»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Hillary Clinton
| The Alley |
|
Hillary Clinton |
|
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan 
|
. Again the media is going on about her as a presidential candidate, yet how do you divorce her from Bill? Do women want a woman who looks the other way as a role model in America? Of course, she may not have known all those years, (decades?), which raises other questions. At least no one was drowned . . . . |
||
| © Copyright 2006 John Pawlik - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
JesusChristPose Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa |
~ She is too divisive and will never become president. "Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself." |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I hope she gets the nomination. At least that will insure a republican in the White House. |
||
Mistletoe Angel 
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Hillary Clinton is a candidate that won't get my vote because, along with John McCain, I see both candidates epitomizing "political calculation" more than anything. Whereas with many candidates, while one can identify their political movements by their voting records, their movements are generally not immediate and more subtle, whereas with both Clinton and McCain, every movement they make is obvious, and thus feels so artificial, so opportunistic. There's too many things working against Clinton I believe for her to ever get elected: 1) a recent Newsweek poll listing each of the hypothetical 2008 contenders had 45% saying there's "no chance" they'd vote for Hillary, almost half the panel. 2) she's a senator, and no U.S senator has been elected to the White House since John F. Kennedy. 3) in relaton to Point #2, the "undecided" column in public approval towards Hillary Clinton is in the single-digits, meaning she has barely any opportunity to re-invent herself, and 4) she is not a stylish politician. What I mean by Point #4 is that she seems calculating no matter where she goes, no matter what she does to the American populace. Ever since she even began running for the U.S Senate seat in New York, pundits have been talking about her running in 2008 or 2012 from the very beginning and, if anything, it's Karl Rove who wants her to run more than anyone. Thus, every move she makes is deemed as exclusively related to building up to her run for president, and in result, she doesn't appear natural in many public appearances, and because candidates are frequently on television during presidential election runs, she'll appear incredibly unnatural. THAT'S why though Hillary Clinton might win the Democratic nomination, she won't ever win the presidency. My ideal Democratic presidential/vice presidential ticket for 2008 would have to be Barack Obama/Kathleen Sebelius. I can completely understand the concerns of Obama remaining quite new to American politics and thus a bit unexperienced for the job, but I frankly don't see a more admirable candidate out there at this point. Also, while it's true Obama is also a senator, he could very well get away with it because of his natural middle-ground likeability, and Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius would do a wonderful job at appealing naturally to moderates and independents and helping the Democratic Party continue to reject heading toward elitism and more toward economic populism and appeal to rural voters. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
yup, yup, yup, I hear ya...Hillary is an amazingly intelligent woman, whom I think is presently playing a more conservative role as of late. I believe she will run, and will win, if not come very close, depending on the other candidate. Can't tell you how many women I've heard say, They would vote for her simply because she is a woman....(shaking my head) I don't believe she will divorce Bill from her life, I believe she will look to him for support...the past is done...a new day arises...Bill is a genius...which might also serve her term as President if she wins...and by the way, despite Bill's meandering ways, there are still an awful lot of woman in this country still googly eyes over him. Say what you will, Bill did a pretty good job of getting this country out of debt. Also, I believe as always, people are desperate for change again, and they will vote flat out Democratic this time to make a statement... sigh, I'm still on the fence, and believe there is corruption in each party, not one is to blame...plus, they're all human, and they do make mistakes...trial and error...I suppose... I don't believe Hillary needs to divorce Bill from her life, as she is after all, her own individual and is not responsible or held accountable for Bill's mistake. She's stood by him all this time, I don't think she's going to leave him now...she's to strong a woman polically and very dedicated to herself and her beliefs... I see her as not needing Bill, but loving him... I don't like the idea of her being President, but ya gotta admire her intelligence and moxy...and perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps she's adopted some new stradigies in the past years...people do change? But thats just my opinion...nothing written in stone, so be kind guys.. thanks for this thread |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
I would hate to see a canidate win simply because of their gender... or their race. That really shouldn't be a consideration one way or the other. The personality and qualifications should be the basis of choice. Likewise, who we choose to associate with defines in part who we are. Her association with Bill is going to color her chances in part, as it rightly should. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
If Obama runs, I absolutely believe he'll win the Democratic nomination easily instead of Clinton, unless of course a major scandal or gaffe like "macaca" was for George Allen happens to him along the way. Firstly, Obama's home state of Illinois borders Iowa. While the former Iowa governor Vilsack has a likely shot at winning the Iowa primary, he doesn't have any name recognition beyond that state, and I believe Obama would easily win second place in that primary. Obama may likely get overshadowed by Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire, and in Nevada Bill Richardson might be the force to reckon with, but a hypothetical South Carolina primary is where things get especially interesting, where I think it'll be all John Edwards vs. Barack Obama. And while Edwards has intense name recognition in the region, I think his association with the 2004 Kerry ticket may raise skepticism about his ability to pull it off, plus South Carolina has both a big African-American and female population, two groups which especially love Obama right now. Also, while Clinton is easy to criticize at this point in the media, Obama hasn't made any significant mistakes that could hurt him at this point, and in fact a few pundits have been trying to disgrace him by making his name an issue, all because his middle name happens to be Hussein and his last name may sound close to "Osama". If Obama doesn't run, I think it's likely Hillary is the front-runner, but when considering all hypotheticals, I think Obama is actually the front-runner right now. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Why should her relationship with Bill affect whether people vote for her, if gender/race should not play a role? If I voted for Bush because I didn't like that John Kerry married into "ketchup money," wouldn't that be wrong? |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
Amy - gender and race don't determine your personality. Associations do. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
I would say that personality determines your associations, not the other way around. But is it really fair to judge someone by the company they keep? And what if the company they keep is varied? The company I keep varies from my boyfriend, who doesn't drink and abhors drug use, to one of my best frieds, who parties and drinks and uses drugs. I mean, who do you judge me by? My closest association would be my boyfriend, but I am not my boyfriend, and just because he doesn't drink doesn't mean I don't drink. And just because my friend does drugs doesn't mean that I do. Now, in Hillary's case, I don't necessarily see remaining with her husband through this scandal to be a detriment. I mean sure, maybe it's all political posturing and they really hate each other's guts. Or maybe she actually decided to forgive him and give him another chance. Is that such an awful thing, that we should disregard her as a politician because she honored her marriage vows, where he did not? |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
Good catch, Amy - maybe I would have been better off saying, "...gender and race don't define your personality. Associations do." The quote says we are judged by the company we keep. I think it's partially right. While those we associate with don't paint a complete picture of who we are (ie, you are not your boyfriend) they do represent evidence of the choices we make. If I make a choice to have a friendship with someone who uses drugs, then I am suggesting that I either condone drug use or am willing to overlook it. Of course friendships can and often are much deeper than such a simple statement, but the world at large isn't privy to my inner motivations and can only judge me by what they do have access to... which is the overt and evident choices I make. Whether right or wrong, people will judge us by those we associate with. It starts out when you go to school at a young age and will carry through life. It's a part of your world people can judge... and people sure do like to judge. Uhm, just thought of the TV show: Judging Amy.  |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
It is certainly true that Bill made more than a few mistakes. Overall though, I think Hillary probably tarnishes his name by association. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I agree with Christopher here (make a note to stop doing that!!) In Spanish they have a saying which, translated, means "Show me your friends and I'll tell you who you are". There's wisdom in that. As far as Hillary staying on to honor her marriage vows...you can't possibly believe that. That wouldn't sell to any member of the public. Remember that she was the one who went on national tv at the beginning of the Lewinsky fiasco and claimed. "I'm no Tammy Wynette. There would be no "stand by you man here" if this were true." Oh, really? Hillary is basically cut from the same cloth. Say whatever is best for the immediacy of the moment...truth is optional. I think enough people know that about her to keep her out of the White House. As far as Obama is concerned, Noah, he appears to be the only Democratic hope. Nobody wants Gore or Kerry, two previous losers, representing them. Obama is young, bright, charismatic and can give a good speech. I do find it a little odd that people are jumping on his bandwagon for only those qualities, though. At some point his qualifications will have to be dealt with....but, then again, maybe not. Reagen, Swartznegger, and Clinton all made it in with minimum qualifications so a good personality and nice smile might be enough, attributes that neither Gore or Kerrystein had.  |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
Just for the record, I'd wish like anything for Powell to run...even though it would never happen. Him I trust, he seems to be an honest, hard working man. Perhaps that's why he's faded away or been forced to do so? Anyone care to comment on Powell? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I don't know, Mike. It didn't keep Bush out of office. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
You could very well be right, Balladeer, at least considering the hypothetical candidates. Gore has even worse of a chance of getting elected than Clinton does. A new Gallup poll released this week, conducted between November 27-29, reveals 67% of respondents saying they would not like to see Gore run for president, versus just 31% saying they would. In addition, a Newsweek poll released the second week of last month shows 53% of respondents saying there's "no chance" they would vote for him, a lower net "no chance" number than only former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry. Finally, a Quinnipiac University poll conducted last month shows Gore with a mean rating of 44.9 on the "feeling thermometer" (it goes from 0-100, the higher the number being the more favorable someone feels to that person, and the lower the number unfavorable.) Only Kerry and Gingrich, again, have lower ratings. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
JesusChristPose Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa |
If one goes by intellect, political skills, courage, and integrity, then without a doubt, the choice for the next president would be Mr. Newt Gingrich. Bill knew that and used him for it. "Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself." |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Say what you want about Bush, Ron, but he has a record of saying what he was going to do and sticking with it, even in the face of opposing public, or congressional, opinion. Not sure how you can set up a comparison between his actions and the flip-floppers like Hillary. Hillary's going to have enough problems explaining why she voted for the war on Iraq. That's one big point where Obama is going to slam her big-time. No doubt she is already working on getting her excuses ready. With a coach like Billy, I'm sure she'll have them. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Again, Balladeer, I believe you're correct here. Clinton's main problem going into 2008 will be being too hawkish on the issue of Iraq among Democrats, while McCain's main problem going into 2008 will be just the same. And though I'm sure some will definitely admire the latter's consistency towards suggesting that more troops should have been added to Iraq to begin with, the idea of sending more troops in is very unpopular at this time as many feel it's too late, with only 1/6 of Americans agreeing with that proposal. Of course I think Hillary will many more problems than her voting record on Iraq as it is. As for Newt Gingrich and the GOP nomination......never gonna happen. Too many Americans (nearly 3 in 5) say there's "no chance" they'd vote for him according to the same poll I previously touched on regarding Gore and other candidates, and he has a "feeling thermometer" average of 42, which is higher than Kerry (39.6) but lower than Gore. Finally, while Democrats will certainly never take Gingrich seriously again, he's widely unpopular among independents as well. They make him out largely as a loose cannon it appears. I've even heard libertarians openly criticize him following some comments he made in New Hampshire last week at the Nackey S. Loeb First Amendment Award dinner, where he suggested a major re-assessment of First Amendment rights as we fight terrorism worldwide, especially through the Internet, adding, "This is a serious long term war and it will inevitably lead us to want to know what is said in every suspect place in the country. It will lead us to learn how to close down every web site that is dangerous." Of course a unanimous majority of Americans strongly believe that terrorists do try to find every way to exploit our democratic cornerstones to enact their deadly agenda on innocent people. However, a unanimous majority of Americans also believe that how we go about stopping them isn't by calling to "reexamine freedom of speech" in order to "get ahead of the curve before we actually lose a city, which I think could happen in the next decade." as that would literally be waving a white flag to those trying to harm us, and rather we must stand guard against those threatening our way of life, while also proving resolute, patient and disciplined in understanding that sacrificing or re-assessing our liberties is EXACTLY what our enemies want; that we must stand up like Patrick Henry did at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia in 1775 during the lead-up to the American Revolution, who famously proclaimed, "Give me liberty or give me death!", and say that no matter how many times our enemies attempt to attack us, we won't sacrifice our liberties, and our resolution will leave the most sour taste of defeat to the tongues of the terrorists. I apologize if I went off on a tangent here, but we are talking 2008 presidential politics here, and while I do believe that Gingrich doesn't actually intend to go medieval on our Constitution or anything like that, as I'm sure he loves this country very much like we all do, rhetoric such as this certainly can't help but make many wonder what his truest intentions are, especially after organizing the then-famous 1994 "Contract with America" which some now feel that with the likes of Jack Abramoff, Duke Cunnigham and William Jefferson coming about and generating a new culture of corruption in Congress, which part of the "Contract with America" promised to stop the corruption that the Democrats in Congress inspired, it was filled with some broken promises, and it's words like these that will leave even many Republicans wondering if they can ever trust him again. At least one prominent conservative blogger, Captain Ed, had this to say following Gingrich's statements: "Free speech and religious freedom did not cause terrorism; in fact, the lack of both causes it. If Gingrich wants to offer the hair of the dog as a solution, then he will find himself very lonely on the campaign trail for the next two years." And I think it's much more than just that that'll keep him from being elected, much the same reason Kerry and Gore have no shot. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I agree, Noah. Although I happen to think Newt is a very intelligent man I don't see him getting the nod, either. The saddest part of this thread is that we are all talking about the elections of 2008. We just finished elections of 2006. Sometimes it seems to me that all the press keys on is the next election. The minute one is finished, the next one comes into play, even though it may be years away. It's like what happens in between elections is secondary...the elections are what really matters. I find that sad. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
You're right, Balladeer, Gingrich is indeed a very intelligent man. Though I strongly disagree with him on many issues, and dislike his partisan posturings that led to Clinton's impeachment in the 90's (much like I fear the more outspoken opponents of the Iraq war will try to do on Bush) I still give him much credit for at least offering alternatives to the public forum as he did in 1994 with the "Contract With America"; at least stressing specifically alternative ideas for this country, and that's something that's unfortunately rare right now. Once you've gained great power and prominence, and then you end up getting disgraced in some form, it's exceptionally rare that same figure will ever reach that level of prominence again. That's why I believe it's a mistake that Trent Lott was elected as the Minority Whip for the GOP, just because he was put in a previously uncomfortable position and pressured by his own party to resign following statements at a Strom Thurmond birthday honoring, and why it would be a mistake of biblical proportions had Nancy Pelosi chosen Alcee Hastings to head the House Intelligence Committee when he is in fact an impeached representative, guilty of bribery and perjury. Though I disagree with Gingrich principly speaking, I do believe we need more people like him in essence that bring to the table clear and articulate alternatives, regardless of how they may be received. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
JesusChristPose Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa |
Whoever said Newt could get elected? He doesn't have a chance, however I believe he would be the best man for the job. And, as for the Contract with America. Clinton signed 7/10 into law. "Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself." |
||
|
JesusChristPose Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa |
After 911, does anyone think that a Muslim named Obama has a prayer to win a presidential nomination? "Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself." |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Obama Barack's not Muslim. |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
And it was the highly esteemed [sic] Senator Edward Kennedy who called him Osama Obana. |
||
|
JesusChristPose Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa |
He may be not Muslim, but with Obama as his name, he better make sure he gets that out into the open ... and then, for many people, it still won't matter. It sounds Islamic. "Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself." |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
True enough. |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Barak Hussein Obama, named in respect to his Nigerian father and raised in Hawaii with his white American mother and her family. Very little mention of that appears in any of his books. Not that it really matters, I reckon. When I first heard of him, I saw a black American from Illinois running for a Senate seat with phenomenal oratory skills and shining with charisma. And though I'm a Republican (Moderate Liberal), I'd vote for him if I thought he was the best candidate for the job of President. Howsoever, all I've heard regarding his parentage has been focused on his Nigerian father whom he met as a late teen on a trip to Nigeria, not the actual person who gave birth, raised, educated, clothed, fed, housed, entertained, supported and imbued with the characteristics which have carried him this far. Perhaps if he does run, I'll finally be able to see the person he's kept locked in the closet all these years: his mom. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Obama's mother isfrom Kansas. When Mr Obama was six, his mother, Ann, married an Indonesian oil manager and the family moved to Jakarta. The boy lived there for four years, but then moved back to Hawaii to live with his grandparents and attend school. Both his parents are now dead. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Obama’s Dad, a Muslim from Kenya, left home when he was two. His Mom remarried and went with her new husband to Indonesia where Obama lived during his salad years. It is well known that Obama, the teenager lived with his grandparents in Hawaii, where he attended the same school attended by Hawaii royalty. Yet little is known about who Obama’s step father was. But some say that he was an Indonesian national and a Muslim. Still, Obama must have attended school in Indonesia. Is it possible that as a young Muslim boy he went to a Saudi madrassa? Yes, that’s a possibility. The chapters in the Life and Times of Barak Obama always race ahead. It was during one of those chapters when we found him taking up community organizing in the Altgeld Gardens housing project on the south side of Chicago, when he converted to Christianity, formerly being secular. (www.brainsip.com). As a fledgling Christian, Obama didn’t join just any church. He joined the United Church of Christ. The United Church of Christ is very anti-Israel and supports divestment. It also sponsors speeches at its many functions by the Arab "Christian" pro-terror religious organization, Sabeel. Sabeel holds some of its biggest meetings in Chicago., (www.scoop.,co, nz/stories/HL05 10/500139.htm). http://www.e-thepeople.org/article/59701/view |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. I live in Illinois, have for some time. Obama suddenly appeared and now the media touts him as a presidential candidate . . . Are we talking the Democratic American Idol? . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Actually, John, that's a very accurate description. The Democratic presidential list, present and past, is filled with some of the most un-charismatic figures in history. Gore, Kerry, Hillary...the three combined have the personality of a parking meter. Obama gives a good speech, shows charisma and a very likeable personality, and immediately becomes a front-runner. It's definitely a personality decision. They know they have to have a likeable candidate, qualifications (or lack of) a side issue. It worked with Billy and hasn't with anyone else they have presented so why not? Simon Cowell would approve |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Obama agrees with you guys: quote: If he can stay level headed, this could become interesting. |
||
Mysteria
since 2001-03-07
Posts 18328British Columbia, Canada |
I am reading this with interest as I am very impressed with Obama. I think he will be smart enough to keep his head on, his act together, and might hopefully cause a few surprises. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "might hopefully cause a few surprises" What or who is the President of the United States supposed to be? . |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
"What or who is the President of the United States supposed to be?" I think he's usually male, white, and upper class, oh yeah, and Christian. Must have a well fitting suit. Background and/or experience not necessary due to the team of experts that will re-write it. Must be articulate, charismatic, and able to Hulahoop the truth, without getting caught with his drawers down. Sorry, not pickin' on your question, just supplying an answer from my twisted mind. Hillary? Isn't she the founder of the "Ex-First Lady's Wives Club?" "First Lady's ex-President's" Club? "First ex-President's Wife to be President" club? it's something like that. think about it. Hillary Rodham Clinton as President, and Bill as First Man (ever). divorce them? they are different, but obviously reconcilable. peace~ Reg |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
