Hillary, President

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Gingrich has critcized Bush on a number of issues. He's very willing to speak his mind on issues and not just be a party slave (it's what resulted in the 1994 Republican Revolution).

eh... that is all well and good...

Gingrich can do so to his heart's content now...

he is out of government now, he doesn't have to worry about pissing anyone off...

point being... he is a major scumbag...

if Tom Delay is a 10/10 on the scumbag meter, Gingrich is around a 7 or 8...

you know Imran... just when I start to think you might not be such a wingnut, you go and say something completely stupid like "I'd vote for Newt!"





I don't understand how you can like a good guy like John McCain, but then like a total scumbag piece of **** like Newt.

It boggles my mind.

Are you purposely trying to confuse me?

[lord of the mark]

I like Hillary. Very much.

Of course Oerdin and others probably think IM a right winger

I think Hillary's strength is her ability to appeal across the New Democrat - liberal divide.

Both Gore and Hillary have political failures in the past - Gore blowing the 2000 election - peace, prosperity, and a weak GOP candidate and he couldnt do better?

Hilllary OTOH mismanaged the politics of health care. Single payer would have been easier to sell than Hillarycare. When it became clear that hillarycare was in trouble, and it was too late to go back to single payer, she should have compromised for something less than 100% coverage - it would still have been far better than what we have now, AND would have been politically better for Dems. OTOH i think shes learned from that.

The details of issues will be argued in the campaign. As will issues of electability.


But at this point I lean strongly to Hillary - though I will look closely at Biden, Bayh, Warner, Vilsack etc. I doubt I will vote in the PRIMARY for Clark or the New Gore.

at least some of the dem race will depend on how things look in Iraq in 2007.

The results of the 2006 election will also matter. Assuming the dems do well, what types of dem candidates will have proven the most successful in 2006.

A big Dem win in 2006 will also mean more moderate/New Dem types in the Dem Senate caucas, with possible implications for the Dem direction.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Speculation on your part.

Well, duh... but since Gore didn't win, when he was the VP of an insanely popular President, leads to the speculation being very valid.

And Carville wasn't really busy. He was doing CNN shows and, IIRC, offered Gore his services.

Furthermore, by setting Rove up as this uber-manager who can't be outdone, you are just conceeding every Presidential election from now until Rove dies. He isn't going to stop working because Bush can't run anymore.

More speculation.

And no, there was never any idea stated that Rove can't be beat. Just that it has nothing to do with your "balls" theory.

[Adam Smith]

I think it’s a little too easy to dismiss conservative criticism of Hillary Rodham Clinton as misogyny. Less hysterical right-wingers have noted that she was involved in major policy decisions on a regular basis without ever being elected or confirmed. And when opposed by elected officials with differing views, Bill Clinton, with typical cheek, complained that these Evil Republicans were attacking his wife. But as Washington Post editorial noted at the time, if she is making policy decisions she is fair game, wife or not. It is true that other first ladies (Eleanor Roosevelt, Rosalyn Carter, maybe even Laura Bush) have had prominent roles, but I think this more explicit role, without ever being elected or confirmed, gives rise to some of the criticism. (Must have been real interesting to be in the Clinton White House with three different people who just know that they should be President.)

But I think a lot more people, moderates as well as conservatives, have a problem with her arrogance. A friend of mine (a democrat) worked for the Council of Economic Advisors in the Clinton administration. He recounted several occasions where they went into meetings with stacks of data and iron-clad analysis only to be told “That’s just wrong” before they even had a chance to speak. (Gore would also do this occasionally; President Clinton never did.) Its hard for me to respect somebody, left, right or center, who insists on their ideological course of action in spite of the facts. Not only do you wind up with bad policy, but it is also very difficult to work with such a person. As my friend put it “It’s hard to understand how, with 280 million people in this country, the Lord God sought fit to give all the intelligence, wisdom, and insight to just one person.”

I will grant you that Hillary Rodham Clinton is a good politician. She is trying to stay in touch with the liberal wing of the Democratic party, while moving more toward the center in several areas. She has most likely learned some things from her days in the White House and her time as a Senator. But I still wonder whether this leopard has really changed her spots.

[Admiral]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
I think it’s a little too easy to dismiss conservative criticism of Hillary Rodham Clinton as misogyny. Less hysterical right-wingers have noted that she was involved in major policy decisions on a regular basis without ever being elected or confirmed. And when opposed by elected officials with differing views, Bill Clinton, with typical cheek, complained that these Evil Republicans were attacking his wife. But as Washington Post editorial noted at the time, if she is making policy decisions she is fair game, wife or not. It is true that other first ladies (Eleanor Roosevelt, Rosalyn Carter, maybe even Laura Bush) have had prominent roles, but I think this more explicit role, without ever being elected or confirmed, gives rise to some of the criticism. (Must have been real interesting to be in the Clinton White House with three different people who just know that they should be President.)

But I think a lot more people, moderates as well as conservatives, have a problem with her arrogance. A friend of mine (a democrat) worked for the Council of Economic Advisors in the Clinton administration. He recounted several occasions where they went into meetings with stacks of data and iron-clad analysis only to be told “That’s just wrong” before they even had a chance to speak. (Gore would also do this occasionally; President Clinton never did.) Its hard for me to respect somebody, left, right or center, who insists on their ideological course of action in spite of the facts. Not only do you wind up with bad policy, but it is also very difficult to work with such a person. As my friend put it “It’s hard to understand how, with 280 million people in this country, the Lord God sought fit to give all the intelligence, wisdom, and insight to just one person.”

I will grant you that Hillary Rodham Clinton is a good politician. She is trying to stay in touch with the liberal wing of the Democratic party, while moving more toward the center in several areas. She has most likely learned some things from her days in the White House and her time as a Senator. But I still wonder whether this leopard has really changed her spots.

This is all just criticism. My one counter is that the 1996 election was a referendum on Clinton, and if people really were angry at his wife for her role in government, they could have voted him out of office.

[Sava]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I like Hillary. Very much.

Of course Oerdin and others probably think IM a right winger

I wouldn't classify you as a "right winger" per se... surely you are not a Bushy...

but IMO, you are somewhat conservative...

I can't recall if you've ever taken the political compass tests or anything...

you seem to be fond of the DLC Democrats...

that's about where I picture you politically... is my assumption close to reality?

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by Admiral
This is all just criticism.

As opposed to what? You asked (rhetorically?) in an earlier post why people hate her. Here are some considered reasons.

Originally posted by Admiral My one counter is that the 1996 election was a referendum on Clinton, and if people really were angry at his wife for her role in government, they could have voted him out of office.

That is a weak argument. First, many factors affect how people vote. Second, 49.9 percent of the voters could have been really angry at his wife, still allowing Clinton to win.

[Admiral]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
As opposed to what? You asked (rhetorically?) in an earlier post why people hate her. Here are some considered reasons.
\

My apologies for being unclear. I meant "just" as in "fair."

I am, however, still dubious about your reasoning engendering the level of hate displayed in Brachy-Pride's forum. Nothing in your post would make me think that electing her would lead to the dissolution of the United States inside of 18 months.

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by Admiral
I meant "just" as in "fair."

Got it.

Originally posted by Admiral
Nothing in your post would make me think that electing her would lead to the dissolution of the United States inside of 18 months.

I don't know much about abnormal psychology, so I really have nothing more to say.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Are you purposely trying to confuse me?

Yes

But I also like Newt Gingrich and really always have. He's a smart guy and seemed ok as majority leader... up until the end that is.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Sikander
You might want to get that confirmed (publicly) before you donate too many hours to working for her campaign.

Indeed. That's the plan.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sava
I wouldn't classify you as a "right winger" per se... surely you are not a Bushy...

but IMO, you are somewhat conservative...

I can't recall if you've ever taken the political compass tests or anything...

you seem to be fond of the DLC Democrats...

that's about where I picture you politically... is my assumption close to reality?

Id say youre close. Maybe a tad left of the DLC - I think many of them have a tendency to be too reluctant to consider income distribution a legitimate and fruitful issue for democrats. Although not all of them. But Im probably closer to them than to anyone.

[Adam Smith]

By "income distribution" do you mean
more progressive tax rates;
increased welfare benefits; or
income transfers to people who "deserve" them?

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Apparently you don't understand Florida election law, either, as hanging chads and dimples and marks are to be counted if a hand recount is underway. That's their law. The newspapers you mentioned only did recounts based on select counties--it was not based on a full statewide manual recount. Gore won all of those such recounts that were conducted after the SCOTUS quashed the official recounts.

Gore should have won by several thousand votes, had everyone's vote gone to the candidate they intended. He did win by a handful of votes, but the SCOTUS decided to end the recounts before every vote had been counted.

If I remember the Law in Nov of 2000 was if the election is closer than 2%, there will be a MACHINE recount only. I don't remember anything about a manual recount at that time. That is why Gore went to the FL SC to get a Manual recount. I sure don't remember anyone saying that under Fl law you can count dimple.
H3ll a voter could rest his hand on the maching and start to press, but have 2nd thought and said no, I'm not voting for this person and then go on. According to you that almost vote would count, when the voter did not want it to count.

The law you are stating is now the law.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
A quote from the other forum I mentioned, republicans really hate her.



"Bill was just a disgusting, buffoonish moron who couldn't control his baser instincts, and thus was nothing more than a sleazy, viscous slug.

Hillary, on the other hand, is a totally cold, vicious, conniving power-mongerer who has her sights set on the Presidency at all costs....she is ten trillion times more threatening than Bill could ever hope to be. Bill was just a slob----Hillary is dangerous.

If Hillary Clinton ever gets to be President of these United States, we will cease to exist as a nation within eighteen months."



Why do they hate her so much? And who do dems think she would be a bad candidate? The impression I get from reading message boards is that she would get few votes, like only 20%.

The freepers live in their own little world defined by what they hear on talk radio no matter how far removed from the facts that radio hack may be. Hell, I saw a link where the freepers were all claiming Plame oughted herself because she wanted to frame the President. They claimed she should be arrested for her "plot".

Those people live in la-la land much like another right wing forum some of the people here go to where they're claiming the insurgency is on its last leg. These poor deluded souls having been making the same claim for two years now yet some how the number of attacks keeps trending upwards. I guess when you ignore the facts and just believe the ideology it all makes sense.