NationStates Jolt Archive

If Hillary Clinton received the Democratic nomination for President in 2008, running against a miscellanous Republican Governor from the midwest and 80 year old Ralph Nader with the Green Party, a Libertarian candidate, and all the usual 3rd party candidates, who would you vote for? There's a poll coming shortly.

The Libertarian probably.

I wouldn't vote for Hillary that's for sure. I'd vote for the republican ticket if the DNC puts up Hillary for President in '08. If its not Hillary, then I'll hold off deciding on who I am going to vote for.

I'd vote for Hillary for only 1 reason...Bill will be back in the White House (as the First...Husband?).

only because it's the randoim midwestern governor, if it were John McCain, I'd go for McCain.

I'd vote for Hillary for only 1 reason...Bill will be back in the White House (as the First...Husband?).

Well at least the news won't be boring. What makes hillery so great that you'll vote for her?

Most likely the LP candidate. I don't see myself voting for another, unless Ron Paul is in the race for Republican (yeah, right).

I'd vote for Hillary for only 1 reason...Bill will be back in the White House (as the First...Husband?).

God, that would be entertaining. :cool:

You just reminded me that I'd miss the minimum age by such a small period of time. :( :mad: :headbang:

I'm not registered with any specific party, but I've tended to vote Democrat..but..Hilary...ugh. After the bullshit she's pulled with GTA, and her wasting government time and money over something so assinine, she'd never, ever get my vote, unless the opponent was an absolute idiot. So, third party most likely.

Well at least the news won't be boring. What makes hillery so great that you'll vote for her?

Because after W, I don't want another Republican in office for awhile. They had their chance and blew it in my opinion.

Although....life under Hillary would probably be the same as an iron fisted dictatorship. One can only hope that Bill will be pulling strings behind the scenes.

Because after W, I don't want another Republican in office for awhile. They had their chance and blew it in my opinion.

Although....life under Hillary would probably be the same as an iron fisted dictatorship. One can only hope that Bill will be pulling strings behind the scenes.

Actually, rumors abound that Hillary was the one pulling Bill's strings but that is another story. I'm sorry but if Hillary gets elected, I can see the military budget going down the tubes. I can see the Intel budget going down the tubes! I can see our national security being compromised and I see the UN running the United States.

<snip> and I see the UN running the United States.

The UN couldn't run bingo night at a senior citizens home.

The UN couldn't run bingo night at a senior citizens home.

lol

Actually, rumors abound that Hillary was the one pulling Bill's strings but that is another story. I'm sorry but if Hillary gets elected, I can see the military budget going down the tubes. I can see the Intel budget going down the tubes! I can see our national security being compromised and I see the UN running the United States.
I'd rather see the UN running the United States than continue to have the PNAC run it. It's better to get nothing done than to wage global war on every country that threatens the security of the US in the smallest way imaginable.

Actually, rumors abound that Hillary was the one pulling Bill's strings but that is another story. I'm sorry but if Hillary gets elected, I can see the military budget going down the tubes. I can see the Intel budget going down the tubes! I can see our national security being compromised and I see the UN running the United States.
Seriously? I heard someone else saying that if Hillary Clinton is elected, then the US will invade Iran!

There's no point arguing. She won't even be nominated.

I wouldn't vote for Hillary if she were the only candidate and voting were mandatory. That's not to say I would never vote for a woman, only that Hillary is a liar. And speaking of women, I certainly hope that ABC chooses Elizabeth Vargas to replace Mr. Jennings rather than Charles Gibson. Bob Woodruff would be alright too.

Seeing as "Third Party" has the most votes how the hell is there not a viable third party out there!!!

Dude, one of the best things the Democrats have going for them is that they're less pro-censorship than the GOP, particularly than the bible-thumpers, and Hillary's fucking that up for them. Fuck that moron. I hope she gets a disease from Bill and dies.

The UN couldn't run bingo night at a senior citizens home.

LOL

Seeing as "Third Party" has the most votes how the hell is there not a viable third party out there!!!

Because the democrats on this site don't want to admit that if forced to vote next election they'd vote for Hillary over the third party. It's not worth losing another election via a third party candidate to waste their vote on them, seeing as the third party has no chance of winning, while Hillary does.

I'd rather see the UN running the United States than continue to have the PNAC run it. It's better to get nothing done than to wage global war on every country that threatens the security of the US in the smallest way imaginable.

I think someone needs a chill pill. Your seeing conspiracies that aren't there.

The UN couldn't run bingo night at a senior citizens home.Yeah, they're busy keeping the Cypriots from killing eachother. Successfully I might add.

I'd vote Green. I'm too disillusioned with the Democratic Party. Either they're not gonna win or they're gonna win by not being liberal enough for my taste. :(

I would vote for Hillary...hell, I voted for John Kerry and he turned out to be a colossal fizzle; at least Hillary wil fight.

Seriously? I heard someone else saying that if Hillary Clinton is elected, then the US will invade Iran!

There's no point arguing. She won't even be nominated.

We can only hope and pray she doesn't.

I'm all for a female president, however I wouldn't vote for Hillary if she were running against Sadam!!! She is a crook, if that isn't obvious to everyone, you've been living with blinders on.

I would vote for Condalisa Rice in a heartbeat.

Rob

Seeing as "Third Party" has the most votes how the hell is there not a viable third party out there!!!

Because this is not a scientific poll. You don't even have to be American to vote in here, m'man :)

I'm a libertarian in views, but there is absoloutly no way I'm voting for that crazy socialist Hilary.

I think someone needs a chill pill. Your seeing conspiracies that aren't there.
How can you be so sure? :p

Agh, I really, really hope Hilary doesn't get in office.

Vote Nader, make a difference!

I'm all for a female president, however I wouldn't vote for Hillary if she were running against Sadam!!! She is a crook, if that isn't obvious to everyone, you've been living with blinders on.

I would vote for Condalisa Rice in a heartbeat.

RobAnd Saddam wasn't a crook?

By the way, wouldn't you rather have a president that has her own opinion, and not Bush's?

And Saddam wasn't a crook?

By the way, wouldn't you rather have a president that has her own opinion, and not Bush's?

Condaleeza Rice's opinion is her own. The fact that she happens to agree with him most of the time means absolutely nothing.

Personally I'd love to see her run against Hilary. She'd make a great president, IMO. She's sharp as a tack, and doesn't take shit from anyone. She ain't no affirmative action hire, that's for damn sure.

I'll most likely vote republican. Unless the dems put someone out like Zell Miller. But it won't happen.

And Saddam wasn't a crook?

By the way, wouldn't you rather have a president that has her own opinion, and not Bush's?

Would you vote for a crook like Hillary?

Would you vote for a crook like Hillary?No, I wouldn't, but not because I think she's a crook.

All this proves is that there's either

A) way too many "third party" types on NS

or

B) lots of people SAY in public they'll be voting for a so-called "third party" candidate, then secretly slide the shutter behind their wide asses and tick whatever asinine Elephant or Jackass has been puppeted up for them

Which is more likely?

Where's Occam's thingy when we need it?

If Hillary Clinton received the Democratic nomination for President in 2008, running against a miscellanous Republican Governor from the midwest and 80 year old Ralph Nader with the Green Party, a Libertarian candidate, and all the usual 3rd party candidates, who would you vote for? There's a poll coming shortly.

How can you answer that question with the Republican in question being a "miscellaneous governor"?

If the governor were a better pick than Clinton, I would vote for the governor. If they were not, I would vote for Clinton. If the Libertarian were a better pick that both of them, I would go with the Libertarian candidate. I wouldn't touch Nader with a 10-foot pole.

You can't name two actual people and then leave the rest up to "some random member of X party," and expect your question to make any sense at all.

Actually, rumors abound that Hillary was the one pulling Bill's strings but that is another story. I'm sorry but if Hillary gets elected, I can see the military budget going down the tubes. I can see the Intel budget going down the tubes! I can see our national security being compromised and I see the UN running the United States.

I think someone needs a chill pill. Your seeing conspiracies that aren't there.


Irony abounds.

I would NEVER vote for Hillary. Jeez, she is a total b****. Personally I think she had a sex change operation the way she runs around DC. I will be voting for the Libertarian candidate.

Condaleeza Rice's opinion is her own. The fact that she happens to agree with him most of the time means absolutely nothing.

Personally I'd love to see her run against Hilary. She'd make a great president, IMO. She's sharp as a tack, and doesn't take shit from anyone. She ain't no affirmative action hire, that's for damn sure.

I'll most likely vote republican. Unless the dems put someone out like Zell Miller. But it won't happen.

Yeah, we really need little miss "no one is allowed to question my integrity" in the highest office in the land.

Maybe I just haven't been paying attention to the right news storys but I'd like a little suport for this Hillary = Crook angle . . .

<edit I mean more of a crook than everyone else in office>

Yeah, we really need little miss "no one is allowed to question my integrity" in the highest office in the land.

Rather her than Hilary any day of the week.

Maybe I just haven't been paying attention to the right news storys but I'd like a little suport for this Hillary = Crook angle . . .

<edit I mean more of a crook than everyone else in office>I haven't heard anything about it either, though I mainly rely on German news...

I can't trust this lady, because she tried blaming Canada for the Sept 11 event (as if she'll get anything out of that). Yet, she won't come to her own term and admit the truth and yet she wants to lead America? Although that's a good resume for being a politician but not a president. What she lacks is integrity.

Rather her than Hilary any day of the week.
YES! THE TOOTHLESS FAIRY FOR PRESIDENT! :p

Maybe I just haven't been paying attention to the right news storys but I'd like a little suport for this Hillary = Crook angle . . .

<edit I mean more of a crook than everyone else in office>
you never heard of her real estate business?

INTERESTING FACT: if hillary wins in 2008 and again in 2012, that would mean that for 28 years the president has either been a bush or a clinton... two party system? try two family system

INTERESTING FACT: if hillary wins in 2008 and again in 2012, that would mean that for 28 years the president has either been a bush or a clinton... two party system? try two family system
And think if she was running against J.E.B. Bush.

I can't trust this lady, because she tried blaming Canada for the Sept 11 event (as if she'll get anything out of that). Yet, she won't come to her own term and admit the truth and yet she wants to lead America? Although that's a good resume for being a politician but not a president. What she lacks is integrity.

Provide a quote I can verify please, I have not heard this.

Meh!

I would probably vote for her just to hear the rage of most conservatives when they realise that Bill is in the Whitehouse again. :D :p

you never heard of her real estate business?


Are you talking about the White Water scandle from back when Bill was in office? I don't recall that leading anywhere or anything being proven . . .

Meh!

I would probably vote for her just to hear the rage of most conservatives when they realise that Bill is in the Whitehouse again. :D :p

That actually would be pretty hilarious :)

:mad: The buddhist temple fundraising scandals, and the like.. make me want to vote for whoever she is running against. She's a lying bitch and we don't need another Clinton in office.

Actually, rumors abound that Hillary was the one pulling Bill's strings but that is another story. I'm sorry but if Hillary gets elected, I can see the military budget going down the tubes. I can see the Intel budget going down the tubes! I can see our national security being compromised and I see the UN running the United States.

good maybe the UN will undo some serious global damage

good maybe the UN will undo some serious global damage

Yea, and while we're at it why don't we just roll out the Welcome mat for the terrorist. With Hillary in office, we'll have another terrorist attack while Hillary is enslaving men.

Green Party.

I know they never win, but...

Yea, and while we're at it why don't we just roll out the Welcome mat for the terrorist. With Hillary in office, we'll have another terrorist attack while Hillary is enslaving men.

See quotes like this make me wonder how much of the objection to Hillary is simple misogyny.

It would depend on who the republican candidate is.

Hillary? Maybe. It depends on what the third party scene looks like. I'll vote either Nader, or Socialist, or Hillary, depending I guess on my mood at the time, current events, and depending on how badly I want to crush the Republicans with any candidate possible. I'll vote Hillary only if the Republicans put up Condi or some other crazy Neo-con, but I'll feel dirty after I do it. Though keeping a neo-con out of office is it's own reward.

good maybe the UN will undo some serious global damage

They can't even condemn or do anything about terrorism, and you expect them to undo some damage? :rolleyes:

Are you talking about the White Water scandle from back when Bill was in office? I don't recall that leading anywhere or anything being proven . . .

Of course you don't. However it resulted in 30 felony convictions or guilty pleas.

Does anyone know how many 3rd parties will be in the next elections? Does anyone have a link to some of these 3rd party sites? Will there be a 3rd party that supports direct democracy?

Liverbreath']Of course you don't. However it resulted in 30 felony convictions or guilty pleas.

And unless one of them was Hillary Whitewater does not prove her a crook.

Does anyone know how many 3rd parties will be in the next elections? Does anyone have a link to some of these 3rd party sites? Will there be a 3rd party that supports direct democracy?

There are typically quite a few.. but the ones I know about:

http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm

That is a site I often refer people to despite its obvious bias.. it still lists all third parties. I'm not sure how many of those third parties would actually run.

Well I'd for Hillary but then I'd vote for Pennywise the clown over any republican, thankfully for you guys however I'm a hispanic American living in Florida so I'm not intitaled to a vote and therefore won't be part of the movement which elected a sadistic child eating clown into the white house. ;)

Yea, and while we're at it why don't we just roll out the Welcome mat for the terrorist. With Hillary in office, we'll have another terrorist attack while Hillary is enslaving men.

Yes, and I'm sure you're very angry at Bush for rolling out the welcome mat for the terrorists, too. Remember - not counting the War of Southern Treason, more Americans died from terrorist action on Bush's watch than any other president!

I am a hardcore Democrat but I know Hillary won't win unless she is running against Trent Lott. Despite her being a vocal supporter of Bush and being a fine senator to New York, she is simply hated by way too many people. If it were a McCain/Clinton ticket, it might work, but even then Hillary is way too polarizing.

I think its unfortunate. I respect Hillary Clinton for standing up for what she believes in and admitting when she is wrong. I think she is a qualified woman who, unfortunately, will not be taken seriously no matter what she does. People here are saying they won't vote for her and they don't even know what platform she is running on nor do they know what issues she feels are important. As a matter of fact, she hasn't even stated whether she would run.

I'll never understand why people absolutely despise the Clintons so much. Eight years of peace and prosperity and people are still writing books about how "bad" Clinton was. I never saw it. Face it, if it weren't for term limits, Clinton would have been the new FDR.

In 2004, Bush had lied to the American people, suffered (and still suffering) dwindling support for the Iraq War, and is the laughing stock of the rest of the World. Yet, incredibly, the American people voted for him again. If 52,000,000+ voters could be this dumb, then I fear we might elect an card-totting KKK member and justify it because he'd be "tough on crime" and "morally conservative."

I live in Michigan and I wish Granhold will secede us from the Union already. :(

Yes, and I'm sure you're very angry at Bush for rolling out the welcome mat for the terrorists, too. Remember - not counting the War of Southern Treason, more Americans died from terrorist action on Bush's watch than any other president!

What a pile of crap... that is.. if you weren't being sarcastic. :)

There are typically quite a few.. but the ones I know about:

http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm

That is a site I often refer people to despite its obvious bias.. it still lists all third parties. I'm not sure how many of those third parties would actually run.

Did you see the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party? Strangest party I've seen in my life.

In 2004, Bush had lied to the American people, suffered (and still suffering) dwindling support for the Iraq War, and is the laughing stock of the rest of the World. Yet, incredibly, the American people voted for him again. If the voters are this 52,000,000+ people could be this dumb, then I fear we might elect an card-totting KKK member and justify it because he'd be "tough on crime" and "morally conservative."

I live in Michigan and I wish Granhold will secede us from the Union already. :(

You're exactly what is wrong with America. You can't go around insulting 60 million people for making a fucking choice, and tell them they are dumb or KKK members.

That's like me saying that you are a Stalinist because you voted against me. First off, it isn't mature nor is it right..

Did you see the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party? Strangest party I've seen in my life.

Say that three times fast.

See quotes like this make me wonder how much of the objection to Hillary is simple misogyny.

Trust me I'm not a misogyny, but you got to admit. Hillary gives off a vibe that she really hates men. Shes a FemNazi. Not to be confused with regular Feminist that just want equal treatment. She wants to to be Ultra-Fem.

Yes, and I'm sure you're very angry at Bush for rolling out the welcome mat for the terrorists, too. Remember - not counting the War of Southern Treason, more Americans died from terrorist action on Bush's watch than any other president!

Oh comon, At least when 9/11 happened Bush had the balls to go kick some ass. He didn't just treat them like "criminals" like Bill did.

Did you see the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party? Strangest party I've seen in my life.

I'm thinking of running under it . . . :D

Did you see the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party? Strangest party I've seen in my life.

How can you be a Libertarian and a Socialist? That party is an oxymoron.

How can you be a Libertarian and a Socialist? That party is an oxymoron.

Stranger yet, a libertarian and a National Socialist, AKA NAZI.

Whatever Democrat most likely. Although if a socialist had enough support... Somebody should shoot Ralph Nader.

Oh comon, At least when 9/11 happened Bush had the balls to go kick some ass. He didn't just treat them like "criminals" like Bill did.
Umm... are terrorists not criminals?? :confused:

Stranger yet, a libertarian and a National Socialist, AKA NAZI.

Still an Oxymoron lol.

The Lib.

Hillary has proven herself an enemy of freedom, the random Republican governers are... well, Republican; at that point I'm left with wasting my vote anyway, so I'll waste it on my terms.

What a pile of crap... that is.. if you weren't being sarcastic. :)

Huzzah! We have a winner! I do like the phrase 'War of Southern Treason,' though, mostly to poke fun at the types who want to dub it the 'War of Northron Aggression.' Pejoratives go both ways, and 'treason' really does trump 'aggression.'

Back on the topic of President H. Clinton, Bush, and terrorism, though - yes, 9/11 did happen on Bush's watch, but the ongoing Israeli experience suggests to me that the level of invasive security needed to completely block suicidal killers is far beyond what even the most hard-bitten free society can tolerate. So, Presidential Daily Briefing or not, I don't think he could have done much to stop it without better info.

However... Bush's disastrous lack of post-war planning in Iraq doesn't give me much faith in his ability to coordinate an effective counterterrorism campaign, and our ports and rail systems remain ludicrously vulnerable. His supreme disregard for the rest of the world (including when they gave away a certain secret blowing a British sting that could have prevented the London bombins) just makes that even harder. Hillary has her faults, but the Clinton name still gets cheers and cooperation overseas - and that's where the fighting is, so we do in fact need it.

As for the poll, I don't think there's a midwestern Republican governor right now who I'd trust to uphold individual privacy rights, restore a modicum of fiscal sanity to the budget, or find a solution to the burgeoning health-care crisis. And third parties quite simply don't have any prayer right now in the cold logic of politics, so I'd be obliged to go with Hillary and a hope that, with a divided government, the runaway Republican budget process would get some brakes applied. I'd much sooner get Wes Clark in there, though, who would have at least a prayer of bringing people across the yawning partisan divide.

As for criminal prosecutions of terrorists... remind me, who was formally convicted last week, and turned informant in the process because he was so overwhelmed by the realization that he was in fact getting a fair trial and due process? And which president is responsible for blackening America's soul with torture, show trials that have military lawyers resigning in vocal disgust, and has Reagan-appointed judges denouncing him?

And as for kicking ass... Why, yes, I suppose Bush did go kick more ass after a terrorist attack on American soil than Clinton did. Silly Bill just got Tim McVeigh the death penalty rather than bombing his hometown. Though to be a proper analogy, Clinton would have had to bomb McVeigh's hometown, then go off and bomb some other state he didn't like without finishing the first job.

I hate hillary! I am a dem.

And unless one of them was Hillary Whitewater does not prove her a crook.

No, but one would sure have to have some sort of thick skull to believe otherwise.

I would probably vote for the politician whom I felt showed the greatest integrity, intelligence, and empathy for her/his fellow humans. As these are all in short supply in politicians these days, I think I will move to an island and start my own theocratic empire.

I hate hillary! I am a dem.

Your name suits you :p

And as for kicking ass... Why, yes, I suppose Bush did go kick more ass after a terrorist attack on American soil than Clinton did. Silly Bill just got Tim McVeigh the death penalty rather than bombing his hometown. Though to be a proper analogy, Clinton would have had to bomb McVeigh's hometown, then go off and bomb some other state he didn't like without finishing the first job.

Hey since 9/11 we have not had one terrorist attack on our soil. On Clinton watch we had the 1993 WTC bombing, several attacks on US embessay (Considered US Soil) and the attack on the US Naval Ship Cole (Also considered US Soil).

I'm not sure yet because i do not support Hilary Clinton and am an absolute democrat, so we'll see who else is there. My prime choice would be Wesley Clark if he goes again.

Hey since 9/11 we have not had one terrorist attack on our soil. On Clinton watch we had the 1993 WTC bombing, several attacks on US embessay (Considered US Soil) and the attack on the US Naval Ship Cole (Also considered US Soil).

Oh! Why, you're right, attacks on a US embassy are terrorism on US soil, too. Except that means you're wrong with your first statement, since the US embassy in Iraq has repeatedly been attacked, and that's US soil too. And no, naval vessels are not in fact considered US soil, or else every Cuban the Coast Guard picks up would qualify under the wet foot / dry foot law as having set foot on American soil and therefore be allowed to stay. So, no, actually, Bush has been singularly ineffective at preventing attacks on US soil if we take embassies into account. They have to count for both or not count for both.

Trust me I'm not a misogyny, but you got to admit. Hillary gives off a vibe that she really hates men. Shes a FemNazi. Not to be confused with regular Feminist that just want equal treatment. She wants to to be Ultra-Fem.

Yeah, when I think "feminazi," I think, "woman who is willing to forgive her husband's widely-publicized infidelities and continue to support him." :rolleyes:

I have never, ever, ever heard Hillary Clinton say even one thing that suggests she either hates men or wants to "enslave" them. Please either cite specific actions and/or statements on her part, or stop making things up.

I assume I'd probably support Clinton, on the grounds that I will probably support whomever the Democratic candidate will be, but I can't really know that until the actual campaign rolls around. The Republican governor might completely surprise me, or there might be a third-party candidate who seems to have actual potential to compete with the other two, or Hillary might go stark raving mad and start endorsing stomping on puppies or something.

It's sort of a moot point anyway, since I really doubt she'll be nominated, due to all sorts of reasons that should be obvious to anyone who's read this thread.

BLegh I don't like hillary. Staunch republican here. Unfortunetly the election is around two months berfore my birthday.

Yeah, when I think "feminazi," I think, "woman who is willing to forgive her husband's widely-publicized infidelities and continue to support him." :rolleyes:

I have never, ever, ever heard Hillary Clinton say even one thing that suggests she either hates men or wants to "enslave" them. Please either cite specific actions and/or statements on her part, or stop making things up.

You know she only supported him when on camera. Off camera shes a total bitch. Clintons former Secret Service men have testified about how Hillary demeans Bill and how she is such a bitch to him. There my proof right there that she hates men. FYI: The SS men said that this happens since day 1 of the Clinton Administration.

There is no way in hell I would vote for Billary.

You know she only supported him when on camera. Off camera shes a total bitch. Clintons former Secret Service men have testified about how Hillary demeans Bill and how she is such a bitch to him. There my proof right there that she hates men. FYI: The SS men said that this happens since day 1 of the Clinton Administration.

You're missing a crucial element here: Assertion != Proof. Got Links? Original sources, please, not Rush-says-they-said-so. And, by the way, would killing a man be proof of hating men, too? Because there's this thing going around about Laura Bush and her driving record. And here, from the fairly reputable Snopes, is backing for that one: http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/laura.asp

(And yes, I know the page makes it quite clear she was highly unlikely to have done it intentionally. The point is that she killed a man but that doesn't make her a misanthrope; likewise, Hillary quite probably was upset with Bill for his infidelities, but she stood by him, forgave him, and it's nothing but petty mudslinging to accuse her of baser motives without solid proof.)

You're missing a crucial element here: Assertion != Proof. Got Links? Original sources, please, not Rush-says-they-said-so. And, by the way, would killing a man be proof of hating men, too? Because there's this thing going around about Laura Bush and her driving record. And here, from the fairly reputable Snopes, is backing for that one: http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/laura.asp

No it wouldn't count because That was just an accident. Also, Laura doesn't look like a bitch. Hillary does. I mean who is more pleasent on the eyes?

http://www.fedpac.org/images/bush_laura.jpg Laura Bush

OR

http://edition.cnn.com/1999/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/18/clinton.legal.fees/link.hillary.clinton.jpg

Hillary Clinton. I mean she just looks so angry all the time. What Laura did was an accident. What Hillary did was because shes a man hating bitch who would probably cut off Bills' privates if she could.

Now if Laura Bush ran, yea I would vote for her. I like her a whole lot better than Hillary.

No it wouldn't count because That was just an accident. Also, Laura doesn't look like a bitch. Hillary does. I mean who is more pleasent on the eyes?

http://www.fedpac.org/images/bush_laura.jpg Laura Bush

OR

http://edition.cnn.com/1999/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/18/clinton.legal.fees/link.hillary.clinton.jpg

Hillary Clinton. I mean she just looks so angry all the time. What Laura did was an accident. What Hillary did was because shes a man hating bitch who would probably cut off Bills' privates if she could.

Now if Laura Bush ran, yea I would vote for her. I like her a whole lot better than Hillary.

Gee, let me think. A picture of Hillary looking mad and a picture of Laura from a Republican-friendly PAC. Noooo, no one is making a strawman here! And did you hear the little bit about 'proof' from before? If you're going to impute opinions to her, please do provide a little bit of documentation to back it up. It's quite clear from your mudslinging that you automatically disregard any possible positive motives for her, but at least try to engage some critical thinking skills and ponder, if only as hypothesis-contrary-to-fact, "What if Hillary really did forgive him? Could it be possible that the automatic I-hate-her-so-she-must-be-evil assumption is wrong and she hasn't done any of the things I assume she has because I don't like her?"

Gee, let me think. A picture of Hillary looking mad and a picture of Laura from a Republican-friendly PAC. Noooo, no one is making a strawman here! And did you hear the little bit about 'proof' from before? If you're going to impute opinions to her, please do provide a little bit of documentation to back it up. It's quite clear from your mudslinging that you automatically disregard any possible positive motives for her, but at least try to engage some critical thinking skills and ponder, if only as hypothesis-contrary-to-fact, "What if Hillary really did forgive him? Could it be possible that the automatic I-hate-her-so-she-must-be-evil assumption is wrong and she hasn't done any of the things I assume she has because I don't like her?"

Heres your proof. Hillary abused the Secret Service. She also threw a lamp at Bill Clinton.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/924906/posts

Heres your proof. Hillary abused the Secret Service. She also threw a lamp at Bill Clinton.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/924906/posts

To recap... From the most rabidly wingnutty site on the web, the best you could come up with was a report from an organization that makes Fox look liberal, and which even so can't come up with anything better than 'anonymous claims.' Do take a look at http://truthminers.com/hoaxarticles/rude_hillary.htm which took all of one Google search to find to debunk it. And you still haven't replied - do US embassies count as American soil or not? Because it'd really be nice to know whether the US has been suffering terrorist attacks on US soil repeatedly for the last couple of years under Bush.

Oh, and an extra debunking, same Google search, back to Snopes again.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/lamp.asp

To recap... From the most rabidly wingnutty site on the web, the best you could come up with was a report from an organization that makes Fox look liberal, and which even so can't come up with anything better than 'anonymous claims.' Do take a look at http://truthminers.com/hoaxarticles/rude_hillary.htm which took all of one Google search to find to debunk it. And you still haven't replied - do US embassies count as American soil or not? Because it'd really be nice to know whether the US has been suffering terrorist attacks on US soil repeatedly for the last couple of years under Bush.

You just can't accept the fact that Hillary is a bitch can ya? I mean comon, I can look at people (even just by picture) and I can tell if they're mean or not. And I got to say, she gives off the impression that she is a bitch. And, Yes US Embassies does count as US Soil.

Hmmmm... If it came down to a female vs. female presidential race (yeah, right) I'd love to see Hillary vs. Laura! :D

Personally, my money would be on Laura. I don't have any data to back it up, but I think Laura could probably do a much better job than her husband has.
Really, I'm far from being (or voting) Republican, but does anyone really hate Laura?

Hmmmm... If it came down to a female vs. female presidential race (yeah, right) I'd love to see Hillary vs. Laura! :D

Personally, my money would be on Laura. I don't have any data to back it up, but I think Laura could probably do a much better job than her husband has.
Really, I'm far from being (or voting) Republican, but does anyone really hate Laura?

I don't hate Laura. Hell I would vote for her instead of Hillary anyday.

If Hillary Clinton received the Democratic nomination for President in 2008...


NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

Heres your proof. Hillary abused the Secret Service. She also threw a lamp at Bill Clinton.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/924906/posts


Uh, let's assume she did this. What does that have to do with her running for President? George Bush did cocaine the masses are silent; Hillary throws a book and the world shatters. ;)

I don't hate Laura. Hell I would vote for her instead of Hillary anyday.


That's weird.

Why is it that when we have strong First Ladies like Elenor Roosevelt, Jacklyn Kennedy, Nancy Reagan, and Hillary Clinton, the masses stomp on them? What is it about a woman removing her apron and using her position to influence social change? Say what you want but at least Hillary Clinton had the balls to go before Congress to stand up what she believed in.

No one talks about Laura Bush because you can't say anything bad about nothing. :D Laura Bush is simply not qualified in any way to be the President of the United States. Now, you might not agree with Hillary Clinton and we may agree that she will not win in 2008, but you'd be hard-pressed not to concede that this woman is *less* qualified than Laura Bush.

I like today's women who are strong and independent. This is why everyone hated Teresa Heinz-Kerry because <gasp!> she had a damned opinion. The nerve! A woman talking outside of turn! Get out of the middle ages guys.

That's weird.

Why is it that when we have strong First Ladies like Elenor Roosevelt, Jacklyn Kennedy, Nancy Reagan, and Hillary Clinton, the masses stomp on them? What is it about a woman removing her apron and using her position to influence social change? Say what you want but at least Hillary Clinton had the balls to go before Congress to stand up what she believed in.

No one talks about Laura Bush because you can't say anything bad about nothing. :D Laura Bush is simply not qualified in any way to be the President of the United States. Now, you might not agree with Hillary Clinton and we may agree that she will not win in 2008, but you'd be hard-pressed not to concede that this woman is *less* qualified than Laura Bush.

I like today's women who are strong and independent. This is why everyone hated Teresa Heinz-Kerry because <gasp!> she had a damned opinion. The nerve! A woman talking outside of turn! Get out of the middle ages guys.


When she stormed the office, she embarrassed her husband and turn the whole administration into a joke. That is what started her reputation as a bitch. I mean what was the point of that anyways, I mean as first lady you have NO political power. Hillary did not understand that, Laura does. Also Theresa Henitz gives off the same feeling that Hillary does.

You just can't accept the fact that Hillary is a bitch can ya? I mean comon, I can look at people (even just by picture) and I can tell if they're mean or not. And I got to say, she gives off the impression that she is a bitch. And, Yes US Embassies does count as US Soil.

Okay. Sure. Hillary Clinton is a bitch because you think she "looks like one." There's quality evidence if I ever heard it... :rolleyes:

Okay. Sure. Hillary Clinton is a bitch because you think she "looks like one." There's quality evidence if I ever heard it... :rolleyes:

Hey you'd be suprised by how much you can tell by looking at a person. Its called body languages.

You just can't accept the fact that Hillary is a bitch can ya? I mean comon, I can look at people (even just by picture) and I can tell if they're mean or not. And I got to say, she gives off the impression that she is a bitch. And, Yes US Embassies does count as US Soil.

Thank you. In other words, you've established your position as "I have no rational basis for my claims." At this point, the logical reaction is to re-examine your assumptions and honestly consider whether you might be mistaken. That doesn't mean you have to like her by any means, but it does mean you might want to consider stepping back from the unfounded assertion about her "She's a bitch" to the informed opinion about yourself, "I don't like her." Which, if you're thoughtful, might lead you to question yourself about what assumptions you're making and what you're accepting as fact without proof - but that would be something for you to consider on your own.

And since US embassies are US soil, US soil has been regularly attacked for the last several years after nine eleven under Bush. So either Clinton actually did a good job in keeping Islamist terrorism to a minimum in only suffering two such incidents, or Bush has done very badly. By your logic, anyhow - I don't believe either of them can actually be blamed for not preventing the attacks. I do believe Bush can be blamed for bad postwar planning that created the environment for the attacks - but any individual attack is beyond his power to stop at this point.

If Hillary Clinton received the Democratic nomination for President in 2008, running against a miscellanous Republican Governor from the midwest and 80 year old Ralph Nader with the Green Party, a Libertarian candidate, and all the usual 3rd party candidates, who would you vote for? There's a poll coming shortly.

Nader probably, although with an outside shot of McCain.

Basically, I don't have a problem with Hillary personally. I think she's smart, competent, and capable, and I don't believe a word of the crap that comes out of most people's mouths, as these are usually the same people who have a problem with women being seen outside of the kitchen or the bedroom anyway.

What I do have a problem with is that she is yet another member of the Republican-lite DLC. I held my nose and voted for Kerry and Gore, and I'm not going to do it again. I'm tired of voting for someone because they are "better than Republican candidate X"; I want to vote for the person who is simply the most qualified person for the job. And that, barring McCain's nomination, is Ralph Nader.

Alright, let me start off by saying that I am a Republican and would under no circumstances vote for Hillary on '08. That being said, I would like to make a comment on her recent behavior:

1.) Hillary Clinton has committed political suicide. Before recent events the one thing she had was the liberal vote as her base, but now, she seems to be trying to move to the center to try to sway others. First of all, she wont convince republicans to vote for her because of her long history of extreme liberalism. Next, her recent activities have accomplished nothing but to alienate her base. Third the first woman president is going to have to overwhelmingly carry the female vote which I do not believe she can do. Too many women lost respect for her over the whole not devorcing Bill thing.

What would be interesting, however, would be if the Republicans nominated Condoleezza Rice for Vice President. She is a strong, self-made intelligant woman, plus not only would she divide the women voters with Hillary, she would also grab the attention of many African American voters, a staple in the Democratic campaign which they cannot afford to lose. Rice wouldn't even have to sweep the African American vote as Republicans receive little from that demographic anyway.

Hitlery, I mean Hillary has attempted to display a moderate image but it just isn't working out. Even the dems I talk with in real life don't like her. She scares away too many voters and too many people hate her with a passion. She would be like choosing Howard Dean... if they want to lose they would choose her.

John McCain is another who will never be the president of this country. Hes a republican that tries to be a Democrat. Quite frankly he's betrayed the Republican Party too many times to ever win its support, and most Democrats will not vote for him because he is a Republican...sort of. In short, he is too liberal for conservatives and to conservative for liberals. You cannot win an election solely on the moderates.

Heres a thought for the Republican nominee: Joe Scarborough. Hes an honest, hardworking guy, not too extreme conservative, might just grab the moderate vote too.

John McCain is another who will never be the president of this country. Hes a republican that tries to be a Democrat. Quite frankly he's betrayed the Republican Party too many times to ever win its support, and most Democrats will not vote for him because he is a Republican...sort of. In short, he is too liberal for conservatives and to conservative for liberals. You cannot win an election solely on the moderates.


Do you say the same for Giulani?

Hitlery, I mean Hillary has attempted to display a moderate image but it just isn't working out. Even the dems I talk with in real life don't like her. She scares away too many voters and too many people hate her with a passion. She would be like choosing Howard Dean... if they want to lose they would choose her.
Hes a smart guy... or lady. She alienates too many voters, but doubtless she will get the nomination, who else is it going to be? I'd like to see a thread speculating on possible nominees, thatd be an interesting discussion.

Giuliani's a tough pick. Hed do very well with moderates and the way he handled 9/11 really is a credit to his bravery and charisma. That being said, in a time of such partisan bickering I dont see him carrying the majority. If he ran as a third party though, things would be interesting.

Scarborough/Rice I think would be a winning ticket for the Republicans but the Dems will be hard-pressed to find anyone, being due to the fact that their party is totally reactionary right now. There are no new ideas coming from them. Theyre looking for the next FDR and quite frankly going to the extreme left isnt going to help them. If you want a picture of where the Democratic party is going, look at their chairman Howard Dean. Hes about as liberal and downright offensive as you can get. The Democratic party needs to do some serious restructuring over the next few years if they want to have any hope at winning the election. The way I see it, their best shot right now is Joe Lieberman but he'll never get nominated, hes too moderate.

By the way if you havent watched Scarborough Country on FoxNews you might want to check it out. You libs out there will definately like him better than Bush. Hes a real decent guy and do I daresay an honest politician? He actually was a Senator but got out because he didnt like the corruption inherant in the system.

By the way, im not fascist, my serious nation got deleted because I didn't access it enough...this one was just a joke (because Fascism is not cool)

Nader, yet another man who will never be president. He is a genius to be sure, but his views are too idealistic and impractical. He'd destroy what millions have given their lives for in less than a month. not to mention the fact that last time he only managed 0.4% of the popular vote. A vote for Nader is a wasted vote... Vote for a candidate with a shot to win, even if you dont like them. Pick the one who is the lesser of the two evils in your mind. Don't waste your voice, too many Americans have died to give it to you.

Alright, let me start off by saying that I am a Republican and would under no circumstances vote for Hillary on '08. That being said, I would like to make a comment on her recent behavior:

1.) Hillary Clinton has committed political suicide. Before recent events the one thing she had was the liberal vote as her base, but now, she seems to be trying to move to the center to try to sway others. First of all, she wont convince republicans to vote for her because of her long history of extreme liberalism. Next, her recent activities have accomplished nothing but to alienate her base. Third the first woman president is going to have to overwhelmingly carry the female vote which I do not believe she can do. Too many women lost respect for her over the whole not devorcing Bill thing.

What would be interesting, however, would be if the Republicans nominated Condoleezza Rice for Vice President. She is a strong, self-made intelligant woman, plus not only would she divide the women voters with Hillary, she would also grab the attention of many African American voters, a staple in the Democratic campaign which they cannot afford to lose. Rice wouldn't even have to sweep the African American vote as Republicans receive little from that demographic anyway.

An interesting proposition. I think I disagree with your suggestion about Hillary; quite simply, anyone the Democrats nominate in '08 is going to end up with their strong support on the grounds of Bush Fatigue. So by moving to try to stake out the center, she sets herself up for a risky primary, but would be well-positioned for the general if she made it. I'm also quite of the opinion (borne out by polls a while back; on a for-pay site, unfortunately, to which I no longer have access - so no link-based evidence for this, I'm afraid) that people who claim to have lost respect for her tend very strongly to be people who wouldn't vote for any Democrat anyhow.

As for Condi... I'll say that I don't think she's very photogenic and doesn't have a particularly dazzling television presence, neither of which ought to be deal-breakers but sometimes are. More importantly, she brings baggage to the table - her 9-11 testimony didn't go well, having an oil tanker named for you is easy to play up, and her White House experience can be summed up in two words as "yes man" if you want to. I don't think there'd be any remote chance of her sweeping the African-American vote, but she would be likely to pick up a few points in that demographic - but would also be likely to lose several points of the racist vote.

That is *not* to say that Republicans are racist, and please do not attempt to interpret my statement as saying such. The GOP does not deny having employed the "Southern Strategy," and many voters from the racist category will continue to vote Republican because of it, regardless of whether it is still being employed actively. These voters, who tend to embarass the right as much as ELF ecoterrorists embarass the left, might hold back from voting for a ticket that has a black woman a heartbeat away from being President.

Really, the racism thing could be an issue for her, but, the same people who wont vote for her because shes black are, i believe the same people who wont vote for Hillary because shes a woman. This is why I would put Rice on as VP ans Scarborough as Pres. He has even hinted that he may be interested in getting back into politics. And i know that Hillary will receive strong liberal support, but I believe a good part of the outcome of the election will be decided by the female vote. Also, I do not believe that the Bush-fatigue will be that big of an issue seeing as how he won't be on the ticket. You also forget, Bush did win the last election and still has the good part of a term left so you never know what people will think of him come '08.

Well thought out post though. I do love when these things dont just become a pile of obsceneties and name calling and instead include real substance

By the way if you havent watched Scarborough Country on FoxNews you might want to check it out. You libs out there will definately like him better than Bush. Hes a real decent guy and do I daresay an honest politician? He actually was a Senator but got out because he didnt like the corruption inherant in the system.

By the way, im not fascist, my serious nation got deleted because I didn't access it enough...this one was just a joke (because Fascism is not cool)

Um. If he's your idea of honest and not-extreme, wow. He's been caught in open lies and blind repitition of talking points over and over. Take a look at http://mediamatters.org/archives/search.html?string=&media=all&date_start=2004-04-19&date_end=2005-08-09&topic=&topic=Scarborough+Country&topic=FOX+News+Channel&go=Search to see some of it. And yes, Media Matters goes after right-wing shows for their fact-checking, but that doesn't eliminate their accuracy; they have a very impressive record for correctness. Scarborough is a talking-points machine in a great many respects, and he's 'moderate' enough to have been very vociferously on the extreme right side of the Terri Schiavo matter, to name the most obvious and egregious example.

Scarborough is a talking-points machine in a great many respects, and he's 'moderate' enough to have been very vociferously on the extreme right side of the Terri Schiavo matter, to name the most obvious and egregious example.

And that possibly is his biggest problem. He has been in the public eye for so long that everyone will know his belief system and values. That being said, he is definately more moderate than Bush and I can't think of many people who didn't have strong feelings on the Schiavo case.

Really, the racism thing could be an issue for her, but, the same people who wont vote for her because shes black are, i believe the same people who wont vote for Hillary because shes a woman. This is why I would put Rice on as VP ans Scarborough as Pres. He has even hinted that he may be interested in getting back into politics. And i know that Hillary will receive strong liberal support, but I believe a good part of the outcome of the election will be decided by the female vote. Also, I do not believe that the Bush-fatigue will be that big of an issue seeing as how he won't be on the ticket. You also forget, Bush did win the last election and still has the good part of a term left so you never know what people will think of him come '08.

Well thought out post though. I do love when these things dont just become a pile of obsceneties and name calling and instead include real substance

OH YOU DO DO YOU WELL I HATE I WHEN THEY DONT YOU BIG ^&*%& STUPIDHEAD!

Oh, come on, you knew that was coming. ;-)

Ahem. Anyhow. If Gore could run amidst 'Clinton fatigue,' the Republican nominee can easily be placed amidst 'Bush fatigue.' It's possible it could evolve into another strike against Rice, in fact; as Bush's popularity numbers drop, as they have been steadily doing all year, and as Bush's War grows more and more unpopular, there's every chance that politicians in districts and states where Republican candidates draw less than 80% of the vote will begin distancing themselves from Bush; note, for example, Ohio-02, which went for Bush by approximately 70-30 and re-elected their Republican congressman by a 44% margin, just recently gave 48% to a Democrat running in a special election to replace said congressman. Ohio is steeped in massive corruption scandals, yes, and all sorts of other factors were in place - but even the right-wing Cook Political Report (subscription, so no link) noted that winning that heavily a red district by only 4 points indicates some serious issues at hand.

That said, yes, voters are fickle. I don't say there must be Bush Fatigue, but that there very well could be.

Is it just me or is the poll split in a bizzare near three-way tie?

And that possibly is his biggest problem. He has been in the public eye for so long that everyone will know his belief system and values. That being said, he is definately more moderate than Bush and I can't think of many people who didn't have strong feelings on the Schiavo case.

Strong feelings, yes - but only 18% of them had strong feelings that agreed with him. I use it as an example, but it would be quite easy for an opponent to use against him: "My opponent, Mister Scarborough, wants to keep people trapped in crippling physical pain at great expense to their familes to placate his extremist base! Just look at these twelve clips from his show where he said just that."

So, in summary: Yes. You're right. His position in the public eye is his biggest problem. I think he would have a hard time positioning himself as a moderate, given his public record.

Is it just me or is the poll split in a bizzare near three-way tie?
Almost four-way, if you include the 'none of the above' option. Mid-thirties, mid-thirties, mid-thirties, and twenty.

Hmmm. They must have used the 'Nun of the Above' pun at some point on The Flying Nun. Random thought.

So far I have pretty much agreed with you, for the most part on every post, and '08 is a long way away so who knows what will happen then? It is fun to speculate though. Personally, my mans Hannity, but im not stupid and realize that that will never happen (plus he'd have to take a pretty serious paycut if he were Pres) Hey, i don't see many good candidates for either side but once again who knows what the next years will bring. Scarborough probably wont be running anyway but if he did, i would vote for him. The political spectrum has been fully stretched to its two extremes and it is difficult to find a decent moderate candidate. Perhaps well see the Ahnald Amendment passed before then, who knows? But i doubt it.

You cant take that poll as having any weight as it has so few participants and that these forums tend to lean pretty heavily left anyway (believe me, its tough being conservative here)

oh, and i almost forgot -I hate you you stupid *&%$#@!-

god i've been saying for 4 years that if hilary becomes president we will all die. slowly and painfully. i live in the midwest. plus, nader was kicked out of the green party weirdo.

*snip* believe me, its tough being conservative here*snip*you said it brother.

I would never, ever vote for Hillary Clinton. For that matter, I would never vote for any liberal; though especially not for Hillary. It would just bring back the Clintons to the White House, which would ruin the country completely.

I would consider moving if she got nominated, and would actually do so if won.

I would consider moving if she got nominated, and would actually do so if won.

Then start considering cause she will get nominated, unfortunately. And there isn't anything I can do about it because i live in NJ. But, ill be at the polls nonetheless. Just vote though. everyone vote Apathy is death...you have a voice, use it. (Even if you live in Calif or NY or Mass, etc) too many good Americans have died to give you your voice for it to be wasted.

So far I have pretty much agreed with you, for the most part on every post, and '08 is a long way away so who knows what will happen then? It is fun to speculate though. Personally, my mans Hannity, but im not stupid and realize that that will never happen (plus he'd have to take a pretty serious paycut if he were Pres) Hey, i don't see many good candidates for either side but once again who knows what the next years will bring. Scarborough probably wont be running anyway but if he did, i would vote for him. The political spectrum has been fully stretched to its two extremes and it is difficult to find a decent moderate candidate. Perhaps well see the Ahnald Amendment passed before then, who knows? But i doubt it

I think the Ahnold Amendment is dead in the water, with Ahnold's poll numbers the way they are. It's just not a smart move to say you're going to kick the butts of nurses and firefighters, y'know? People like them. For the moment, I'm putting my wishful-thinking hopes on Wes Clark facing off against John McCain. I think both of them are relatively principled (McCain has made some rubberstampish moves at times, but he can't always be an entertaining maverick), uncorrupt, competent, could manage foreign relations well, and aren't brainwashed ideologues. Frankly, I could see either one of them in the running for president, welcome on the ticket as vice president, or a prime pick for secretary of state.

Hmmm. There's a thought. Clark/McCain '08 running against McCain/Clark '08. Or, in other words, a throwback to the days when the runner-up for president was the vice-president (which I like as a concept for no particular reason other than my general preference for divided government).

Anyhow, it's late and I must sleep. It's been fun, though. Perhaps next time we'll do a rundown on the '06 Senate races? I'm betting for the moment on Chafee (R-RI), [Spreading] Santorum(R-PA), DeWine(R-OH), and Burns (R-MT) to be replaced by Democrats, and Dayton (D-MI, I think - late and tired)'s open seat to go to the Republican candidate, Kennedy.

'Gift' races: Nebraska, Florida, South Dakota, Maine. These would be vulnerable if a strong contender emerged, but the first three (Dems) aren't showing any signs of that happening, and neither is Snowe in Maine drawing out much opposition.

'Switch' races: Montana, Ohio, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Dayton-wherever-he's-from. The incumbent's party is likely (in my early estimation) to lose these races.

'Potential' races: Nevada, New Mexico, Virginia, Arizona, West Virginia, Missouri, Washington. A strong challenger could bring some of these into play. Some of them.

I don't really see how any of the other races gets interesting at all, barring political tsunami.

Ahem. Anyhow, I'm still tired and now it's even later. So, night!

Arnold is doing just fine and I will do more campaigning for him. I have volunteered in the past for him on my campus. People were generally understanding... but not the idiots promoting Lyndon LaRouche (what a nutcase).

Funny how your uneducated guesses only think republicans will get replaced. I'm thinking the dems are going to lose a fair share. Sure Santorum is going to go..

But look at this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/09/nyregion/metrocampaigns/09pirro.html?ei=5065&en=7bce189cb1aa5078&ex=1124164800&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

That bitch Hillary is going to get a very difficult time in her re-election bid.

"Encouraged by New York Republican leaders and some White House officials, Jeanine F. Pirro, the charismatic Westchester County district attorney, announced yesterday that she would challenge Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton next year, and immediately accused Mrs. Clinton of using her post as a steppingstone to the presidency.

Ms. Pirro, a political moderate who supports abortion rights, gay rights and the death penalty, is seen by many Republicans in New York and Washington as their best hope of pulling off a big upset in 2006 by defeating Mrs. Clinton."

What if Pirro defeats Clinton in her own place? Does that mean Hillary is finished for any try at the presidency?

Rooting for Pirro!

There are more Republicans on here than I thought there were...

I don't think the Democratic party would nominate Hillary Clinton anyways. That would be as bad of a move as picking Gore, or Howard Dean. Hillary Clinton has no chance of winning, and her lost in the 2008 election would just hurt the party more.

Well I added the numbers from this poll. If this poll respent the USA Population. Hillary would LOOSE in a landslide.

For 41

Against 102

So, I don't think Hillary stands a chance in a real election.

Would you vote for a crook like Hillary?
Please enlighten me....how is Hilary a "crook"? Just the facts please.

:mad: The buddhist temple fundraising scandals, and the like.. make me want to vote for whoever she is running against. She's a lying bitch and we don't need another Clinton in office.

I think the fact shes a democrat make you want to vote for whoever shes running against.

P.S. I hate her too.

I think the fact shes a democrat make you want to vote for whoever shes running against.

P.S. I hate her too.

No.

I said I would vote for democrats and I have done once. I voted democrat in the LA mayors race. It depends on the choice.

I'd have great difficulty voting for Hillary since I don't live in the US.

Personally, Colin Powell would be my choice of president, likeable, centralist, strong but diplomatic. Clarke would make a good democrat president.

Well my two cents.

EDIT: Yes I realise Powell isn't a democrat.

One can only hope that Bill will be pulling strings behind the scenes.


bill would be pulling something, but it wouldnt be strings.

Arnold is doing just fine and I will do more campaigning for him. I have volunteered in the past for him on my campus. People were generally understanding... but not the idiots promoting Lyndon LaRouche (what a nutcase).

Funny how your uneducated guesses only think republicans will get replaced. I'm thinking the dems are going to lose a fair share. Sure Santorum is going to go..

But look at this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/09/nyregion/metrocampaigns/09pirro.html?ei=5065&en=7bce189cb1aa5078&ex=1124164800&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

That bitch Hillary is going to get a very difficult time in her re-election bid.

"Encouraged by New York Republican leaders and some White House officials, Jeanine F. Pirro, the charismatic Westchester County district attorney, announced yesterday that she would challenge Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton next year, and immediately accused Mrs. Clinton of using her post as a steppingstone to the presidency.

Ms. Pirro, a political moderate who supports abortion rights, gay rights and the death penalty, is seen by many Republicans in New York and Washington as their best hope of pulling off a big upset in 2006 by defeating Mrs. Clinton."

What if Pirro defeats Clinton in her own place? Does that mean Hillary is finished for any try at the presidency?

First, we'll go back to basics. There was already a nice long discussion on this thread about the difference between your opinion "I hate her reflexively" and the unsubstantiated posture "She's a bitch." And second - did you bother to take a single look at the poll numbers (you know, educating yourself) before dismissing my analysis as uneducated?

Most of the senators are in no trouble at all for re-election. I noted the ones whose re-elect numbers in recent SUSA polling indicates trouble and the ones who are currently showing poor fundraising numbers. Chafee's fundraising is in the tank, his poll numbers are limp, and he's in a heavily Democratic state. Santorum can't even get within ten points in slanted Republican polls. Burns in Montana is facing ethical issues and a voter base that has taken a hard turn to blue. And DeWine is in the Ohio GOP, which is facing a substantial storm based on extensive corruption issues, as borne out by the recent special election in Ohio 02 - where a Democratic candidate closed forty points in the polls.

The Democratic weak seats, meanwhile, were quite clearly listed - under the 'gift' section. No challengers are on the horizon in Nebraska or South Dakota, and Harris in Florida is possibly the only one who could hand over that race to Nelson there. The exception is Dayton, who's numbers are bad enough he's not even running for re-election and his bad performance is likely to carry on to the Democratic candidate in that race. Talent in Missouri is doing poorly as well, but has no high-level opponent yet. Byrd in West Virginia might conceivably be targetted, but he has his name on public works projects all over the state and is popular. Allen in Virginia is running 4 points below Governor Warner in the polls, if Warner decides to run for it. Snowe in Maine could be vulnerable to a strict partisan challenge if she faced a well-funded opponent, but none has stepped up. And the Western states of Nevada, New Mexico, and Arizona are close enough to parity that they can't be taken for granted, but incumbency remains a strong protection there.

Please, if you think you're better educated on the topic, do tell me which other Democratic seats are vulnerable. If you're delusional enough to think that Pirro is anything but a sacrificial lamb against Hillary, who's running positive re-elect numbers among Republicans in New York, let alone the rest of that state, which is never Republican-friendly territory in the first place - well, you're going to have to find your way back to the reality-based community. Did you just sort of gloss over the 'big upset' mention, which points out what a longshot Pirro is? If you take the time to look at facts (sorry, no faith-based poll numbers allowed), you're going to find that I haven't done much more than point at the bottom tier of poll numbers, which in this cycle happen to be Republican. Just go take a peek at Survey USA.

Likewise, you have an interesting definition of 'doing just fine.' Most politicians whose approval rating goes from 70% to under forty percent, in a state where their party is a substantial underdog in the first place, would be debating whether to bother running long enough to get defeated. He does have a much better shot that Lyndon LaRouche, though, I'll grant that any day.

If Hillary Clinton received the Democratic nomination for President in 2008, running against a miscellanous Republican Governor from the midwest and 80 year old Ralph Nader with the Green Party, a Libertarian candidate, and all the usual 3rd party candidates, who would you vote for? There's a poll coming shortly.

I'd most likely vote Libertarian - although, if Dr. Rice ever decides to run for president, I'd vote for her.

Irony abounds.

Sorry but I remember what her husband did to the military and to the intel community so no, it really isn't a theory at all.

It would depend entirely on who she was running against.

Im a Republican! and since The last Clinton was a democrate I wouldnt vote for her but I know she will be the 2008 leader of America

By the way if you havent watched Scarborough Country on FoxNews you might want to check it out.

When did he move to Fox News? I thought he was on MSNBC?

i don't dislike her enough to vote for ANYONE against her. I mean, if she were up against Rick Santorum then she would get my vote. I would vote for John McCain first though.

Can't say whether I'd vote for an unknown republican candidate or an unknown third party candidate, but there's no way in hell I'd vote for Hillary.

When did he move to Fox News? I thought he was on MSNBC?

Sorry, my mistake, Im not sure what I was thinking when I typed that. Yes, He is on MSNBC, sorry.

Sorry, my mistake, Im not sure what I was thinking when I typed that. Yes, He is on MSNBC, sorry.

Just thought I point that out :)

Well I'm not American so I can't vote, but if I could I would! Come on she can't be worse than Bush and it has been proven that women in politics are better at solving problems..this is probably because there are so few powerful women politicans but hey.....come Bill as first Lady..how could you say no?
There could be a reality big brother like show....interns re-hired, Monica rides East..(as in the office of the first lady/husband is in the east wing)

VOTE HILLARY!

Well I'm not American so I can't vote, but if I could I would! Come on she can't be worse than Bush and it has been proven that women in politics are better at solving problems..this is probably because there are so few powerful women politicans but hey.....come Bill as first Lady..how could you say no?
There could be a reality big brother like show....interns re-hired, Monica rides East..(as in the office of the first lady/husband is in the east wing)

VOTE HILLARY!

Hillary is worse than Bush. I wouldn't trust her to watch my cat (hell, my cat will probably attack her) let alone guide this country. Her social reforms aren't cut out for our society, her healthcare reform bill was a complete joke and the people tossed the democrats right out of power after words. Her real estate dealings nearly landed her in jail. A few dozen were tossed into jail.

Sorry but I wouldn't want her in office at all.

Here is my proof that Hillary is indeed a witch. Its called body languages people! You may not realize it but while your mouth is saying one thing, often enough your body is telling other people what you really think. While we can talk about the actual body, for our puproses we will stick with the face. The face can show many emotions.

Happy
http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~ejw/tatum/images/happy-mommy.jpg

Angry
http://www.publicdoman.com/images/AngryFace.gif

Sadness
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~kraut/RKraut.site.files/gallery/sad-face.jpg

Our faces can also betray us. Tell me, is this woman happy or uncomfortable? (the one on the right)

http://www.bikefriday.com/images/news/WEB-lynette-and-candy.jpg

She is actually uncomfortable. So, how does all of this pretain to Hillary Roham Clinton? Well, Hillary may not know it, but her fake smile, and either really bad botox or make up betrays her more than it helps her. Even her own face betrays her.

Does she actually look geniuenly happy in this photo? My vote is no.
http://www.themoderatevoice.com/files/joe-Clinton,_Hillary-small.jpg

This one I'm not even going to comment on, I just find this one extrememly funny.
http://flatrock.org.nz/topics/money_politics_law/assets/hillary_clinton.jpg

Does she actually looks like she wants to be there?
http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/fyi/interactive/news/10/election.special/images/senate/story.hillary.clinton.ap.jpg

You can ALMOST read her mind in this picture.
http://www.margaretcho.com/photo_gallery/margaret_and_hillary.jpg

Finally, my favorite picture.

Do WE really want to look at this every night on the news?
http://edition.cnn.com/1999/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/18/clinton.legal.fees/link.hillary.clinton.jpg

Though half of those pictures didn't look anything like Hillary, they were still funny as hell.