Hillary, President

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Atahualpa
What was the major problem with John Kerry again?

Badly-run campaign, and Senators don't have records that allow them to run for president easily.

[Admiral]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I prefer the new Gore to the old Gore.

That's 'cause the new Gore isn't running for president.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Admiral


That's 'cause the new Gore isn't running for president.

well said...

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Nixon lost in 1960 yet made a comback in 1968 so why not Gore? It's been pretty much proven that Gore actually won in 2000 but the Supreme Court played politics and choose a winner based upon party loyality. It really is disgusting how political the lot of them were when it came down to it.

You better check with the News service that went down and counted all of the ballots after the election. Bush won with around 300 or so vote. Get over it.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I prefer the new Gore to the old Gore.

I hear they are selling different types of Gore dolls on Ebay.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Atahualpa
What was the major problem with John Kerry again?

He was dry and boring, and didn't retaliate quickly enough to the Rove Smear Machine (AKA, the "swift boat veterans").

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I prefer the new Gore to the old Gore.

Which one was that again?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Sava

You need to drop your anti-all-Republican view at things, Sava .

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).

Anyway, anyone saying Gore is a better candidate than Hillary is drunk or dumb. Gore did not run a particularly good campaign in 2000. Just because it was better than Kerry's campaign doesn't mean squat. If you want someone to run, see if they can run a campaign like Clinton did. Hell, hire James Carville as your manager... he'll fight fire with fire.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Joseph
You better check with the News service that went down and counted all of the ballots after the election. Bush won with around 300 or so vote. Get over it.

Learn the facts yourself. Tens of thousands of voters in Democratic leaning districts were purged from the voter rolls on the grounds that they were ex-cons who couldn't vote. The fact was less then 1/5 of the people who's names were purged actually had a criminal record yet they were either told not to vote or had their votes invalidated since their name didn't appear on the voter rolls.

There is an appeals process but it takes months to complete and the registrar doesn't have to inform people when their name has been removed from voter rolls. Most of these people didn't know they were removed and the appeals process was so long it insured none of them could have their votes counted dispite legally having the right to vote.

How is that not organized electorial fraud?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Anyway, anyone saying Gore is a better candidate than Hillary is drunk or dumb. Gore did not run a particularly good campaign in 2000.

Being a good candidate and having a well-run campaign are two very separate things. I think that, provided he doesn't revert to RoboGore mode and, as you say, gets better campaign management, Gore would be a very good candidate with an excellent shot at winning.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Learn the facts yourself. Tens of thousands of voters in Democratic leaning districts were purged from the voter rolls on the grounds that they were ex-cons who couldn't vote. The fact was less then 1/5 of the people who's names were purged actually had a criminal record yet they were either told not to vote or had their votes invalidated since their name didn't appear on the voter rolls.

There is an appeals process but it takes months to complete and the registrar doesn't have to inform people when their name has been removed from voter rolls. Most of these people didn't know they were removed and the appeals process was so long it insured none of them could have their votes counted dispite legally having the right to vote.

How is that not organized electorial fraud?

Don't forget that you don't have to go that far. All the statewide manual recounts gave Gore the win, the smallest margin being by 2 votes. So if every vote had been counted that was cast, Gore still should have won the state.

[Drake Tungsten]

You guys need to stop reading Krugman. Seriously.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
You guys need to stop reading Krugman. Seriously.

That's right -- just smile and nod, pretending there never was a problem with the 2000 election.

[Barnabas]

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%.

[Admiral]

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%.

If Hillary ran, she would as a baseline get 45% of the vote. She would also have a very decent shot at getting more than that, and winning.

I think a lot of hate that has been generated in the far right wing is misogynistic. A perception was that she was controlling Clinton to try to pass radical left wing initiatives, which gave rise to two levels of anger. First, they hate the left (I'll take this moment to mention David Horowitz's book, Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left). Second, they hate the idea of a woman abandoning her traditional family role, and usurping the man's job.

But really, I do not know why they hate her. If we compare their ire with the ire at Bush, we see huge differences. People are mad at Bush because they see in the policy he has enacted, he is trying to enact, and the way he has/is trying to enact it, a radical shift to the right, and a direct attack on the New Deal. Hillary has not had a chance to earn such hatred.

I personally am worried about her as a candidate because I am worried about this hatred. Also, I fear that she could easily be portrayed as a New England liberal, which would make winning the midwest harder.

Finally, I'd be worried about this forum you'd allude to. I mean, "cease to exist as a nation in 18 months?" Do they intend to declare war on the Government? It sounds like the anti-Lincoln rhetoric. Very few Bush opponents claim that under him the nation will cease to exist.