Hillary

What are everyone’s thoughts on Hillary Clinton? Would some of you not vote for her solely b/c of sex (be honest)? Would some of you not vote for her just b/c she’s a democrat?

As an independant, I think she’s the perfect ticket for the Democratic party b/c she’s the perfect mix of moderate. Believes in Death Penalty, Pro-Choice, and not for Gay marriages. And realistically, many of American’s vote solely on these issues.

It seems her only problem may be that she’s a woman, and lets be serious: is midwest America ready for a woman President?

Your thoughts…

Cooper,

I think the US would be ok with a woman president, but I believe she would have to be conservative - a la Maggie Thatcher.

Something about the terms ‘liberal woman’ and ‘Commander in Chief’ doesn’t jibe well.

As for Hillary, I think regardless of her politics and newfound appreciation for moederation, she brings too much public baggage to the race.

Cooper,

You know what, she seals up another loss for the Democrats.

I’m serious. More of the same.

I honestly don’t think most women would be stupid enough to vote for her solely on her sex. There are a large number of women who are furious with her for staying with billy-boy after his exploits.

I fully expect her to be the nominee.

JeffR

This article by Joe Klein sums up my feelings. Here is the link if you want to go to the website.

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/klein/article/0,9565,1059000,00.html

Sunday, May. 08, 2005
I was having a fascinating conversation with a Middle East expert about the intricacies of Israel’s disengagement from Gaza when I noticed the fellow growing impatient. “Enough of this,” he said. “What about Hillary?” Welcome to my life. In airports, on checkout lines, at the doctor’s office: “What about Hillary?” (Everywhere except in Washington, where everyone “knows” she’s running.) I shrug, I try to avoid the question, I say it’s too early?and it is. But you want to know too, right? So here it is. I like Senator Clinton. She has a wicked, ironic sense of humor (in private) and a great raucous belly laugh. She is smart and solid; she inspires tremendous loyalty among those who work for her. She is not quite as creative a policy thinker as her husband, but she easily masters difficult issues?her newfound grasp of military matters has impressed colleagues of both parties on the Armed Services Committee?and she is not even vaguely the left-wing harridan portrayed by the Precambrian right. I also think that a Clinton presidential candidacy in 2008 would be a disaster on many levels.

It would doubtless be a circus, a revisitation of the carnival ugliness that infested public life in the 1990s. Already there are blogs, websites and fund-raising campaigns dedicated to denigrating her. According to the New York Observer last week, these sites aren’t getting much traffic?yet. But they will. I remember several conversations with Senator Clinton after her health-care plan was killed 10 years ago, and she was clearly pained?nonplussed by the quality of anger, the sheer hatred, directed against her. That experience would be a walk in the park compared to the vitriol if she ran for President. And while I’d love to see someone confront, and defeat, the free-range haters on the right, the last thing we need is a campaign that would polarize the nation even more. Indeed, we could use the exact opposite?a candidate who would inspire America’s centrist majority to rise up against the extreme special interests in both parties.

Senator Clinton’s supporters will say she is that candidate. And it is true that Clinton has far more leeway to run as a moderate than almost any other Democrat. Her repositioning on social issues has been overrated?she will have to do more than merely “respect” those who oppose abortion; she will have to propose creative compromises.

But Clinton is a judicious hawk on foreign policy and has learned her lessons on domestic-policy overreach. No less an expert than Newt Gingrich says, “Hillary has become one of the very few people who know what to do about health care.” Still, she has some very real political limitations. She has a clenched, wary public presence, which won’t work well in an electorate that prizes aw-shucks informality; she isn’t a particularly warm or eloquent speaker, especially in front of large audiences. Any woman running for President will face a toughness conundrum: she will constantly have to prove her strength and be careful about showing her emotions. She won’t have the luxury of, say, Bill Clinton’s public sogginess. It will take a brilliant politician to create a credible feminine presidential style. So far, Senator Clinton hasn’t shown the ease or creativity necessary to break the ultimate glass ceiling.

And then there is her husband, a one-man supermarket tabloid. A few weeks ago, the New York Post ran a photo of Bill Clinton leaving a local restaurant with an attractive woman, and the political-elite gossip hounds went berserk. Prominent Democrats?friends of the Clintons?were wringing their hands. “Do we really want to go through all that again?” one asked me. I don’t know?should the sins of the husband be visited upon the wife? Absent any evidence, the former President should be considered guilty until proved really guilty. But there is another problem: What role would the big guy play in a Hillary Clinton Administration? Would he reform health care? Does anyone believe that a man with such a huge personality would have a less active role in her Administration than she had in his?

“You mean she can’t run just because her husband was President?” a Hillary supporter yelled at me. “That is the most incredibly sexist thing I’ve ever heard.” Yes and no. My guess is that Hillary Clinton would roll into Iowa with an incredible, Howard Dean-like head of steam in January 2008, and then the folks?yes, even the Democratic base?would give her a very close look and conclude that a Hillary presidency would be slightly dodgy. The Clinton line in 1992 was, Buy one, get one free. We’ve already had that co-presidency?for its full, constitutional eight years. What’s more, I suspect there would be innate and appropriate populist resistance to this slouch toward monarchial democracy. There is something fundamentally un-American?and very European?about the Clintons and the Bushes trading the office every eight years, with stale, familiar corps of retainers, supporters and enemies. Bill Clinton was a good President. Hillary Clinton is a good Senator. But enough already. (And that goes for you too, Jeb.)

She would provide a huge boost for RNC fund-raising, as she does in every state she goes outside of NY or CA.

She probably was the most important factor for the re-election of Jeb Bush in his last campaign. His base was unmotivated (Jeb is a clown) until Hillary showed up to campaign, and then he ran away with it.

Well, ahh umm, being from the mid-west, ya know, we don’t really cotton to women in leadership position. We umm kinda like 'em home and in the family way.

And trust me, she has more baggage and issues than being female.

I don’t think she can win at this time. Some pretty amazing things would have to happen between now and the election – or the republicans would have to come up with a worse candidate.

However, the next election is still quite far away. I’m going to predict early, now, that we’ll have two things to watch for:

  1. Dirt that sticks.
  2. State of fear.

If there is some type of scandal that sticks to the republicans, or to their policies, then who can win as a democrat changes greatly. Perhaps as the Bush term comes to an end new information will come out. It has happened in the past.

If there aren’t any more terrorist attacks and peace starts to break out in the world, then people won’t be so fearful. I think people tend to get more conservative when they are in a state of fear.

Sigh, I’m not attacking anything. I’m not claiming that there are scandals out there to uncover. I’m not suggesting people shouldn’t be afraid of terrorism. Peace.

I look at Hillary Clinton about the same way I look at Howard Dean. Both very bright, both have strong opinions, both will never achieve elected national office!

It has less to do with her being a woman than it does her being a liberal ideologue. Can anyone name even one red state that would vote for her? I however can name a few blue states that might vote republican should she be her parties choice for the highest office in the land. I also believe her personal makeup to be offensive to most voters. Ever hear her become passionate about at topic? Her voice becomes shrill and her eyes bug out as if someone has assaulted her (not unlike the Dean scream heard round the world). It plays poorly everywhere regardless of your political beliefs.

She moved to New York in order to obtain a high elected post (Dean had another liberal bastion Vermont). New York happens to be about the only state which would take her seriously given her past performance with public policy, her liberal core beliefs and her very grating personality.

With that stated, I do think that she will be the democratic nominee in 2008 and I could not be happier!

I would never vote for anyone - man or woman - that displayed the nauseating set of cankles such as Hillary’s.

It makes me sick to see her in a skirt. Big ass calves that disappear into her shoes. I gotta go puke.

[quote]copper0521 wrote:
What are everyone’s thoughts on Hillary Clinton? Would some of you not vote for her solely b/c of sex (be honest)? Would some of you not vote for her just b/c she’s a democrat?

As an independant, I think she’s the perfect ticket for the Democratic party b/c she’s the perfect mix of moderate. Believes in Death Penalty, Pro-Choice, and not for Gay marriages. And realistically, many of American’s vote solely on these issues.

It seems her only problem may be that she’s a woman, and lets be serious: is midwest America ready for a woman President?

Your thoughts…[/quote]

I wouldn’t vote for her because I don’t trust her, or the moves she has recently made toward the middle, which I think are solely for the purpose of making her a more appealing candidate (as opposed to principles by which she would govern).

Trust is the key factor. She has been involved in some personal dealings that were very questionable. Second she basically has an “open” marriage with Billy, whether she knows it or not. The man’s a womanizer and she sticks by him as is.

Her politics are variable, depending on her polling and audience. Let’s face it she would embrace Vodoo if she thought it would give her a 51% majority. Her time has passed. 04 was her year.

All that being said…please run Hillary and pick Howard Dean as your running mate. I don’t know who the Republicans will have but I am pretty sure the Clinton/Dean ticket will go down in flames.

I don’t think a Clinton/Dean ticket will be a go. Everything I have read says the Clinton’s do not like Dean. She will probably pick Vilsack, Gephardt, or Byah. I don’t think it will really matter who she picks though. When the best Harry Reid can do is call the President names you know they are hurting for ideas. If they were smart, and when you have Pelosi and Boxer in your party that’s a big if, they would dust off Gingrich’s Contract with America plan and come up with some solutions to all the things they are screaming bloody murder about.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
copper0521 wrote:
What are everyone’s thoughts on Hillary Clinton? Would some of you not vote for her solely b/c of sex (be honest)? Would some of you not vote for her just b/c she’s a democrat?

As an independant, I think she’s the perfect ticket for the Democratic party b/c she’s the perfect mix of moderate. Believes in Death Penalty, Pro-Choice, and not for Gay marriages. And realistically, many of American’s vote solely on these issues.

It seems her only problem may be that she’s a woman, and lets be serious: is midwest America ready for a woman President?

Your thoughts…

I wouldn’t vote for her because I don’t trust her, or the moves she has recently made toward the middle, which I think are solely for the purpose of making her a more appealing candidate (as opposed to principles by which she would govern).[/quote]

I’ve been watching her closely, because I don’t trust her, and I’ve noticed her move to the middle as well. She will pander to whomever will vote for her.

On a personal note, I’d love to see a strong, female candidate. However, I don’t see it being a real possibility until 2012. The problem that I have with ANY candidate is their stance on abortion. I will never support a Pro-Choice candidate. I thought that Wes would’ve been a nice Dem candidate last year, but I couldn’t get past his stance on abortion. Like I said, this is on a personal note.

Hillary has a lot of baggage to deal with. I don’t think she’ll even make the ticket, so we’ll never have to make this decision on her candidacy.

I would love to see Hillary run for president in '08. That’s the best way to ensure another 4 years for the Republicans - no matter who they come up with for a candidate.

By the way, I’m from NY and I can’t stand the fact that she’s our senator (I fell nauseated now).

I wonder how the wicked witch of the left is going to wriggle her way out of this one. It’ll be real interesting if this guy turns on the clinton’s and starts spilling his guts.

Doom on you hillary!

May 10, 2005 – THE Justice Department case against David Rosen, national finance chairman of Hillary Clinton’s 2000 Senate race, is getting stronger, increasing the odds the aide will start cooperating with the government ? which could be disastrous for the senator’s ambitions.
Rosen has been indicted for deliberately reporting that the cost of an August 2000 Hollywood fund-raising gala was only $400,000 when the actual tab was $1.2 million ? a step that let Mrs. Clinton spend $800,000 more in “hard money” for her campaign. (After Hillary and opponent Rick Lazio agreed to ban soft money, both camps were scrambling to maximize their hard money on hand).

The New Orleans Times-Picayune has reported on a transcript of a Sept. 4, 2002, audiotape of a dinner between Rosen and Ted Kennedy in-law Raymond Reggie, who was wearing a wire. Most news accounts have left out the fact that Rosen implicated himself with each bite of steak.

On tape, the paper reported, Rosen “acknowledges that the gala probably cost far more to produce than he reported on federal campaign forms.” Rosen says of the fund-raiser, “We woulda never done it if the guy [Peter Paul] said he spent $2 million. So now he’s [Paul] saying he spent $2 million on an event that raised $1.4.” Rosen goes on to agree that “he may have” spent the $2 million.

Reggie, whose sister is Ted Kennedy’s wife, will get no more than five years in prison on bank-fraud convictions in return for cooperation and testimony at Rosen’s trial.

In the conversation, David Rosen calls himself a “guinea pig” for Clinton’s lawyers, noting that “the former Clinton White House wanted to hire, or to argue the [Rosen’s] case in a certain way.” The indicted former finance director said, “And I did it for them. Like, I bit the bullet and went in as a guinea pig and argued their argument for me. Instead of freeing’ and runnin’ and coverin’ my ass, I was a good soldier.”

Then Rosen adds, ominously, “So far it’s worked out, but I coulda done it a lot different.”

As the net tightens around him now, Rosen may indeed “do it a lot different” and begin cooperating with the feds in building a case that Hillary knew about the under-reporting.

When Rosen was indicted, the case seemed to be his word against Peter Paul’s. Given Paul’s criminal record, Rosen might have beaten the rap. But now he can’t be so sure. If he implicated himself on tape, the government isn’t relying solely on Paul’s testimony.

The Times-Picayune reports that the feds have “lined up several other witnesses who will testify that Rosen was aware the event cost far more than his reports indicated.”

The federal brief says that Rosen “became increasingly panicked as the costs began to spiral out of control. On some occasions, when news of yet another cost was revealed to him, the defendant literally threw up his hands and announced that ‘I did not just hear that,’ ‘Don’t tell me that again’ and that he did not want the subject discussed around him again.”

The feds also say Rosen directed one witness to “take thousands of dollars of line items” off a campaign report about the event’s costs and told a “confidante” that there was “no way” he could accurately report the cost of the fund-raiser."

Asked about the “guinea pig” comment, Clinton lawyer David Kendall said: “It’s no secret that counsel for Mr. Rosen” and the lawyers for the Clintons and for the Senate campaign committee were cooperating in their defense against Paul’s civil lawsuit. What he does not say ? and may have been the point of Rosen’s remark ? is that they might also be cooperating in his defense against criminal charges.

As long as any such arrangement helped Rosen and he had a realistic hope of acquittal, there was little chance he’d turn on the Clintons. But now, who knows?

On the tape, Rosen says he spoke to then-President Bill Clinton regularly ? at least once a week ? about the campaign fund-raising. What could the president have told him that the federal prosecutors would find interesting? We may find out.

She should have to prove that she is successfully past menopause first.

Also, we need to know how much stress she can take before she begins to cry and rant.

A woman like Thatcher is 1 in 10 million. She is the exception that proves the rule.

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
She should have to prove that she is successfully past menopause first.

Also, we need to know how much stress she can take before she begins to cry and rant.

A woman like Thatcher is 1 in 10 million. She is the exception that proves the rule.[/quote]

Are you actually stating that we should never elect a menopausal woman?

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Are you actually stating that we should never elect a menopausal woman?

[/quote]

Zeb - I have my doubts that you are supposed to even live under the same roof with them, much less cast a vote for one.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Are you actually stating that we should never elect a menopausal woman?
[/quote]

Zeb- I know you are old enough to have known a few. Don’t you think it would be risky?

I doubt anyone on here would vote for her thighness. If they are they be queer looking how to get their abds chiseled.