NationStates Jolt Archive

Well the rumour mill is at it again. With Fox chanting the "Hillary will be running for President" mantra I thought I'd ask your thoughts on the idea.

Note: Whilst anyone is welcome to post a comment, please only vote in the poll if you are American. Thanks.

A Fox news poll showed around 56% of Americans were likely to vote for Hillary if she ran, so let's se what NS thinks...

She has a funny name, so... no.

Hillary Rodham = WHO?

Sorry about the spelling, I accidently must have hit enter before I was done and I can't seem to edit the poll.

Hillary Rodham = WHO?
aka Hillary Clintion aka Wife of Bill Clinton.

I wouldnt vote for her as her Husband claimed she was named after the first person equal to climb Mount Everest-too bad she was born before the event happened.....

Me voting for her? Likely. I'm sort of "nyeh" on the issue, though.

If you meant Hillary Clinton, and I was a yank, I'd vote for her for prez, if only to tweak the noses of all asshats in the states.

Didn't we already have her for president? :p

Didn't we already have her for president? :p
And a good job I think she did, except for letting her husband loose with interns. :fluffle: It was bound to come up...

70%?!At the time I wrote this 70% of those voting were likely (to varying degrees) to vote for Hillary Clinton as President.

But if Hilary becomes POTUS, what about the First Lady?

It's very unlikely I'll vote for her, but that's because I'm British.

56% of Americans are unperceptive fools.

I'd rather have John Kerry run again then her getting the nomination.

I never hear Democrats batting this about-only Republican/Conservatives talking about it being something Democrats are talking about. Which is starting to make me wonder, "What the hell?" Waiting for the other shoe to drop...

But if Hilary becomes POTUS, what about the First Lady?

Although i think you are joking, you do raise a valid point. That position has always been filled. Even when Buchanen (our only bachelor president, some say he was gay) was in the White House, his niece acted as first-lady. I wonder if Chelsie (her duaghter) would fill the position.

I never hear Democrats batting this about-only Republican/Conservatives talking about it being something Democrats are talking about. Which is starting to make me wonder, "What the hell?" Waiting for the other shoe to drop...

You don't look at the Democratic Underground forums then. They've talked quite a bit about Hillary Clinton running in '08 and they have at least 8 active threads at any given moment discussing what the best course of action in the next election would be.

You don't look at the Democratic Underground forums then. They've talked quite a bit about Hillary Clinton running in '08 and they have at least 8 active threads at any given moment discussing what the best course of action in the next election would be.

They're more the lunatic fringe than they are actual democrats. I think he meant that he doesn't see any respectable democrats pushing Hillary for president just yet, which is mostly true.

Probably a more plausible assessment of old Hillary's image:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Hillary%20Meter.htm

I wouldn't call her a shoo-in just yet.

NO, PLEASE NO, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, NO!!!

Ahem. I don't think it's a good idea.
*mutters about the other fools who elected her as Jr. Senator to NY*

Although i think you are joking, you do raise a valid point. That position has always been filled. Even when Buchanen (our only bachelor president, some say he was gay) was in the White House, his niece acted as first-lady. I wonder if Chelsie (her duaghter) would fill the position.

You mean the first lady is an official position? I thought it was just a word to say the wife of the president, though i am just a poor ignorant brit. So what responsibilities does the first lady have and does she get paid?

You mean the first lady is an official position? I thought it was just a word to say the wife of the president, though i am just a poor ignorant brit. So what responsibilities does the first lady have and does she get paid?

It's not an official position, and it hasn't always been filled. We've had an unmarried president, Buchanan.

It's not an official position, and it hasn't always been filled. We've had an unmarried president, Buchanan.

Well the post i quoted said that when buchanan was president, the position of first lady was filled by his neice, which kind of implies its an official position.

Instead of a First Lady, we'd have a First Gentleman. Not a particularly difficult concept, is it?

As far as voting for Hilary? I'd do it in a heartbeat -- but I honestly hope she is NOT the Democratic Presidential candidate. I'd love to see her as the VP candidate, but if Hilary is our next Presidential candidate, we'll have another Bush in office. (Apparently both Laura and Jeb are considering candidacy.)

The US won't elect Hilary. We'll have the same problem we had with Kerry. Better person for the job, but unelectable. I'd rather see us put up someone who has a chance to win. Put up a moderate Dem (just left of center) as the Presidential candidate and put a leftist in as VP. Then we can pull votes from the moderate Republicans who can't stand W either -- but voted for him because they couldn't bear to vote for Kerry.

**********
I'll admit it. I'm almost at the point of not caring who the next President is because I know s/he'll have to be better than W. Unless we end up with his brother. (Laura would be a huge improvement over W. Maybe not my ideal first choice, but it would be 100% better.)

Well the post i quoted said that when buchanan was president, the position of first lady was filled by his neice, which kind of implies its an official position.

Maybe he gave his neice the title, I hadn't heard that. In any case, it's strictly honorific.

[QUOTE=Geecka]Instead of a First Lady, we'd have a First Gentleman. Not a particularly difficult concept, is it?

As far as voting for Hilary? I'd do it in a heartbeat -- but I honestly hope she is NOT the Democratic Presidential candidate. I'd love to see her as the VP candidate, but if Hilary is our next Presidential candidate, we'll have another Bush in office. (Apparently both Laura and Jeb are considering candidacy.)

The US won't elect Hilary. We'll have the same problem we had with Kerry. Better person for the job, but unelectable. I'd rather see us put up someone who has a chance to win. Put up a moderate Dem (just left of center) as the Presidential candidate and put a leftist in as VP. Then we can pull votes from the moderate Republicans who can't stand W either -- but voted for him because they couldn't bear to vote for Kerry.

You sound too rational to be a real Democrat. :)

Ahhh - if I was American, I'd vote her.

America needs a strong female lead. Britain had one, it did wonders for us.

I could see myself voting for Hillary onlyif the Republican party put forth it's worst possible candidate in 2008. But I won't rule out the possibility. She's smart, for a Democrat.

Of course, if it really comes down to the point where I don't think the Republicans have a chance of winning against the Democratic offering, I might vote third party as a protest vote...

Although i think you are joking, you do raise a valid point. That position has always been filled. Even when Buchanen (our only bachelor president, some say he was gay) was in the White House, his niece acted as first-lady. I wonder if Chelsie (her duaghter) would fill the position.

Billy C will hold open auditions or the role. It likely would be a rotating privelege for various women between the ages of 18 and 28.

I would not mind a woman in office, just not that one.

Although i think you are joking, you do raise a valid point. That position has always been filled. Even when Buchanen (our only bachelor president, some say he was gay) was in the White House, his niece acted as first-lady. I wonder if Chelsie (her duaghter) would fill the position.

Billy C will hold open auditions or the role. It likely would be a rotating privelege for various women between the ages of 18 and 28.

Instead of a First Lady, we'd have a First Gentleman. Not a particularly difficult concept, is it?

As far as voting for Hilary? I'd do it in a heartbeat -- but I honestly hope she is NOT the Democratic Presidential candidate. I'd love to see her as the VP candidate, but if Hilary is our next Presidential candidate, we'll have another Bush in office. (Apparently both Laura and Jeb are considering candidacy.)

The US won't elect Hilary. We'll have the same problem we had with Kerry. Better person for the job, but unelectable. I'd rather see us put up someone who has a chance to win. Put up a moderate Dem (just left of center) as the Presidential candidate and put a leftist in as VP. Then we can pull votes from the moderate Republicans who can't stand W either -- but voted for him because they couldn't bear to vote for Kerry.

**********
I'll admit it. I'm almost at the point of not caring who the next President is because I know s/he'll have to be better than W. Unless we end up with his brother. (Laura would be a huge improvement over W. Maybe not my ideal first choice, but it would be 100% better.)

Actually she'd no longer have a need for slick willy, covicted felon and all. She would disolve their business relationship and make her girl friend first lady. That way no one will get the wrong impression while she is nut hugging every marxist and two bit dictator she rents Presidential bedrooms out to for campaign contributions while selling them our national defense systems, weapons and technology.

Ahhh - if I was American, I'd vote her.

America needs a strong female lead. Britain had one, it did wonders for us.

Britain had an outstanding one, unfortunately Hillery Clinton is a much bigger crook than her husband could ever be. She was just first lady and was pilfering FBI Records of citizens, gutted the White House Travel Office to put like minded socialist in there, Committed masive fraud in White Water development corporation in which 30 of her co-conspiriators were either found guilty or pleaded guilty, turned a $1000 dollar futures contract into a 100,000 dollar campaign contribution over night, attempted to nationalize our heathcare system, and attempted to create a national emergency child care plan to further indoctrinate our children at an even earlier age.
I can't even begin to imagine what it would be like having that big bottomed b*(&#h as an elected president.

Ahhh - if I was American, I'd vote her.

America needs a strong female lead. Britain had one, it did wonders for us.


For the love of God I hope you are not comparing Hillary Clinton to Margaret Thatcher. Margaret Thatcher was truly heaven-sent for Britain, and not of any disrespect for Hillary, but she hasn't done anything... If she were a viable candidate in 2008 go ahead and put her on the ballot, but at this time she is the junior senator from New York, and really doesnt have any accomplishments to her name. All politics aside, I think the Democrats would be wise to throw out another stiff like Kerry in the next election (as there aren't currently any true leaders in the Democratic Party) and let Hillary build up some accomplishments. Just think, if someone (soley hypothetically) such as Nancy Polosi ran for pres. in 08 she could at least talk about the bills she has sponsored in Congress, and her position as a head of the Democratic Party. Not that Hillary can't do something good between now and then, she just doesnt have many achievements under her belt as of yet... Just being the wife of an ex president doesn't make you a viable political candidate.. Make sense?

Liverbreath']I can't even begin to imagine what it would be like having that big bottomed b*(&#h as an elected president.

Ah, the trademarks of a true conservative. Ad hominem, non-sequitir personal attacks, often based on appearance rather than constructive arguments derived from fact. Throw in some misrepresentation and manipulation of some actual facts, question a person's sexual orientation (because that has exactly what to do with anything?), stir it up, and now you understand why I'm both flabbergasted and furious that I will have had to endure eight years of W.

************
Note: I do know that there are many thoughtful, intelligent, eloquent conservatives out there. Why in heck do you let the rest of them speak?

NO, PLEASE NO, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, NO!!!

Ahem. I don't think it's a good idea.
*mutters about the other fools who elected her as Jr. Senator to NY*


Remember when she put on the NY Yankee hat and became a fan?

The woman frightens me. Not because she is single minded and self serving, but because she seems to succeed.

Note: I do know that there are many thoughtful, intelligent, eloquent conservatives out there. Why in heck do you let the rest of them speak?


Because this is America and we let anyone speak and be heard. Not tolerating what someone has to say is a more leftist trait.

Hillary will never become president. The Democrats are having the same problem as the Conservative party in the UK, they have some popular policies but need an electable leader who can transform the party's fortunes.

Hillary is even more polarising a candidate than Bush Jr. The left of the Democrats I'm sure would love to see her stand, and much of her party would support her too because of the positive association with Bill (who was, interns aside, not a bad president, not to mention the only sniff of success for the Democratic party in the last 25 years). However, not only would Republicans be more staunchly against her (therefore likely turning out in greater numbers), but I think much of the right-wing simply will not want to see a woman in the Oval Office.

It will be interesting to see who emerges for both party's nominations, I think we could be in for another tight election (and yet another reason to reform the electoral college). Personally I'd like to see Giuliani up for the Republicans. I would think someone who was more personally affected by 9/11 than any other politician would think more before throwing it around as an excuse for everything.

Because this is America and we let anyone speak and be heard. Not tolerating what someone has to say is a more leftist trait.

Is that how you explain "exclusion zones" for protesters at events attended by members of the Bush administration (including George W. himself) unless they happen to support the actions of the White House?

Exactly how long have Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft been "leftists"?

I think if she really wants to win she'll have to do something ala Paris Hilton. Just wait - W're going to see the Hillary sex tapes sometime soon. I know for a fact there are college nudes of her under lock and key at the Smothsonian.

http://www.yaleherald.com/archive/xxx/2000.09.22/ae/p13naked.html

On second thought, that could really do her in. (Gouges eyes out with fork)

Is that how you explain "exclusion zones" for protesters at events attended by members of the Bush administration (including George W. himself) unless they happen to support the actions of the White House?

Exactly how long have Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft been "leftists"?


Freedom of speech doesnt include trying to yell over someone that is making a speech, or attempting to throw pies.etc in their faces.

I dont need people yelling over Hillary Clinton if she was giving a speech either. The exlusion zones exist because of people that will not tolerate other people speaking, trying desperately to disrupt and distract.

And tell me one time the media hasnt given protesters equal, if not more than their fair share of coverage. Dont make it seem like they are opressed victims. They are the reason for exclusion zones.

All I'd like to say is, never say never. Who do the Republicans have to run against her? Who do the Democrats have to run instead of her? Take a look at what she's doing. She's not as polarizing a political figure as she used to be. She's working with Republicans in NY and working across party lines. She could get support Kerry never could because she has ballz....huge political ballz. I'm not saying whether I'd support her or not, I'm just saying don't underestimate her. She's got everything G.W. had in 2000; a recognizable face, a previous president's name, and people on her staff that know what it takes to win the white house.

Let's not forget the bottom line:

She practically was President for 8 years.

All I'd like to say is, never say never. Who do the Republicans have to run against her? Who do the Democrats have to run instead of her? Take a look at what she's doing. She's not as polarizing a political figure as she used to be. She's working with Republicans in NY and working across party lines. She could get support Kerry never could because she has ballz....huge political ballz. I'm not saying whether I'd support her or not, I'm just saying don't underestimate her. She's got everything G.W. had in 2000; a recognizable face, a previous president's name, and people on her staff that know what it takes to win the white house.
Looking from a distant land, where we cannot even imagine who will be standing for OUR '08 presidential election :rolleyes: , I'd like to say that Hillary candidacy in '08 seems quite likely. In my opinion a lot hinges on the margin of her plurality in '06 Senate election (she is unlikely to be defeated, IMO).

NO, PLEASE NO, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, NO!!!

Ahem. I don't think it's a good idea.
*mutters about the other fools who elected her as Jr. Senator to NY*

well, lazio fumbled. especially during the debate with encroaching on her space. Even kinda ticked me off and I HATE her

If you meant Hillary Clinton, and I was a yank, I'd vote for her for prez, if only to tweak the noses of all asshats in the states.

What he said.^

Well at least with a female candidate you won't see the usual,

"If you havent got a war record you're not a real man",

and

"my war record is better than yours".

type of attitude surrounding the election

oh and what exactly would constitute "just left of centre" in the US? Considering that even your democrats are considerably further right than our Tories (in the UK)

what sort of policies would we see, increased tax? for example

has this thread gone dead all of a sudden?

I wouldnt vote for her as her Husband claimed she was named after the first person equal to climb Mount Everest-too bad she was born before the event happened.....

Lol :p

I think a lot of people will not want to vote for hillary but it depends on who she faces in a potential election, a hardline republican would probably make more people vote Hillary than would want to.

oh and what exactly would constitute "just left of centre" in the US? Considering that even your democrats are considerably further right than our Tories (in the UK)

what sort of policies would we see, increased tax? for example

Thats not true, they are not further right than the tories or new labour. They are slightly to the left of new labour in my opinion.

I don't intend to waste my vote on someone who's not even a candidate

Hmmmm

Voting for Hillery would be worth it just to hear all the conservative republicans howl with rage at the thought Bill was back in the White House! :D

If she's the nominee for the Democratic party, then yes, I'll vote for her. Probably won't vote for her in the primaries, but if she's the candidate, then I'm voting for her.

(Apparently both Laura and Jeb are considering candidacy.)

What the hell? Qualifications? Condoleeza Rice would wipe the floor with both of them on pretty much anything important to the presidency. If there's anything right with the world neither Jab nor Laura Bush will get the candidacy.

What the hell? Qualifications? Condoleeza Rice would wipe the floor with both of them on pretty much anything important to the presidency. If there's anything right with the world neither Jab nor Laura Bush will get the candidacy.

Exactly.

Laura is a nice grandma type but I really doubt anybody would seriously consider her.

Jeb? Nah damaged goods. Too many stupid things done in Florida. Besides, I don't think America is ready for 3 Presidents from one family.

Not tolerating what someone has to say is a more leftist trait.
Come on, it's not like most of us judge the entire Right by the nutcase theocrats who want to ban Spongebob Squarepants for being "gay". Most on the left don't agree with political correctness or affirmitive action.

I think if she really wants to win she'll have to do something ala Paris Hilton. Just wait - W're going to see the Hillary sex tapes sometime soon.
*shudder* :(

Well, actually, the chances of me voting for Hillary Clinton as President of the United States are extremely low-I will not be of legal age to vote until a month after Election Day. (Dammit!) I would support a woman running for president, but the problem is, well, Hillary Clinton's a bitch. I propose that Oprah be the first woman president-after all, she really already rules our friggin' nation.


As for "First Lady", obviously they'd have to change the title to "First Man" while she was in office-unless Hillary has a girlfriend we don't know about.

Jeb? Nah damaged goods. Too many stupid things done in Florida. Besides, I don't think America is ready for 3 Presidents from one family.
Right or wrong, what will derail Jeb's candidacy is his crackhead daughter. Sad, but true.

Note: Whilst anyone is welcome to post a comment, please only vote in the poll if you are American. Thanks.

Oops! Too late. You should have included a "non-american" option.

A 70% yes to a 57% no swing in just a few hours. I think this shows that the biggest factor will not be if she can get the support, but whether she can overcome her opposition. There seems to be this massive block of people who just plain hate her. Not dislike, hate.

A 70% yes to a 57% no swing in just a few hours. I think this shows that the biggest factor will not be if she can get the support, but whether she can overcome her opposition. There seems to be this massive block of people who just plain hate her. Not dislike, hate.
Well, I think there are a couple of factors to take into account. I believe you had some underage and non-US voters in the mix, and I think that may have skewed it a bit. Throw in the rabid Clinton-haters and the Limbaugh-ites who seem to populate this joint and I 'm really surprised that Hillary was doing as well as she was.

Would I vote for her.. depends.

I like her policies, she is a real centre-left candidate, not the crappy I'm-left-but-really-compared-to-the-rest-of-the-entire-world-I'm-centre-right-or-right candidtates the Dems usually throw out there.

BUT... she is personally distasteful. I just don't like her. I'm not alone here, either. She seems corrupt, sleazy, greasy, nasty and a real canniving political witch.

I would either vote Third Party, which I really wish more people would do, or maybe, and believe me this is a big maybe, I would *shudder* vote republican. That is if and only if they ran a likeable, nice, not so scary far right candidate, like Colin Powell, or maybe Gulianni.

If they ran Condoleeza Rice, however, I would probably abstain from voting, occupying my time with practicing my marksmanship and seeing what fun things I could make with fertilizer. :D

Would I vote for her.. depends.

I like her policies, she is a real centre-left candidate, not the crappy I'm-left-but-really-compared-to-the-rest-of-the-entire-world-I'm-centre-right-or-right candidtates the Dems usually throw out there.

BUT... she is personally distasteful. I just don't like her. I'm not alone here, either. She seems corrupt, sleazy, greasy, nasty and a real canniving political witch.

I would either vote Third Party, which I really wish more people would do, or maybe, and believe me this is a big maybe, I would *shudder* vote republican. That is if and only if they ran a likeable, nice, not so scary far right candidate, like Colin Powell, or maybe Gulianni.

If they ran Condoleeza Rice, however, I would probably abstain from voting, occupying my time with practicing my marksmanship and seeing what fun things I could make with fertilizer. :D
I'm noticing a trend here. Every candidate you mentioned is no doubt equally manipulative, but you singled out the women. If two women ran against each other you wouldn't vote. Hillary's policies are good, but you would rather vote for a right-wing candidate because she's corrupt, nasty, etc? I've got news for you, so is the entire of DC. Are people really this afraid of a female President?

DEFINITELY NO.

How come that's not an option? ;)

Fox News: We distort....You comply
Faux News: unfair unbalanced
Fox News: We lie, you believe
Fox News: hey, we just say what they tell us.

and you beLIEve them. What is your GOP member number???? Hillary might run, sure, and Condi Rice too, but get elected I don't think the Republicans would allow that. Its likely we'll have an ethnic minority as president before a female. or Hell will freeze over first. I can hear the spin now *in Rush Limbaugh voice* A woman president, what'll we do when her aunt flow visits, shut down the country????

Fox News: We distort....You comply
Faux News: unfair unbalanced
Fox News: We lie, you believe
Fox News: hey, we just say what they tell us.

and you beLIEve them. What is your GOP member number???? Hillary might run, sure, and Condi Rice too, but get elected I don't think the Republicans would allow that. Its likely we'll have an ethnic minority as president before a female. or Hell will freeze over first. I can hear the spin now *in Rush Limbaugh voice* A woman president, what'll we do when her aunt flow visits, shut down the country????
Lmao. I just about choked on my tongue after this one! :fluffle: :p :fluffle:

Lmao. I just about choked on my tongue after this one! :fluffle: :p :fluffle:

And I looked at my signature and laughed at the relationship between the two... :)

Well everyone who's drooling over a Condi-Hillary showdown can just put their tongues back in their mouths, because it ain't gonna happen. Condi would never survive the southern primaries, and even if by some miracle she did, the racist minority that provides the Republican margin of victory in those states (notice--I did not say all Republicans, nor even that all southern Republicans are racists, but they are there and they do usually provide the margin of victory) will defect to the Constitution party or will just stay home. They won't--I repeat loudly--won't vote for either a female or a black person, and they sure as hell aren't voting for a black female. Nominating Rice would utterly destroy the southern strategy the Republicans have been using--and winning with for the most part--since Nixon, and they're not going to do that. Rice has gone as far as she'll go in government as Secretary of State.

Here's an interesting editorial:

'08: DUELING DYNASTIES?

May 31, 2005 -- LET me build the perfect 2008 Republican candidate for you. He would be a governor, because recent history demonstrates the nearly insuperable advantage governors (Carter, Reagan, Clinton and Bush the Younger) have when it comes to running for president.

He would be from a populous state, because his success there statewide might win him 10 percent of the electoral-college votes he would need on Election Day.

He would have to be acceptable to social conservatives with resolute stands on social issues like abortion, because the Bush victory in 2004 demonstrated the importance of being able to bring evangelical churchgoers to the polls. But in manner and style he should be easygoing, in order to undercut the ability of Democrats and the mainstream media to paint him as a crazed extremist.

He should have particular appeal to Hispanics, because (again) the Bush 2004 victory was built in part on pulling Hispanic voters away from the Democratic Party. And he should probably have Southern credentials, because the GOP has to be able to rely on the votes of the solid South to prevail in the Electoral College.

Fortunately for the GOP, there is a dream candidate that fits all these categories and more. But remember, nightmares are dreams too. And the candidate described here is, nightmarishly, the brother of the current president and the son of the president two guys back.

It has been the common presumption of political analysts that Jeb Bush of Florida couldn't possibly be the Republican nominee for president in 2008 because, let's face it, that would just be incredibly weird.

After all, the current president had a devil of a time overcoming the historical American aversion to dynastic succession. It hardly seems likely that Americans could or would stomach a third Bush presidency — at least not immediately following his brother's.

At the same time, over the past six months or so, GOP insiders have been looking at the available field of candidates and feeling pretty despondent about the party's chances.

The two most interesting candidates — Sen. John McCain and former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani — are interesting in part because they have dangerously rough edges. Rudy has publicly embraced socially liberal views he would have to revisit. And McCain seems perversely insistent on doing things (most recently, last week's deal avoiding a showdown in the Senate) that enrage the leaders of his own party's social conservative wing.

Still, McCain and Giuliani have the capacity to inspire excitement, which is far more than you can say for almost any other name that floats up (Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota). The excitement gap led a few months ago to a Dick Cheney boomlet. But Cheney insists he is not going to run, and I believe him.

And so you are beginning to hear some Republicans quietly murmuring about Jeb — about how it's actually unfair to dismiss a man who will have served two successful terms as the governor of the nation's fourth most populous state.

They point out that, because of term limits, he will be free to start roaming the country at the beginning of 2007. He already has independent credentials with the nominating base of the party and he will, of course, have access to the powerful Bush money machine.

Who knows? Maybe the sheer oddity of the situation will end up benefiting Jeb.

Probably not. Oddity isn't what we look for in presidential candidates, and the queasiness that the three-out-of-four Bushes scenario provokes even in a Republican with the strongest of stomachs makes a successful Jeb run in 2008 extremely unlikely.

But not impossible. And why? Because the Democrats seem eager to embrace a dynastic future of their own in the person of Hillary Clinton, the wife of the president one guy back. You don't hear anybody saying that Hillary shouldn't be president because her husband was.

Okay, now don't anybody give me any nonsense about how Hillary has established herself as an independent force, because so have Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer of California and nobody is touting either of them for president. If her name weren't Clinton, she wouldn't be the prohibitive favorite for 2008, and every honest person knows it.

With a candidate named Bush running against a Democrat whose name was anything other than Clinton, Democrats would be able to win almost solely on the grounds that America shouldn't be a hereditary monarchy. But with a candidate named Clinton, Democrats would lose that issue against Jeb Bush.

The weirdest part of the whole Jeb scenario is that the only way he could get a fair hearing from the American people in 2008 would be if he were the one to face Hillary Clinton.

E-mail: Podhoretz@nypost.com.

Well, Podheretz is no doubt slobbering in anticipation for a Clinton run, since he made a fortune on the last Clinton presidency, but something to put into perspective here--at this point in 2003, the front runner was Joe Lieberman, largely because of his name recognition. We all know what kind of Joe-mentum he got in the primaries. Hillary is in a different situation because she's been a high-profile figure for longer than Lieberman was, but those in the progressive wing of the Democratic party know she's not the raging liberal that Limbaugh and his hordes of dittoheads think she is. She's a hawk on defense, and pretty centrist the rest of the time, except when it comes to health care, where she's pretty much in the center of the Democratic party--not quite single payer, but big changes in the current system.

Now you may think that I'm a Hillary fan from this post--I'm not. I'd vote for her if she makes it through the primaries, but depending on who's actually running in '08, I can't imagine she'd be my first choice, unless she, John Kerry and John Edwards are the only options. It looks like Wes Clark is looking at another run, so maybe I'll end up there, but I'm betting another dark horse will sweep me up the way Dean did last time.

And Jeb's got the problem of his crackhead daughter to deal with if he's going to run for President, not to mention his signature on the PNAC document, assuming Iraq is going as swimmingly as it is right now in 2008. If Iraq is better (not likely) or we're out of there (more possible, but I have my doubts), then the PNAC thing might not hurt him, but having a daughter in and out of rehab won't be easy to overcome.

I'd vote Bush Jr. as a write in for a third term before I'd vote for Hillary...and I didn't even vote for Bush last time.

Seriously...I can't STAND that woman.

I'd vote Bush Jr. as a write in for a third term before I'd vote for Hillary...and I didn't even vote for Bush last time.

Seriously...I can't STAND that woman.I'm not meaning to pick on you--I'm just curious. What is it about her that brings out such loathing? What has she done that sets you off so much, specifically?

Well, I think she got involved in politics more for personal power and recognition than any desire to actually do something positive for the country...to a degree greater than most politicians.

I also disagree with how she handled the whole Clinton/Lewinsky fiasco...but that's something for a different thread.

I also believe that, had New York not been stupid enough to vote her in as a Senator, it would be entirely likely that we would not have had to hear about her ever again, which is something I personally would be completely in favor of.

I am all for a woman being elected president...but in all honesty, I think just about anyone would be a better choice than her.

Well, I think she got involved in politics more for personal power and recognition than any desire to actually do something positive for the country...to a degree greater than most politicians.


Well if you look at it; the amount of politicians that get involved not for personal power and recognition is rather small.


I also disagree with how she handled the whole Clinton/Lewinsky fiasco...but that's something for a different thread.

As aposed to what? Divorse Bill? Hmmm me thinks you hate him more then her.


I also believe that, had New York not been stupid enough to vote her in as a Senator, it would be entirely likely that we would not have had to hear about her ever again, which is something I personally would be completely in favor of.


Stupid? Dare you to say that in New York.


I am all for a woman being elected president...but in all honesty, I think just about anyone would be a better choice than her.

Like Connie? :rolleyes:

Well if you look at it; the amount of politicians that get involved not for personal power and recognition is rather small.

I agree...I simply think that she is in politics for power and recognition to a greater degree than most other politicians.

As aposed to what? Divorse Bill? Hmmm me thinks you hate him more then her.

I actually liked Clinton as a president, and thought the whole situation was completely overblown by the media and conservatives. But yes, if I were in her position, I would have divorced him.

Stupid? Dare you to say that in New York.

Indeed I do dare. My half-brother lives in NYC. While indeed popular, she is not so much so as most might lead you to believe.

Like Connie? :rolleyes:

Given the horrible choice between those two, and ONLY those two...yes, I would vote for Connie before I would vote for Hillary.

Like there's only two options. :rolleyes:

Instead of a First Lady, we'd have a First Gentleman. Not a particularly difficult concept, is it?

As far as voting for Hilary? I'd do it in a heartbeat -- but I honestly hope she is NOT the Democratic Presidential candidate. I'd love to see her as the VP candidate, but if Hilary is our next Presidential candidate, we'll have another Bush in office. (Apparently both Laura and Jeb are considering candidacy.)

The US won't elect Hilary. We'll have the same problem we had with Kerry. Better person for the job, but unelectable. I'd rather see us put up someone who has a chance to win. Put up a moderate Dem (just left of center) as the Presidential candidate and put a leftist in as VP. Then we can pull votes from the moderate Republicans who can't stand W either -- but voted for him because they couldn't bear to vote for Kerry.

**********
I'll admit it. I'm almost at the point of not caring who the next President is because I know s/he'll have to be better than W. Unless we end up with his brother. (Laura would be a huge improvement over W. Maybe not my ideal first choice, but it would be 100% better.)I hate this shit. To you, Hilary Clinton would make a fine president, but you don't want her to run, because you don't think she'd get the votes. I'll tell you one thing, it doesn't matter to me who the Democratic party runs to me. I seriously doubt they'd ever run anyone I'd be comfortable voting for. I was very unhappy with Mr. Clinton as president, and I like Hilary even less. I don't want her in charge of shit, but I just wish people supported who they actually preferred instead of guessing who has the best chance. That's apparently how John Kerry got the nomination. How many people said, "I like Dean, but he can't win so I voted for Kerry" in the primary?

As far as just assuming that anyone would be better that Bush, I wasn't too excited about him in 2000 but I was absolutely certain he couldn't have been any worse that Bill Clinton. I was wrong. If you follow the trend, there's a good chance the next President of the United States will start WWIII and/or completely destroy the US dollar.

As far as just assuming that anyone would be better that Bush, I wasn't too excited about him in 2000 but I was absolutely certain he couldn't have been any worse that Bill Clinton. I was wrong. If you follow the trend, there's a good chance the next President of the United States will start WWIII and/or completely destroy the US dollar.

LOL...anyone want to place some bets? :p

What the hell? Qualifications? Condoleeza Rice would wipe the floor with both of them on pretty much anything important to the presidency. If there's anything right with the world neither Jab nor Laura Bush will get the candidacy.What are you talking about? Hilary is a much better liar than Condi. Ms Rice is about as believable as Al Gore. Although, if it really comes down to these two, we're so totally fucked...

LOL...anyone want to place some bets? :p
I'll bet you $5:$25 that within 12 years a one ounce gold bullion coin will cost more than 2100 US Federal Reserve Notes (currently just over $400), as long as no serious attempt is made by congress/pres/fed to re-back the dollar by hard currency. That is that you owe me $25 if I win since those dollars won't be worth as much, and I owe you $5 if you win. :cool:

Well, let's put it this way.

If it turned out to be Hillary vs. Cheney in 2008, I'd vote for Hillary.

If it were Hillary vs. Hagel, McCain, or any other republican candidate who I think wouldn't be hell bent on nuking the world, declaring apple pie illegal or kicking puppies (Because hey, we all know what Dick Cheney does every Sunday afternoon), I wouldn't vote for her. I suppose it'll always be a 'lesser of two evils' kinda thing, seeing as to how I wouldn't vote for her in the primaries. But how about that Barack Obama, eh?

P.S: I'm a resident alien, not a citizen.

P.P.S: WOOT FIRST POST! Ahem.

I'll bet you $5:$25 that within 12 years a one ounce gold bullion coin will cost more than 2100 US Federal Reserve Notes (currently just over $400), as long as no serious attempt is made by congress/pres/fed to re-back the dollar by hard currency.

That is that you owe me $25 if I win since those dollars won't be worth as much, and I owe you $5 if you win. :cool:

Well, considering I find the idea of congress/pres/fed re-backing the dollar to be highly unlikely...I think I'll pass on that bet. :p