Discussions
Would you vote for Hillary Clinton?
Posted by libdrone • 10/04/07 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: 2008 presidential election, Hillary Clinton
Since we had such a great discussion about Ron Paul earlier in the week, I thought it would be interesting to discuss the other candidates as well.
In another Discussion not too long ago I said that in the general election in November I would vote for the Democrat, unless it proves to be Hillary Clinton in which case I'd probably have to write in Mickey Mouse.
Hillary Clinton is perhaps the most polarizing figure in American politics at this time. She has legions of fans and legions of detractors, even among Democrats. My beef with the woman is that she is so deep in Wall Street's wallet pocket (see www.thenation.com/doc/20070604/berman/5) that she can not Possibly represent anyone but the CEO's of OutsourceourjobstoIndia, Inc.
How do you feel about Hillary? Lover her? Hate her? Would YOU vote for Hillary Clinton?
User Comments
-
I would never vote for Hillary Clinton. We saw what happened the last time we put the same name back in office. Also I don't think she would be the one running the show, because she sure as hell isn't the one campaigning...
Cameron-
we'll count that as one Hell NO! And I agree with you that we need to break this dynastic pattern that is more suited to an empire than a republic.
-
i also agree that we should break the dynastic pattern. where's the next jimmy carter???? -
Unless I'm mistaken (and, of course, aside from the personal controversy surrounding his "incident), isn't the Clinton administration one of the most respected in recent history? In terms of policy and what he did for our country.... That's what I've always thought. -
social citizen,
does that mean that you support and would vote for hillary. my major objection to her is that she is in Wall Street's pocket and the dynasty thing is secondary to me.
and imho clinton only looks good because both bushes were SO abysmally bad -
A) That made me sound really republican, which I am not in the slightest, I just don't feel Hillary stands for any Democratic values.
B) Clinton was great for our economy, the problem was he took the money to boost our economy from our defenses which in turn I believe allowed 9/11 to happen, among other things.
C) Hillary is not Bill
Cameron -
Well, Clinton kind of inherited the economy he was given credit for.
-
A.B.R
Anybody but Republicans.
With that said I don't have that much confidence in Democrats at this time.
I think Obama is great, but at the end of the day in the debates he looks programed. In a open forum he is amazing.
I am tired of the cookie cutter president.
I need a president that inspires me and is not looking to give away the farm
-
-
i'd vote for her ... now the *primaries* that's where i'm unsure who i'll vote for.
-
Do you consider yourself a Democrat, then, Ender?
-
more or less. it's not so much party-affiliation as the democrats tend to be closest to the issues i'm concerned with.
not that any of them get it "right" so far as i'm concerned, but since i don't run the world, i gotta be happy with close enough.
-
-
I think we need Hillary the most, and am surely gonna vote her.-
WHY do we need her, OM. what made you decide to support her?
-
a write in for Heinlein. I like that idea a lot better than the idea of voting for Hillary, ender
-
-
No, but I have had a feeling for some time that she is inevitable....-
why inevitable, Dane? It's hard to win when everybody already knows you and as many people hate you as love you. What's the dynamic in a campaign where so many people already have such strong feelings one way or the other?
-
But those are just stronger feelings of those who will fall on those lines anyways. I suspect there is enough support to win the primaries and then it's simply the function of the pendulum swing.
Of course you could all learn to be libertarians. You have thirteen months to practice. -
dane ... were good ole R.A.H. around (Robert Heinlein) ... i might very well vote for him ...
-
Ender, did you know that a big part of why he became a writer was because he failed in an attempt to get himself elected to the California State Assembly? -
-
yep, that was part of why i suggested him.
-
-
I would not vote for her in the primary election because I am sure that the best chance the Republicans have at taking the '08 Presidential election is to have someone running against her in the general election.
As Alan said, she is an EXTREMELY polarizing feature and just like there are a full 25+ percent of people who seem to be able to support GWB no matter what he does or says, there are at least that many people who would never vote for Hillary regardless of her policies and platform.
Whether I would vote for her in the genernal election would depend entirely on who she is running against.
The only way to move this country forward is to find a presidential candidate that can be supported by both their party's base (as opposed to the party's fringe) AND the more moderate members of the other party. Even if Hillary were to be elected, I can't imagine it would be by any higher of a margin than GWB won in 2004. We can't, as a nation, afford many more years of politics based on party lines instead of policies.
Whether I would vote for her i the general election depends on who she is running against.-
echoes of Dr. Dean stating "we need policies based on facts, not 'facts' based on policies. bravo, JD
and whatever happened to edu, econ, pea, mil ? -
i tend to agree techfun. as much as i have liked some of her "pet issues" ... i'm afraid that she will simply be too polarizing. i'm tired of the extreme fighting that is going on in the country right now. it's exhausting and non-productive.
-
-
No way! Absolutely no, I will not vote for Hilary Clinton.-
a moment of rare agreement for us Godzilla. Thanks for chiming in.
-
-
The only way I'd vote for Hillary is if she stops by my house, sits at my kitchen counter and hashes over some things for a few hours with me. If we can find some common ground and if she can impress me in person, I might change my mind about her.
In other words, uh... No.-
What I find interesting, Marisa, is that on the Ron Paul thread we saw a lot of posters who wrote fairly long and detailed considerations of their motivations and reasoning before concluding how they would vote. On this thread we are seeing mostly just short answers. so far I count 7 No or No Phuquing Way votes and 1 We need her, but didn't answer Why? Apparently Blog Catalog participants, or at least those online and reading threads right now are Not polarized at all. We just plain don't want to vote for her.
But the other question, that no one has taken a stab at so far is:
What are the dynamics in a race where most all of the voters already know her and about half like her and about half dislike or utterly loathe her? I have some ideas but I'd really like to here someone else's analysis before I go into them. Mark? JD? Anyone want to take a crack at this question? -
If Hillary gets the Democratic nod, I believe you'll see some Dems jumping to the GOP candidate (providing it's someone they can half way connect with) and more than the usual number going independent. And if Hillary is there, it might be the year that Nader really makes a dent in the numbers.
I think Hillary will have the most difficult time against Rudy due to his more liberal stance on social issues. If Rudy is the GOP candidate, the whole race will depend on whether the religious right backs him or not. The only way they might is if he's up against Hillary.
I just re-read what I wrote. It came out right but it sure strikes me as an interesting situation. -
Marisa,
>>if Hillary is the Dem a lot of voters who usually go Demo will defect to Republican, 3rd party, blank ballot etc
BINGO!
You have made the point I've been trying to lead this discussion to. There are far too many Democrats who are just plain not going to vote for her. Period. Some of that may be sexism as cooper suggests but I honestly don't think that is the major part of it.
If Hillary is the candidate we get to relive every trumped up bullshit scandal from the Bill years, lose a major chunk of the Democrats base and energize the Republican base, even if they don't like their candidate.
Election CAN NOT (shouting intentional) be won without the party's base and Hillary CAN NOT unify and hold that base.
Nominating Hillary in the primaries, imho, is the ONLY WAY the Democrats could possibly lose this time. And it totally kills me that so many well-intentioned people utterly fail to grasp this. -
yep. when i first started hearing real buzz about hillary for prez, i thought, no way ... that's a sure way for the dems to lose. then i started hearing all of these polls that suggested she was somehow "popular."
i'm not sure that i buy her being a popular choice.
and i think that anything less than a true popular choice at this juncture is a really really bad idea.
-
-
By the way, it's a little early-on, but yes...I would vote for Hillary.
-
I would prefer Obama or Edwards or Kucinich, but if Hillary gets the nod, she gets my vote. It's just that simple. Not another Republican, period. -
First off no one runs their own campaign - what planet do you live on?
I'm not fond of dynasties either and I think the whole political machine needs to be revamped, but that having been said I would vote for her if I had to knowing full well that she - like most major contenders - is now playing a game in order to get the most votes she can. I find men are very hard on her as are women who are of the old older.
I would prefer to have seen Obama step up to the plate and and keeping my fingers crossed that he still does., but so far no go. -
No; she believes Jack Thompson's "video games cause all problems" horse-shit. Fred Thompson ftw-
oh lord, anyone who buys into the entertainment-media-of-your-choice causes all bad things needs to be beaten.
there are REASONS that people watch violent movies, play violent video games, listen to violent music. it doesn't MAKE them violent, it reflects a portion of their personality. some people can use it as an outlet to deal with real things they've seen. some can use it to uphold their belief in the good guys always win. others, already cracked thru experience, brain chemistry or both, use it as a pattern for the crimes they would commit anyway.
bah. i heard the same damn crap about D&D back in the day. poppycock. -
I play D&D, Halo 3, GTA, and listen to Rock and Roll. Cue the "oh snap!"
-
I don't think that should be a reason not to vote for her. Its not like she could pass a bill to ban video games lol. If you like everything else about her that would be a silly reason not to vote for her
-
-
well, are we talking primary elections here or the "final test" election? Who are the opposing runners in this election? (what i mean by that is, if we're talking about the november '08 final election, who is she up against?)
for me it is about the platform and what i *think* the candidate will actually stick to.
Hillary is more likely to back health issues i'm interested in.
Depending on how things come about, she is more likely to aid rather than hinder gay marriage/civil partnerships, whatever.
However, all of this also depends very much on how the senate and congress are at the moment of election. you can't spearhead these intense issues through without a LOT of freaking backlash. hell, just look at what happened to JFK.
i would rather have someone that i thought could play the political game well. i think hillary *can* do that now ... i don't think she will be really given the chance because there are simply too many polarizing opinions about her (based in rumour, fact and "i don't wanna woman").
if she is the democrat running in november, i'll vote for her ... but i will be very very very worried about what that might mean for our nation as well.
was this the kind of longer comment you were originally thinking about?-
great post, ender. and you're absolutely right that to discuss the dynamics of the general election campaign we would have to know who the republican would be.
But I want to be very clear here. I am a fag and a feminist. I would love for us to have a woman president. Just not this one. I agree with the argument that JT made that we need someone who can work with Congress and actually get things done but I honestly don't believe Hillary would be able to. My personal choice in this horse race is John Edwards. He has been spending a ton of time and much of his money in iowa and that is not a bad strategy and my ideal scenario would be Edwards/Obama v Guillani/Lieberman...oh wait he is not an official Republican yet...so Edwards/Obama v Guillani/Brownback in which case the Demos clean house, no contest where as if we end up with Hillary/Richardson v Thompson/McCain we end with another squeaker, which we Can't Afford
So my question to the Hillary supporters in particular is how do you see her managing to win in the general? -
well, i'm with you on that to be sure. i really worry about what a polarizing president she might be.
as for edwards, yes, i really like him a great deal. much more than most candidates in recent memory. i also really like obama ... but i'm not sure the country is quite ready for him, either.
-
-
I will vote for her in the primary and in the general. In fact, my dad who is a Republican also plans to vote for her. I don't trust any politician (Democrat or Republican) because they are all liars. I'll vote for her because she is as tough as you can get (much more so than her husband.) You have to be tough to get things done in this world. I also like what she has to say about health care, national defense, and education.-
i do agree that she seems far more tough than her hubby ... and for the first time i could see the reason for the age requirement for the presidency ... i almost wonder if another 5 or 10 years would have instilled any more back bone for bill ...
-
-
No, won't vote for her. She is so entrenched in special interests from all the years of her husband's presidency. The Clintons have also demonstrated very deep corruption during their administration. She is part of the "Good old boy" network. We need someone fresh in the white house, without 20 years of special interest entanglement.
Not to mention her socialist policies would bankrupt the country. Charity belongs in the hands of people, not government.-
what's really interesting to me about your post, dota, is that we are light years apart in political philosophy yet we both are in the Absolutely Not column on the Hillary question. If she can't hold her base and can't draw cross-overs where the heck can she get a majority from. Hillary is an utterly losing proposition and it frightens me that so few people seem to recognize this.
-
Dota, im curious about the "deep corruption" of the Clinton years. Lots of and lots of investigations by the Republican controlled congress found nothing actionable except for some lies about his sex life.
Not to single you out, but I hear people talk about the corruption under Clinton (often from people who supported Reagan/Bush I through Contragate) and nobody seems to be able to give specifics. They just have a 'feeling' that the Clinton White House was more corrupt than other administrations but can't back it up with any verifiable details.
And I "heard about it from Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or Ann Coulter or Bill O'Reilly" doesn't count. -
Okay techfun, here are some facts of the Clinton administration, back when you *didn't* watch the news and America was a Bush-free utopia :-)
These statistics come from a liberal source:
- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court
From the Progressive Review...a left leaning site. -
Pretty impressive list but you said deep corruption so lets look at the list.
The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance. The key word here is personal, has nothing to do with political corruption.
Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates - Friends and associates? By what criteria did we come up with "most"? So many Reagan and Bush friends and associates were convicted of fraud and other things involving both the Iran-Contra stuff and the savings and loan problems. Either way, it has nothing to do with corruption in the Executive branch per se.
Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation - Bogus item listed for its connotative value where people fail to remember the people under criminal investigation who turn out innocent with no charges filed. Clinton headed was the most heavily investigated administration in US history, and not just "official" investigations. Look at the money spent on the "Arkansas Project", not just Scaife's $1.8 million "to unearth damaging information about President Clinton." [ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkansas_Project ] this is also the reason behind more of the "friends and associates" were targeted.
Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify - More loaded and biased wording - "flee the country"?? Many people were aware of the extraordinary lengths the Republican controlled congress was going to try to take down Clinton, particularly after he won the second term, so people extricating themselves from that situation to avoid being targeted themselves may have been a factor. (See McCarthyism)
Most number of witnesses to die suddenly - Die suddenly of what? Perfectly healthy people dropping dead tend to result in autopsies and criminal investigations that would find foul play a factor even if the perpetrator was not found.
To be Continued -
First president sued for sexual harassment. - First President to come into his middle age when sexual harrassment would be charge in a law suit. Again, has no bearing on a charge of deep corruption in an administration.
First president accused of rape. - Innocent until proven guilty. I accuse Bush of passive genocide in Darfur. That doesn't mean he's guilty. But again, it has no bearing on political corruption. It's another thing to come out of the Arkansas Project. What people will do for 15 minutes of fame should not surprise anyone. If those rape charges had a chance in hell of holding up in front of a grand jury he would have been tried for it like any other defendant. I have great sympathy for women who have been raped who face our criminal justice system and I hope more women in the future find the courage to come forward immediately when something happens. Speaking up years later exactly when people are offering money for dirt on the person they accuse does a true disservice to women everywhere.
First first lady to come under criminal investigation - See earlier comment about investigations not equaling guilt.
Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case - This one I'd say counts at least in part. And, if not repealed or found unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court, the newer campaign finance laws should prevent this abuse in the future. -
First president to establish a legal defense fund - See: The Arkansas Project ad the fact that he's not insane. Presidents do not sacrifice the right to representation in court the last time I looked. This is another item without meaning but with very loaded semantic value.
First president to be held in contempt of court - Yep! Our legal system works. When he did something wrong he got caught and was held in contempt. This fact alone should have prompted you to remove all the "investigated" items from the list.
Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions - Why isn't this part of the illegal campaign contribution case? It seems to be here just to pad the list.
Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad - See prior item.
Almost Done! -
This last one is cool because it's kind of a mind f*ck. To get the real negative hit from it it requires you to not know the true context and procedures involved. It also not know much about the life of prior presidents before they took office for the full effect.
First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court - The Supreme Court followed its standard rules in the Clinton case by honoring his suspension from practicing law for 5 years in Arkansas. This is standard process and happens to hundreds of lawyers per year. This is a procedural step they take and is not based on any kind of vote or action by the justices. Most people would not know that from the statement you included on the list. It looks like two events but its actually one. The state court disbarment was the basis of the supreme court. Also, the way most people's minds work, they would consider this a big deal that one out of many presidents was disbarred. Only 24 of our presdents have been lawyers, and only 8 of them advocated before the Supreme Court. The phasing also surprises me because "Former President Clinton asked to resign from the U.S. Supreme Court Bar on Friday rather than face a threatened suspension. - archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/11/09/clinton.bar/ BTW, Nixon was not disbarred by the Supreme Court despite being disbarred in NY because he resigned from the Supreme Court bar before action could be taken.
There are lots of things I don't like about Clinton and his policies while in office, but "deep corruption" isn't one of them. -
Like Dota, I have my own reasons for disliking Clinton.
Specifically:
- Clinton's refusal to raise the CAFE standards gave the overseas car makers a 8 year head start in terms of hybrid technology and fuel efficiency improvements. This may turn out to be one of the biggest factors in the decline and fall of US auto manufacturing.
- Clinton refused to stand up to Saudi Arabia after the bombings in Riyadh and Dharan. He put energy security ahead of justice just like Bush did when invading Iraq.
- Clinton failed to take early action to avert the genocide in Rwanda.
- Like George H. W. Bush, he pardoned people who shouldn't have been pardoned.
- He should have been a man about the Lewinsky stuff. He could have saved the nation a lot of time, money, an drama by 'fessing up when he was first asked.
- Don't Ask, Don't Tell
- Clinton considered including rules labor rights in the Seattle WTO talks, but backed down at the last minute.
-
Wow, applying your criteria to Bush makes him an unspoiled lilly! I have to say I read the above with the revulsion of watching OJ walk free for murder.
We're are only going to go downhill by electing politicians who feel that any behavior is okay as long as you don't get convicted. Republicans in DC are spoiled by special interests too.
We need someone fresh. -
And to add my personal unforgivable Bill Clinton outrage:
Early in his campaign Bill met with a small gathering of rich gay activists in Los Angeles. He was totally feeling their pain and told them point blank that they were part of his vision for the country and would be looked out for in his administration. This incident was reported at the time in The Advocate and was a BIG part of what got the man my vote.
So his gets into office and that obscene, 'Uncle Tom Niggah' Colo-Rectum Powell pitched a fit and screamed that discrimination against gays wasn't Like discrimination against blacks and Bill kissed his black ass and gave us Don't Ask, Don't Tell which was a swift kick in the nuts to every queer person in this country. I admit that I had a job that did not get outsourced to India and thus propered during the Clinton years, though even then Clinton was laying the groundwork for the mass off-shoring of decent jobs we would see under junior.
I repeat, Bill looks good ONLY because the surrounding Bushes were so incredibly BAD.
-
-
I think that I would not vote for her. Before she ran for the Senate, there was talk of her running for a Senate seat from Chicago. Had she done that, I would have not only voted for her but actively supported her campaign. I would not vote for her for President for two very disparate reasons.
The first is that I think she's the wrong candidate for "first woman President". She comes with too much baggage and too many high-powered people who are already gunning for her, and the first woman (or minority or whatever new class of person) in that office is already going to be under dramatically magnified scrutiny. Any chinks in the armor will be imputed to "women in office" rather than just to the individual, and Hillary comes far too pre-chinked for that to work out well for posterity.
The other reason is her reversal on the 2005 bankruptcy reform bill. Her conversations with, among others, Elizabeth Warren when the earlier version of that bill was in play and her arguments to her then-President husband in 2000 make it crystal clear that she fully understood the negative ramifications of the bill, the increased costs for everyone concerned, and the extreme unlikelihood of it serving any of its stated purposes years before she voted to pass it. -
I have no idea who I'll vote for in the Democratic primary. It's still early days.
-
No. I wouldn't want to see any of her own soiled dresses. -
I guess I'm overestimating the Democratic line. I didn't honestly expect to see many Democrats off the farm to avoid voting for Hillary.
Personally I don't care a bit about most of the issues raised about her. My objection is based simply in the fact that she is a raging socialist and I am a raging capitalist. On the issues of economics we may both be a little further in our respective directions than might be completely prudent.-
"Raging socialist"???
Two problems here: Do you have any idea what her policy stances are? Do you know what socialism is? -
To both accounts yes.
-
-
I won't be voting for H-Rod. Hillary is from the upper class and is a career polician. I don't trust anyone who's life revolves around getting to the white house. I believe that our leader should be one of the normal people that live and breathe in american air. She breathes in more expensive air, manufactures her look and her personality and is overall untrustworthy like most political figures of our time.
Bring back someone like honest Abe or Andrew Jackson, hell even Jesse Ventura would be better because he wouldn't lie to us.-
But can anyone who's life is not orbiting the presidency hope to actually get there in the modern political climate?
-
Excellent point, Dane. I think it is extraordinarily unlikely.
-
And can a normal citizen function in the White House if they actually got there? And has this ever been the case in our history?
Edit: I mean has there ever been an average middle-class citizen in the White House? -
Lincoln, Nixon. Neither were from the "upper classes". But things have changed considerably since either of those times. And it can be argued that neither remained in the "class" they were born to until they became presidents, so possibly they don't serve as real examples.
-
And Nixon encountered problems to a great degree because he didn't have the polish and the interpersonal know-how to function comfortably in the position.
-
-
I thought both Roosevelt and JFK were from the upper class. Hillary actually came from a middle-class family.
-
I'm with Dane on this one. Libertarian, for the most part. I will not vote for hillary clinton. She is for maximizing government subsidies of all forms (thus handicapping those not subsidized and making those who are subsidized dependent on the government). There is a reason most Americans (carbon content) consists of Corn and Soy ( www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet.fitness/09/22/kd.gupta.column/index.html?eref=... ). Guess which products get government subsidies?
Anyway, I am also staunchly opposed to Hillary's Health Care plan - or any 'top-tier' universal health care plan. Ever since the government got involved in health care, it has only gotten worse. See "Lowering the Cost of Health Care @ www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul339.html
A quote from that article:
"While many in Congress are happy to criticize HMOs today, the public never hears how the present system was imposed upon the American people by federal law. As usual, government intervention in the private market failed to deliver the promised benefits and caused unintended consequences, but Congress never blames itself for the problems created by bad laws. Instead, we are told more government – in the form of “universal coverage” – is the answer. But government already is involved in roughly two-thirds of all health care spending, through Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs."
If government intervention is the problem, why are we being 'sold' that more government intervention is the solution? -
"While many in Congress are happy to criticize HMOs today, the public never hears how the present system was imposed upon the American people by federal law."
How so? -
Taken from that article:
"We should remember that HMOs did not arise because of free-market demand, but rather because of government mandates. The HMO Act of 1973 requires all but the smallest employers to offer their employees HMO coverage, and the tax code allows businesses – but not individuals – to deduct the cost of health insurance premiums. The result is the illogical coupling of employment and health insurance, which often leaves the unemployed without needed catastrophic coverage."-
There doesn't seem to be any logical connection between this law and the assertion originally made in the article. The current HMO system was not imposed by that Act--the law simply mandated that employers with more than 25 employees offer HMO coverage as an option if requested. The criticism leveled against HMOs relates to the assembly-line style treatment of patients, the inability of a patient to go directly to the doctor who can treat his or her problem without first passing through his primary care physician, the tendency toward ordering certain tests or drugs based on ownership of equipment and relationships with companies rather than the actual medical needs of the patient, and a host of other operational issues that have absolutely nothing to do with the law cited here.
-
Spot on MadameX!! Health care is the one political issue that can get me cranked up. I actually just posted an entry on my thoughts about this issue.
(One of the few times you'll ever see a serious post from me....lol) -
and it's a very eloquent post from him at that!
-
-
I think that the discussion of Hillary is far from over and have posted a long reply to this Discussion on my blog at
libdrone.blogspot.com/2007/10/on-blog-catalog-all-political-roads.html
On Tuesday, I will be starting a new Hillary thread over in Skilled Political Debate. Don't be put off by "Skilled". It just means you have to argue logically and treat fellow participants with courtesy and respect, just as you would want to be treated. A number of moderators are on hand to ask and answer questions, move discussions along and (in very rare cases) to delete a post that is So far out of line that leaving it in would wreck the discussion.
Please read my full comments over at The Thin Red Line and tune in on Tuesday for the next big Hillary debate.-
Hillary is no doubt the brightest candidate among both the Republican and Democratic fields. She was the top of her academic class and the most influential First Lady in the history of the U.S. People used to underestimate her debate skills but now.....Obama & Edwards are overrated. Both are supposed to be great debaters but they were trumped by Clinton in the debates. They looked nervous and displayed poor body signals.
-
-
why not she is smart and more social -
read the blog post, blacksky, I make it very clear and specific.
-
Politicians like Bill and Hillary Clinton are mere puppets who stuff their pockets while bamboozling the American public...
Research conducted by The Planet Earth Peace Party shows Oprah Winfrey ahead of Hilary Clinton....
www.planetearthpeaceparty.com/tag/polls/
If the puppeteers pulling the strings want the Republicans to remain in power Hilary would be the candidate most likely or best suited to take the fall for the democrats....
If the puppeteers pulling the strings want the Democrats to be in power a ticket involving Gore and Obama would be their best bet....
Despite the aspirations of the puppeteers and their puppets the American voters do actually have the final say....
If only their was a political party or presidential candidate truly worth voting for...-
If only their was a political party or presidential candidate truly worth voting for...
Ain't _that_ the truth.
-
-
The chances are high that I will vote republican again.
-
Hell no. God help us all, if the red queen becomes president.-
may I ask velvet whether you consider yourself liberal or conservative, republican or democrat or however you define yourself and what your reasons are for saying Hell NO to Hillary?
-
A right-wing radical in Republican clothes?
-
-
Not at a strip bar! Brrrrrrrrrrr.... bad visual. -
Clinton !!! I want Clinton back !!! good days
-
oh pooh. Here I've gotten thirty six digs and lots of hits on my rant about the War On Drugs but NOBODY, here or on my blog wants to Talk about what I said. It's like the very subject is toxic to bloggers and discussions as it is to politicians. So here I see the Hillary thread popping back up and my ears perk and I'm all ready to talk politics with Somebody finally, even if it isn't my brilliant diatribe on drugs. and find the The Three Stooges throwing a pie at me. Feh.
-
I read your blog post and posted a brief reply to your group posting, but the blog post wasn't what I was expecting based on the topic posted in the group. I was expecting more focus on the issue of how political candidates are backed into a corner on certain issues like this one, because unpopular truths don't win votes and complex arguments are lost in the sound-bite culture we live in. That, I think is a very real problem that any politician with honorable intentions faces today. I'm still debating about responding to the "prohibition" piece, but I fear it will take another comment as long as your post.
-
What about a sytem where hospital don't look like a business.....
-
it sounds like you would have written a very different piece with the same title, and one I would be very interested in reading. I'm sure you realize also that I am deliberately being provocative and invoke controversy to draw an audience to my ads and if next week Ron Paul is no longer something lots of people are digging and searching for I will probably be writing with equal wit and passion about someone or something else. and yet some of these issues are of real importance and I relish the chance to discuss them in earnest here even as I am selling them loudly on my blog.
-
-
I'm a dyed-in-the-wool flaming liberal and there's no way in hell I've vote for Clinton. She's too much of exactly what we've got going on right now. She votes for this administration or pretends to miss or- worse- waits until the outcome has been decided and then votes for the winning team (thinking Iraq here).
My vote is going to Kucinich whether he wins the primary or not. He is the only candidate that has consistently opposed the war, who has come out in public saying he's 100% in favor of gay marriage (as opposed to the separate-but-equal version they call civil unions), he staunchly universal healthcare and he's pro-woman's health. But he gets no respect either from his party or from most big political bloggers. The corporate arm of the Democratic party knows they won't be able to control him, so they try to shut him up by not inviting him to debates... hmmph.
Clinton caters to the corporation and can't even stay on-topic in the debates. The moderator asks her straight up answers and she dances around singing her campaign song. Obama's the same way. Neither of them are worth the paper their thoughts are written on. Bah!
(If I had no other choice, I'd go Edwards, but since he's against gay marriage I don't see that happening either.)-
gay marriage is an odd issue for me. as a gay man in a committed relationship with a same sex spouse I suppose that I am supposed to rank gay marriage high on my list of concerns, but I don't really. I think that ending the Iraq debacle,fixing health insurance and restoring the social safety net and several other priorities as well are infinitely more important than the civil rights my husband and I lack. For insurance purposes my employer treats us as though we were married and frankly neither of is sure we would choose the contract if it became available to us.
Which is why Edwards would be my first choice, if I could vote in a Democratic primary that counted. And of course I totally agree with you about Hillary and have said as much on my blog.
-
-
For insurance purposes my employer treats us as though we were married
That's just it, though. So many gay and lesbian couples aren't afforded that. Then, of course, there's the issue of lower tax rates for married couples, automatic inheritance, etc. For me it's a civil rights issue. So, my own issues are 1)Health care 2)Equal rights for all regardless of gender, race or sexual orientation 3)Iraq 4)restoring the Constitution 5)government accountability.
I just commented on your blog, by the way. If Clinton is on the ticket in '08, well, it's just going to be downhill from there.-
welcome to blog catalog by the way. feel free to start a new thread about anything on your mind either on the main discussion boards or in the political debate group.
-
I have to say JennyJinx has taken the words right out of my mouth. I agree with that hierarchy list. I can't say that I am too thrilled about Clinton either, for she is a true flip flop conservative liberal. -
Thanks, libdrone, I appreciate that. I don't know if I'll start a new thread for a while, though. We'll see.
-
-
hey this is a good place to take this discussion.... we need a little more action in there
www.blogcatalog.com/group/our-next-president -
Jenny,
Check out Ron Paul. His main points are: restoring the constitution, fighting for our civil liberties, getting us out of Iraq asap, and making the government accountable. He's also the only candidate up there that knows anything about the health care system - he is an OBGYN.
In fact, if you didn't say Kucinich and Universal Health Care, I would have pegged you for a Ron Paul supporter. Ron believes that marriage is a religious subset of civil unions, and that no civil union should be federally favored (subsidized) more than another. Allow individual churches to define marriage. Allow multiple routes towards forming a civil union (religious, nonreligious, etc). Federal government benefits are then given equally to all civil unions.-
cindalou,
I've looked into Ron Paul, but his history puts me off. He's come out publicly with some very racist (in my opinion) views about Black men. There's just a lot about him that I don't care for and that's just one. I like Kucinich because I can look at his history and see consistency so I know I can trust him. -
Jenny,
Ron has said nothing racist. An article written in 1992 by a past Ron Paul staff member has been erroneously reported to have been written by Paul himself. In that article, the author said "I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city (DC) are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
This was one article written by someone associated with Paul's campaign, but had nothing at all to do with Ron's beliefs. He has made his position very clear: liberty and equal protection under the law for all citizens of the United States. One could easily argue that Ron Paul's lifelong pursuit of liberty for all US citizens (despite overwhelming odds) establishes him as the least racist candidate running.
-
-
I posted my comment to this on my blog. I thought that my answer was worth my readers reading. You can read it here.
mouseclone.com/2007/personal/would-i-vote-for-hillaryno-hell-no -
libdrone
I have no taste for socialism. Period. She can keep her "all for the common good" mantra to herself.
With that being said, I suppose you have figured which way I lean politically. lol
And what of all of the numerous scandals, that have left a trail like that of a slug behind her for years upon years? Mind boggling, truly mind boggling. She has sold her soul to the devil and wants to take America down the wrong path. Like I said, God help us all if she were to become president.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
