Hillary Doesn't Stand A Chance In 2008

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]hspder wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
The point that I wish to make is that you are now being given a chance to tell us what YOU libs would do if you had your person in there. What are your ideas about protecting the country? All you seem to be able to do is to Bash bush. Well, I’ll tell you a secret: this has been tried before and has failed!

You will only get someone elected if you calm down, quiet down, and propose serious solutions to the serious problems. You know, something besides “Bush stinks…”

Well, where are Hillary’s ideas to solve problems?

We have ideas. We try to explain them. Hard. But unfortunately our solutions take more than 5 seconds to explain – unlike “lower taxes” or “smaller government” or “reduce entitlement spending”. We seem to lack the rhetoric skills of Republicans that allow them to reduce solutions to a sound bite. Even when they never really mean it, like Joe Scarborough said the other day (remember the last time any of the above sound bites actually happened under a Republican government?).

We learnt quite quickly that if it takes longer than 5 seconds to explain: better save your breath.

A certain Bill Clinton was able to make explanations unnecessary out of his sheer charm. He rarely had to explain anything. He just whipped up his public speaking skills and made people vote for him without ever having to tell them what his solutions were. It worked pretty well.

He learnt that with the best: FDR and JFK, who were even better at it.

Unfortunately, we haven’t found another Bill Clinton… yet…
[/quote]

So where are the ideas? You just said you have them, then you say you can’t explain them in 6 seconds. Well, explain them in as many seconds as you would like.

It is incredible folks, the Dems are asked for ideas and then they turn it around to bash Bush and the Republicans again for their ideas.

By the way, I don’t care how many seconds of an explanation that it takes. Good ideas – like lower taxes and less government – are good ideas. If it were up to the Republicans alone, we would have both. However, you cannot be serious if you deny that when Reagan cut taxes and increased defense spending He was able to pull the US out of the economic malaise that had plagued it for over a decade. Reagan’s tax cutting policies are responsible for the economic turnaround which Clinton then enjoyed during his time of fooling around with young girls in the Oval Office…

Good try hspder but you Dems cannot hide behind bashing Bush.

Ideas please?

a) Tax policy?
b) Gas prices?
c) Protecting the U.S. from terrorism?
d) Iraq policy?
e) Policy toward rogue states – N. Korea, Syria, etc.

Ideas? Do you have any???

62

[quote]hspder wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
The point that I wish to make is that you are now being given a chance to tell us what YOU libs would do if you had your person in there. What are your ideas about protecting the country? All you seem to be able to do is to Bash bush. Well, I’ll tell you a secret: this has been tried before and has failed!

You will only get someone elected if you calm down, quiet down, and propose serious solutions to the serious problems. You know, something besides “Bush stinks…”

Well, where are Hillary’s ideas to solve problems?

We have ideas. We try to explain them. Hard. But unfortunately our solutions take more than 5 seconds to explain – unlike “lower taxes” or “smaller government” or “reduce entitlement spending”. We seem to lack the rhetoric skills of Republicans that allow them to reduce solutions to a sound bite. Even when they never really mean it, like Joe Scarborough said the other day (remember the last time any of the above sound bites actually happened under a Republican government?).

We learnt quite quickly that if it takes longer than 5 seconds to explain: better save your breath.

A certain Bill Clinton was able to make explanations unnecessary out of his sheer charm. He rarely had to explain anything. He just whipped up his public speaking skills and made people vote for him without ever having to tell them what his solutions were. It worked pretty well.

He learnt that with the best: FDR and JFK, who were even better at it.

Unfortunately, we haven’t found another Bill Clinton… yet…
[/quote]

That’s pathetic. This means that you want someone who’ll trick the voters using his ‘charm’? Get you’re agenda done, not by explaining the facts but by con artistry?

This was how Hitler operated.

If the stuff about Clinton above doesn’t explain the whole emptiness of the Left, nothing ever will.

Your post was one of the most revealing I’ve ever read on this board.

63

[quote]hspder wrote:
hedo wrote:
Why don’t you think about it and try again later.

IF she runs, I’ll write up a nice post on my thoughts on that.

In the meantime, think about it too – preferably forgetting about Hilary in particular and thinking about a Female US President in abstract.

What would that say about the US?
What would that tell Women all over the World?
What would that tell Asian and Middle Eastern reactionary cultures?
What would that tell liberal European cultures?
What reactions would that incite in each of the above cultures?

Think about it.
[/quote]

Interesting perception issues. Dramatic positive impact seems more like wishful thinking ,however.

I think most of the fly over states realize it’s more important to elect someone because of what they represent rather then because of what they are.

64

[quote]vroom wrote:
In regards to Hilary, I sincerely hope the Dems can get a better candidate. I really like her – more than McCain or Rudi – but I know I’m in a minority – most Americans really don’t understand the value of her qualities, nor the dramatic positive impact that having a Woman being the most powerful person in the world would have.

Americans can’t get past the “angry b*tch” image, so I don’t have the slightest hope she can win.

It is very difficult for a women to wield and exert power and not be labelled in the process. Society, sadly, appears not to be ready to accept women with authority.[/quote]

Or…women who lie…

(Liberals love to blame society…he he :slight_smile:

65

[quote]hspder wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
The point that I wish to make is that you are now being given a chance to tell us what YOU libs would do if you had your person in there. What are your ideas about protecting the country? All you seem to be able to do is to Bash bush. Well, I’ll tell you a secret: this has been tried before and has failed!

You will only get someone elected if you calm down, quiet down, and propose serious solutions to the serious problems. You know, something besides “Bush stinks…”

Well, where are Hillary’s ideas to solve problems?

We have ideas. We try to explain them. Hard. But unfortunately our solutions take more than 5 seconds to explain – unlike “lower taxes” or “smaller government” or “reduce entitlement spending”. We seem to lack the rhetoric skills of Republicans that allow them to reduce solutions to a sound bite. Even when they never really mean it, like Joe Scarborough said the other day (remember the last time any of the above sound bites actually happened under a Republican government?).

We learnt quite quickly that if it takes longer than 5 seconds to explain: better save your breath.

A certain Bill Clinton was able to make explanations unnecessary out of his sheer charm. He rarely had to explain anything. He just whipped up his public speaking skills and made people vote for him without ever having to tell them what his solutions were. It worked pretty well.

He learnt that with the best: FDR and JFK, who were even better at it.

Unfortunately, we haven’t found another Bill Clinton… yet…
[/quote]

Give it a shot…take all the time you need. Not your ideas. Ideas of the Democratic party. Please state what the leaders of the Democrats stand for not what they are against. Pelosi, Schumer, Biden, Hillary, any of them?

We’ll do our best to follow along.

66

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
singram wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:

(5) The country as a whole is far more conservative.

Not true. Your part of the country is more conservative. Come to Jersey. Its a different world.

While I agree Jersey isn’t as conservative as Tennessee,but I don’t think its liberal either.I lived in Middletown in Monmouth county.Real blue collar,working type people.The northern and western counties are pretty white collar republican and rural,which reminded me a lot of Tennesee.I just lived there for 2 years,but didn’t think it was a whole different world from a red state,just more cosmopoliton.

New Jersey is the most liberal state in the union, aside from maybe Massachusetts. However, we’re the only state that is completely controlled by Democrats, from the governor to the State senate to the assembly, even the two senators are Democrats.

And aside from that, I’ve stated alot that I want South Jersey to secede from New Jersey. They’re just a little…“different” down in the 609…[/quote]

Bush Didn’t lose NJ by that much if I remember correctly…I mean it was not a total wipe out.

Now Vermont is much more liberal than NJ. And I agree with you Mass is as well. I think NY is probably close.

67

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

Good post! The Dems bitch about the Republican war mongers, but forget who was president and who ran Congress from 1964-1968.

[/quote]

Thanks Headhunter.

After taking a careful look at all of the Presidents through history I don’t think that there is any question that LBJ was perhaps the worst President that we ever had!

68

  1. I predict that should a woman get nominated for the Presidency, it will be a conservative woman in the mold of a Margaret Thatcher. The idea of a liberal woman with the mantle of Commander-in-Chief is a little difficult to square, in particular in an age of national/international security concerns. I suspect there are way too many ‘Daddy’ issues on the table for a liberal woman to get elected - and so long as the US remains a superpower, that will probably be the case.

  2. McCain may or may not be the candidate in 2008 - but the notion that he is so ‘centrist’ is off-the-mark. In fact, he is more conservative than Bush in many respects. He may be a maverick, but is not nearly the moderate he is described as being. Also as a footnote, if McCain picks up steam for 2008, it will be interesting to see the MSM - usually adoring of McCain - lose their infatuation.

  3. Hillary has upset many wild-eyed lefties with her attempted shift to the center, and party primaries are very, very partisan affairs.

  4. Also, the man who garnered the second most votes ever - Kerry - looks to be running again, and I would not be surprised if Al Gore decides to run. Consider also that Barack “Barry” Obama might take advantage of his blossoming star status, and the field gets full very quickly. Add that to the fact that Hillary carries an awful lot of baggage that would be exposed long before she ever went up against a Republican.

  5. Hillary is a harpy - she does not exude confidence or charm or radiance. If she is going to overcome her baggage, she would need a generous helping of ‘cult of personality’, and I just don’t think she has it. Her speeches are dull, she doesn’t fill up a room, and she comes off as a shapeshifter rather than a true believer in her cause.

  6. So long as the Democratic party is dominated by the coastal elites and their legions of airheads and consultants, they won’t field a candidate and garner significant votes outside of the trust-fund, Volvo-loving, libertine sections of the country. Once the mighty Democrats could boast of being a populist party - William Jennings Bryan comes to mind - and now, regular folk with regular lives and regular bills to pay are slowly peeling away from the Manhattan/Bay Area ‘sneering latte’ crowd because of values politics. Populism is dead in the Democratic party.

69

Well, interestingly, this would imply that democrats are in fact perfectly able to “defend the country”.

You can’t have it both way either…

70

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

That’s pathetic. This means that you want someone who’ll trick the voters using his ‘charm’? Get you’re agenda done, not by explaining the facts but by con artistry?

This was how Hitler operated.

[/quote]

I don’t know what rosey, noble vision of Washington politics you believe in, but this is how every sucessful politician operates.

71

[quote]vroom wrote:
Good post! The Dems bitch about the Republican war mongers, but forget who was president and who ran Congress from 1964-1968.

Well, interestingly, this would imply that democrats are in fact perfectly able to “defend the country”.

You can’t have it both way either…[/quote]

Really Vroom, you and I both know in our hearts that Democrats are pussies and will never get into wars.

Of course, as long as you ignore WWI, World War II, and Vietnam.

72

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

Really Vroom, you and I both know in our hearts that Democrats are pussies and will never get into wars.

Of course, as long as you ignore WWI, World War II, and Vietnam.[/quote]

Take your own advice and don’t be a prisoner of your own times - since 1968, there isn’t room for Democrats like that in the party.

73

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

  1. I predict that should a woman get nominated for the Presidency, it will be a conservative woman in the mold of a Margaret Thatcher. The idea of a liberal woman with the mantle of Commander-in-Chief is a little difficult to square, in particular in an age of national/international security concerns. I suspect there are way too many ‘Daddy’ issues on the table for a liberal woman to get elected - and so long as the US remains a superpower, that will probably be the case.

  2. McCain may or may not be the candidate in 2008 - but the notion that he is so ‘centrist’ is off-the-mark. In fact, he is more conservative than Bush in many respects. He may be a maverick, but is not nearly the moderate he is described as being. Also as a footnote, if McCain picks up steam for 2008, it will be interesting to see the MSM - usually adoring of McCain - lose their infatuation.

  3. Hillary has upset many wild-eyed lefties with her attempted shift to the center, and party primaries are very, very partisan affairs.

  4. Also, the man who garnered the second most votes ever - Kerry - looks to be running again, and I would not be surprised if Al Gore decides to run. Consider also that Barack “Barry” Obama might take advantage of his blossoming star status, and the field gets full very quickly. Add that to the fact that Hillary carries an awful lot of baggage that would be exposed long before she ever went up against a Republican.

  5. Hillary is a harpy - she does not exude confidence or charm or radiance. If she is going to overcome her baggage, she would need a generous helping of ‘cult of personality’, and I just don’t think she has it. Her speeches are dull, she doesn’t fill up a room, and she comes off as a shapeshifter rather than a true believer in her cause.

  6. So long as the Democratic party is dominated by the coastal elites and their legions of airheads and consultants, they won’t field a candidate and garner significant votes outside of the trust-fund, Volvo-loving, libertine sections of the country. Once the mighty Democrats could boast of being a populist party - William Jennings Bryan comes to mind - and now, regular folk with regular lives and regular bills to pay are slowly peeling away from the Manhattan/Bay Area ‘sneering latte’ crowd because of values politics. Populism is dead in the Democratic party.[/quote]

Excellent post!

I have also thought that when we do elect a woman as President, it will be someone like a Thatcher, a conservative.

Unfortunately, the Democratic political elites on the coasts don’t seem to get it. Middle America which really makes up everywhere else is quite conservative, with old-fashioned family values. If you look up the county by county election map of the 2004 Presidential Election, you will see that the vast majority of the counties in the US were red.

74

The democratic primaries are going to be very interesting.

Does anyone detect any serious attempt to reform the party? Is it so bereft of ideas that it cannot change?

I hear a lot of “we didn’t get out our message” in 2004. Hint: There was no message.

I can detect little except the democrats hoping the Republicans implode so they “get their chance.”

Oh, take a peek at obama’s voting record. It’s so liberal it’s frightening.

kerry’s an insult. gore needs meds. Clark is a poor politician. rodham won’t win any Southern state. No chance in hell. I have a sneaking suspicion that the more speeches she gives, the less receptive people will become.

However, I’m going to do a little reading on Warner. The democrats stay in the wilderness if they cannot figure out how to represent Middle America and the South in general. I wonder if this guy has any potential.

JeffR

75

[quote]hspder wrote:

By the way, what do you have against Golda Mier?[/quote]

I didn’t mean to imply I had anything against her.

76

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

Really Vroom, you and I both know in our hearts that Democrats are pussies and will never get into wars.

Of course, as long as you ignore WWI, World War II, and Vietnam.

Take your own advice and don’t be a prisoner of your own times - since 1968, there isn’t room for Democrats like that in the party.

[/quote]

As far as Democrats that start wars on third world nations- I should hope there isn’t.

Doesn’t matter though, because your party seems to have a racket on them.

77

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

  1. I predict that should a woman get nominated for the Presidency, it will be a conservative woman in the mold of a Margaret Thatcher. The idea of a liberal woman with the mantle of Commander-in-Chief is a little difficult to square, in particular in an age of national/international security concerns. I suspect there are way too many ‘Daddy’ issues on the table for a liberal woman to get elected - and so long as the US remains a superpower, that will probably be the case.[/quote]

Nah, I don’t think an “Iron Lady” type character has that much of a better chance than a liberal. Sexism in the US is much deeper than that.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
2. McCain may or may not be the candidate in 2008 - but the notion that he is so ‘centrist’ is off-the-mark. In fact, he is more conservative than Bush in many respects. He may be a maverick, but is not nearly the moderate he is described as being. Also as a footnote, if McCain picks up steam for 2008, it will be interesting to see the MSM - usually adoring of McCain - lose their infatuation.[/quote]

I don’t know which definition of conservative you’re using, so I won’t disagree. However, what makes McCain interesting is his impecable ethics and the fact that he is NOT unabashedely pro-business. His morals may be far to the right, but the minorities are… minorities.

Don’t get wrong though: when it came to the poll, I’d never vote for him, precisely because of his right-wing morals. But considering that most of America is still white heterossexual Christians, he’d win by a landslide.

[quote]
3. Hillary has upset many wild-eyed lefties with her attempted shift to the center, and party primaries are very, very partisan affairs. [/quote]

Very true.

[quote]
4. Also, the man who garnered the second most votes ever - Kerry - looks to be running again, and I would not be surprised if Al Gore decides to run. Consider also that Barack “Barry” Obama might take advantage of his blossoming star status, and the field gets full very quickly. Add that to the fact that Hillary carries an awful lot of baggage that would be exposed long before she ever went up against a Republican.[/quote]

Very true again.

[quote]
5. Hillary is a harpy - she does not exude confidence or charm or radiance. If she is going to overcome her baggage, she would need a generous helping of ‘cult of personality’, and I just don’t think she has it. Her speeches are dull, she doesn’t fill up a room, and she comes off as a shapeshifter rather than a true believer in her cause.[/quote]

You’re on a roll man!

[quote]
6. So long as the Democratic party is dominated by the coastal elites and their legions of airheads and consultants, they won’t field a candidate and garner significant votes outside of the trust-fund, Volvo-loving, libertine sections of the country.[/quote]

What do you have against Volvos? They’re great cars, really! :slight_smile:

[quote]
Once the mighty Democrats could boast of being a populist party - William Jennings Bryan comes to mind - and now, regular folk with regular lives and regular bills to pay are slowly peeling away from the Manhattan/Bay Area ‘sneering latte’ crowd because of values politics. Populism is dead in the Democratic party.[/quote]

I don’t drink coffee. But I see your point.

What you forget is those values of tolerance and social liberalism are very dear to the left’s hearts. For the Dems to become populist, they’d have to shift right and adopt the same morals as the Republicans, and only differ on questions of Economy. Basically become so-called populist liberals, instead of so-called social-democrats. I’m pretty sure that’d do the trick for a while, but I’m also pretty sure that’d would create a void on the left that would be filled eventually with a party that would suck up votes from the Democrats.

There’s no leftist strategy that can really circumvent the fundamental problem: the majority of Americans define themselves as white, Christian, Heterossexual and morally intolerant of what they perceive as “deviant” behavior.

It’s pure hypochrisy for most but that makes it even more rabid, because people what to stick to their self-image beyond anything else.

You can’t win over this crowd CONSISTENTLY with any form of liberalism, be it populist or not. The only hope of the Democrats are people-charmers like Bill Clinton, who are still leftist at heart, but don’t sound like they are… and are able to get away with it for some periods every now and then.

78

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
vroom wrote:
Good post! The Dems bitch about the Republican war mongers, but forget who was president and who ran Congress from 1964-1968.

Well, interestingly, this would imply that democrats are in fact perfectly able to “defend the country”.

You can’t have it both way either…

Really Vroom, you and I both know in our hearts that Democrats are pussies and will never get into wars.

Of course, as long as you ignore WWI, World War II, and Vietnam.[/quote]

Hey…will you guys stop getting us into wars!

:slight_smile:

79

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
So where are the ideas? You just said you have them, then you say you can’t explain them in 6 seconds. Well, explain them in as many seconds as you would like. [/quote]

Do I look like a photocopier? Use the search engine and look for my posts on this forum. Alternatively, read here:

… it summarizes my ideas pretty well:

In general, contemporary Social Democrats support:

* Regulatory systems over private enterprise in the interests of workers, consumers and small enterprise.
* A Social Market Economy over a Free market, if not, in some cases and to some extent, planned economy.
* Advocacy of Fair trade over Free trade.
* An extensive system of social security (Though usually not to the extent advocated by democratic socialist's or other socialist groups), notably to counteract the effects of poverty and to insure the citizens against loss of income following illness or unemployment. (See welfare state)
* Government-owned or subsidized programs of education, health care, child care, etc. for all citizens.
* Moderate to high levels of taxation to fund government expenditure and a progressive taxation system.
* A system of industrial regulation (statutory minimum wages, working conditions, protection against arbitrary dismissal).
* Environmental protection laws (although not to the extent advocated by Greens).
* Immigration and multiculturalism.
* A secular and progressive social policy, although this varies markedly in degree. Most social democrats support gay marriage, abortion and a liberal drug policy [that's the group I'm in -- hspder], while others are either non-committed or openly opposed to these policies, although feigned opposition may be employed for political expediency.
* A foreign policy supporting multilateralism and international institutions such as the United Nations.

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Good ideas – like lower taxes and less government – are good ideas. If it were up to the Republicans alone, we would have both. [/quote]

Republicans have the House, Senate and the Presidency. At what point are Democrats stopping them?

The reason they have not been implemented is because it is impossible to do so in the USA. Our public dept is way too high, or spending is out of control and it’s impossible to get it back in control without some very unpopular measures. Furthermore, the lack of investment in education and the prevailing greedy-consumist culture has made it completely impossible to deregulate anything without causing severe problems – the general population is incapable of taking care of themselves financially (they are sunk in debt to their eyebrows) and too many American corporations have zero ethics and are just in it for short term financial gain, at the expense of everybody else.

[quote] steveo5801 wrote:
However, you cannot be serious if you deny that when Reagan cut taxes and increased defense spending He was able to pull the US out of the economic malaise that had plagued it for over a decade. Reagan’s tax cutting policies are responsible for the economic turnaround which Clinton then enjoyed during his time of fooling around with young girls in the Oval Office…[/quote]

That is not only low and uncalled for, it is completely false. Reagan’s successor, Bush I, HAD to increase taxes and reverse what Reagan did because Reagan’s policies worked short-term but would be catastrophic long-term. Bush I was the designated scapegoat. Bill Clinton “enjoyed” an economic turnaround because, mainly, he is intelligent and a great leader and managed to instill investor confidence and manage the debt wisely.

80

[quote]hedo wrote:
I think most of the fly over states realize it’s more important to elect someone because of what they represent rather then because of what they are.
[/quote]

Of course. I also believe that. But my point is not that we should elect anyone because she’s a woman. I’m saying it actually has some positive points about it (lead by example!).

I hope you are not so naive as to think that Condi Rice’s gender and skin color didn’t become an advantage for her after a certain point?

(not that there’s anything wrong with that)