama, why do you think it would work for the Presidential election?


I don't think many people sit there and vote on what race/sex the presidential candidate is as compaired the opponent.
Yes, but Hillary is going to milk the "first woman president" tactic for all it's worth. If you get a woman in there, and a minority woman, that'll take away the race/gender card Dems have always played. Unless they go back to the "dixiecrat" approach, which is unlikely.
Although it would be hilarious to hear Hillary call Condi a "N***er!"
Of course, this would lead to a Republican landslide, forever dooming the Democratic party...*sighs blissfully, praying Hillary becomes a blatant racist*

You guys got in a lot of trouble for running a minority against Obama, why do you think it would work for the Presidential election?

Please! Everyone knew that Keys wasn't going to win that election! Even I knew Obama was going to win.

I don't think many people sit there and vote on what race/sex the presidential candidate is as compaired the opponent.

You are right here CSW and hence when a minority does run, it'll be interesting to see what type of crap his or her opponet will put out.

"That is flat out wrong. You're listening to the liberal media who seem to believe Americans are racist, misognyist bigots, which is patently untrue."

God bless the liberal media, we need more of it in America. Not enough of the press question the events going on. People need to realize it is our patriotic duty to question, if we do not question then we grow complacent, and complacency does not breed anything good.

If americans are n ot bigots why in a recent poll did 44% of Americans support limiting the rights of muslims living in America? Of that 44%, 26% supported having Muslims living in America register wiht a national registry of some sorts.

If America is fair and equal, why have we not had a minority president or a female president?
Source please?

How is being tied to Bush a bad thing, politically? He did win after all. Anyway, anyone who listens to black liberals like Sharpton probably wouldn't vote for a Republican anyway.

Bush only won because he went up against Kerry. The reality is that if Dean hadn't gone crazy during that speech, he probably would have won the election.

Also, as I said before, we have never had a serious minority/female candidate.

Bush only won because he went up against Kerry. The reality is that if Dean hadn't gone crazy during that speech, he probably would have won the election.
No, if Dean had won the primaries, it would have been a landslide for Bush. The reason Kerry was "flip-flopping" was because he had to satisfy both the radical and the more conservative wings of the democratic party. Dean solely satisfies the radicals.

Bush only won because he went up against Kerry. The reality is that if Dean hadn't gone crazy during that speech, he probably would have won the election.

Actually, I think it would've been closer if Dean ran. The Bush administration was ready for Dean/Bush match up and got caught off guard by the Bush/Kerry Matchup.

In the end though, I think Bush would've won that election too. People don't like changing presidents in wartime.

The key to the Republicans defeating Hillary is not to run a minority candidate, or a woman candidate, or both. The key is to find a middle-of-the-road Senator with a clean record that is almost as much left as he is right. Then expose Hillary's extreme-left tendency (she is going to be selling herself as a conservative for the next four years), and the election is all but a lock.

CONSPIRACY THEORY OF THE DAY
Dick Cheney resigns, citing health issues, and this new guy steps in.
This is not a stretch by any means, as Cheney's heart has been giving him a lot of trouble lately.

The key to the Republicans defeating Hillary is not to run a minority candidate, or a woman candidate, or both. The key is to find a middle-of-the-road Senator with a clean record that is almost as much left as he is right. Then expose Hillary's extreme-left tendency (she is going to be selling herself as a conservative for the next four years), and the election is all but a lock.

CONSPIRACY THEORY OF THE DAY
Dick Cheney resigns, citing health issues, and this new guy steps in.
This is not a stretch by any means, as Cheney's heart has been giving him a lot of trouble lately.
No, the "base" would bolt if we had someone even more liberal than Bush. You may have not noticed, but only fear of John Kerry kept the base from fleeing after Bush's big expenditures and weak border policy. With another "Republicrat" (as they call them), they'll simply give up. Condi is a good candidate because she has the minority/gender card (nullifies Hillary's ability to get casual women voters) and because she has a good track record (service in top level position), but no publicly known political beliefs, she can easily set herself up favorably. I know I'm being incredibly cynical, but hey, this is politics. ;)

Actually, I think it would've been closer if Dean ran. The Bush administration was ready for Dean/Bush match up and got caught off guard by the Bush/Kerry Matchup.

In the end though, I think Bush would've won that election too. People don't like changing presidents in wartime.
How would it be closer if they got the candidate they were ready for?

I believe I saw the article about muslim americans on netscape.com news.

No, if Dean had won the primaries, it would have been a landslide for Bush. The reason Kerry was "flip-flopping" was because he had to satisfy both the radical and the more conservative wings of the democratic party. Dean solely satisfies the radicals.

I'm pretty sure Kerry is just as radical as Dean. Dean was a more likeable guy, though. His record was better, and he didn't talk out of both sides of his mouth.

Yeah, but Dean was openly radical and anti-war. There is a significant segment of the democratic party that is the opposite of such. As for the guy with the Muslim-American poll, can you have a more vague source? That's like saying,"I saw it on CNN."

How would it be closer if they got the candidate they were ready for?

I know it sounded weird but I want you to think about it. Before Dean went nuts, he was by far the front runner. Everyone was talking about this match up.

Now the reason why I said closer was because Dean didn't flip flop as much as Kerry has. Compared to Kerry, Dean has been very consistent in what he said. Not to mention, he has held a very high political position (Governor of VT) That would've gone well for him. People would've rallied around him because he was consistent. Just because the other side was ready for him does not negate the fact that Dean was probably ready for Bush too. He was ahead that he could afford to do that then Kerry snuck up and stole IA and NH and the rest is history. Kerry had to fight to get his nomination. He didn't have time to prepare for a massive attack on Bush. His supporters did but the Dem supporters as well as the 527s have been hammering away at Bush for a year and a half. It didnt matter anyway because Bush won the election in a walk.

He may be consistent, but he was consistently radical. The american people are not that left wing, and wouldn't overlook such things in favor of personality. (Although I agree, I personally did like him. Nutjob, yeah, but honest nutjob.) And since when did Bush win it in a walk? I, like most people, was watching the results while in a cold sweat, and randomly pacing my house.

I don't see how Condi could be considered a reasonable canadiate. All any Democratic canadiate needs to really do is play the terrorism card and pull out her 9/11 commission testifyin'.

I don't see how Condi could be considered a reasonable canadiate. All any Democratic canadiate needs to really do is play the terrorism card and pull out her 9/11 commission testifyin'.

Talk about politicizing 9/11!

He may be consistent, but he was consistently radical. The american people are not that left wing, and wouldn't overlook such things in favor of personality. (Although I agree, I personally did like him. Nutjob, yeah, but honest nutjob.) And since when did Bush win it in a walk? I, like most people, was watching the results while in a cold sweat, and randomly pacing my house.

I wasn't a bit concerned. I knew Bush was going to win. And the reason why I said in a walk was because of the electoral college vote. Solid win there as well as a solid win in the popular vote.

I wasn't a bit concerned. I knew Bush was going to win. And the reason why I said in a walk was because of the electoral college vote. Solid win there as well as a solid win in the popular vote.

Yeah, but Ohio was close. REEEEEAAALLLLY CLOSE, until the last minute. Plus those exit polls were disconcerting...

I don't see how Condi could be considered a reasonable canadiate. All any Democratic canadiate needs to really do is play the terrorism card and pull out her 9/11 commission testifyin'.
Her testimony wasn't all that bad. Plus it can be countered by good testimony, and some of Hillary's craziest quotes. Wow, we've hijacked this thread, haven't we?

I was sort of assuming that the Democratic party would pick something other than Ms. Clinton. She scares me, and I'm a Democrat.

ANYWAY.

I think Mr. Clinton would make a fine Secretary General of the UN. He knows a thing or two about a thing or two, and is fairly (if not VERY) well liked throughout the world.

Hell, if Clinton improves our foreign relations through the UN (and it's interns), it might help the Republicans...

Yeah, but Ohio was close. REEEEEAAALLLLY CLOSE, until the last minute. Plus those exit polls were disconcerting...

That's why I don't trust exit polls. How do you think they screwed up Florida in 2000? Besides, the network I watched most of my coverage on discarded them because it was obviously slanted towards Kerry.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhaha!

So the answer would be no?! No thanks! He'd never be offered the position anyway. I'm not a Clinton hater at all. Think he's good but as Secretary General? What the hell gave you that idea? His whole policy on the UN ain't none to great. He is a wonderful Negotiator but still.....and while we're at it lets have Hillary for President...might actually get the US and the UN to agree on something!

He may be consistent, but he was consistently radical. The american people are not that left wing, and wouldn't overlook such things in favor of personality. (Although I agree, I personally did like him. Nutjob, yeah, but honest nutjob.) And since when did Bush win it in a walk? I, like most people, was watching the results while in a cold sweat, and randomly pacing my house.
What exactly made Dean radical... he was pro-fiscal resposibility, supported gulf war 1, bosnia, kosovo, ect. he opposed the second gulf war, largely because of concersn about Afghanistan. He belonged to and had a positive record from the NRA. nothing terribly extreme in education or healthcare policies, just playing around with what was already there.

I think a Dean/Clark ticket would have been Very strong

Howard Dean 2008!