View Full Version : Another Clinton in the White House?
Pete Hanlin
07-07-2007, 07:02 PM
Unfortunately, the monitors in Hartsfield Int'l Airport are all tuned to CNN (I'm presuming because CNN is based in Atlanta), so I was treated to "coverage" (more like a love fest) of Obama and Clinton's recent campaigning in New Orleans.
Watching Sen. Clinton, the thought of her being Commander in Chief took my appetite away (seriously, I was on my way to get a burger and literally lost my desire to eat- I guess I could lose a lot of weight if I watched CNN more often). All one has to do is remember the truly scary plans Sen. Clinton proposed for National Health Care during her husband's admin to imagine the direction her administration would take.
Personally, I comfort myself with the thought that Sen. Clinton is probably not electable in a nationwide election. I call her problem the "Gingrich Factor." Even the thought of Newt Gingrich as President probably causes about 45-50% of the population to experience acid reflux. I would wager Sen. Clinton's "no way in hades" rating has to be near that level. That means a GOP candidate would have to appeal to an additional 5-6% of the population to win the election.
I'll be interested in what y'all think, however...
PS- I plan on reading Obama's book to get to know his platform better... My first impression is he comes across as much less of a "Washington insider" than the rest of the pack.
For-Life
07-07-2007, 08:30 PM
Obama will beat her. Whether she is good or bad, she can't win a national election and Dems should be smart enough to realize that.
chip anderson
07-07-2007, 11:46 PM
If worse comes to worse we can always try to resurrect Lee Harvey Oswald.
For-Life
07-07-2007, 11:50 PM
Should have done that 6 and a half years ago
karen
07-08-2007, 01:40 PM
Obama will beat her. Whether she is good or bad, she can't win a national election and Dems should be smart enough to realize that.
Ya know, I used to think that but I think his lack of experience will end up getting him selected for VP but not the Prez this time.
I hate to say it but I think she can at least pull the primary off. She is working hard at getting more "in the middle" and even hauled Willy out of the closet to campaign with her....a sign she is super serious.
If we can't come up with a decent candidate I think we are in deep trouble. I wish Guiliani (spelling?) was a bit more socially conservative because McCains border stance makes it impossible for me to support him.
My prediction is that the mud slinging is going to be particularly nasty this time around......
Pete Hanlin
07-08-2007, 08:05 PM
My prediction is that the mud slinging is going to be particularly nasty this time around......
We'll have to see which party has candidates capable of working together. If Obama figures out that he can't win early enough in the primary, he can throw support behind Clinton and they would probably make a more attractive pair to their core constituency. On the other hand, if the two decide to "get it on," it can only splinter the party (particularly if Clinton is seen as the aggressor).
I would guess the GOP has the bigger problem in this regard. Two of the top candidates (Guilianni and McCain) are pretty much polar opposites. Thompson would probably have the best chance of pairing up with someone (but I don't see McCain agreeing to be anyone's "VP").
Spexvet
07-09-2007, 05:42 PM
Ya know, I used to think that but I think his lack of experience will end up getting him selected for VP but not the Prez this time.
I hate to say it but I think she can at least pull the primary off. She is working hard at getting more "in the middle" and even hauled Willy out of the closet to campaign with her....a sign she is super serious.
If we can't come up with a decent candidate I think we are in deep trouble. I wish Guiliani (spelling?) was a bit more socially conservative because McCains border stance makes it impossible for me to support him.
My prediction is that the mud slinging is going to be particularly nasty this time around......
It's funny... Clinton will win the primary, but probably won't be able to win the national election, and Giuliani won't be able to win the primary, but is a viable candidate for the national election. And he's viable BECAUSE he's not as socially conservative as some of the repubican lunatics out there.
Grubendol
07-09-2007, 06:46 PM
As a hardcore liberal democrat, I have only met one person who agrees with my politics and wants her to win.
I think that there is no such thing as leaders in this country. that we elect representatives, not leaders, and because of that she could become the right "leader" if elected, but I don't think she stands a chance of being elected.
chip anderson
07-09-2007, 06:56 PM
Grubendol:
The fault in our system is our "representatives" have stopped being represtentative of those that voted for them. They tend to be more representative of those that throw the biggest pile of money at them, or thier own personal objectives.
Chip
Grubendol
07-09-2007, 07:19 PM
True to a large extent, but still, if the people make enough noise they will turn. Just look at all the Republicans jumping ship on the war.
Bill West
07-09-2007, 10:29 PM
Obama will beat her. Whether she is good or bad, she can't win a national election and Dems should be smart enough to realize that.
A ***** and a ******. Is this the best the DumBocrats hAVE TO OFFER?
For-Life
07-09-2007, 10:34 PM
A ***** and a ******. Is this the best the DumBocrats hAVE TO OFFER?
Don't spew your racist junk around here.
You are old enough to be above that maturity wise.
Bill West
07-09-2007, 10:38 PM
Don't spew your racist junk around here.
You are old enough to be above that maturity wise.
You vote in your liberal Country and stay the **** out of our politics.
For-Life
07-09-2007, 10:40 PM
You vote in your liberal Country and stay the **** out of our politics.
American politics affect the whole World.
I am not going to censor myself from expressing my informed comments in a clean, respectful way.
Bill West
07-09-2007, 10:49 PM
American politics affect the whole World.
I am not going to censor myself from expressing my informed comments in a clean, respectful way.
I did'nt know ***** was rascist, only in Canada I guess.
For-Life
07-09-2007, 10:52 PM
No, it is not, and personally I have no problem with that term. If you wanted to use the male equivalent for Obama, that is fine to me too.
It was criticizing someone for being Muslim, which is racist. You know that is what I meant, and you should have more respect for the board the posters than to say that stuff here. Go say it to your buddies in private, but not here.
Bill West
07-09-2007, 10:55 PM
No, it is not, and personally I have no problem with that term. If you wanted to use the male equivalent for Obama, that is fine to me too.
It was criticizing someone for being Muslim, which is racist. You know that is what I meant, and you should have more respect for the board the posters than to say that stuff here. Go say it to your buddies in private, but not here.
WE ARE AT WAR!
For-Life
07-09-2007, 10:56 PM
WE ARE AT WAR!
With terrorists
Not with a religion
When Hitler used his extreme Christian beliefs to exterminate the Jews, the Allies were not at war with Christianity.
Bill West
07-09-2007, 11:00 PM
No, it is not, and personally I have no problem with that term. If you wanted to use the male equivalent for Obama, that is fine to me too.
It was criticizing someone for being Muslim, which is racist. You know that is what I meant, and you should have more respect for the board the posters than to say that stuff here. Go say it to your buddies in private, but not here.
The whinny liberals can express their warped view but want everyone else to talk in private. Practice what you preach. I don't mind your crap as long as I can respond, and I will.
For-Life
07-09-2007, 11:02 PM
The whinny liberals can express their warped view but want everyone else to talk in private. Practice what you preach. I don't mind your crap as long as I can respond, and I will.
Again, I express myself in an informed, clean way.
You can express your opinion all you want, but I would prefer if you did it in an informed clean way.
If you want to get disgusting then that is what you should do in private.
Bill West
07-09-2007, 11:06 PM
With terrorists
Not with a religion
When Hitler used his extreme Christian beliefs to exterminate the Jews, the Allies were not at war with Christianity.
Hitler WAS NOT CHRISTIAN. Regardless of someones claim to be something, it does not make it so, just distorts the truth.
By the way most wars have been about religion.
War is war and people die regardless of what it is about.
OPTIDONN
07-09-2007, 11:08 PM
In fact Hitler used some pretty harsh language referring to Jesus and his Jewish blood.
For-Life
07-09-2007, 11:08 PM
Hitler WAS NOT CHRISTIAN. Regardless of someones claim to be something, it does not make it so, just distorts the truth.
By the way most wars have been about religion.
War is war and people die regardless of what it is about.
Hey, I have friends who have fought in Afghanistan, I have friends who have died in Afghanistan, and they did it to fight terrorism, which is fine and extremely honourable.
But they never bashed someone's religious beliefs and based their beliefs on that.
For-Life
07-09-2007, 11:09 PM
In fact Hitler used some pretty harsh language referring to Jesus and his Jewish blood.
Well there are argument for and against him being Christian. I have read them both. It was an example, and there are others out there.
Bill West
07-09-2007, 11:10 PM
Again, I express myself in an informed, clean way.
You can express your opinion all you want, but I would prefer if you did it in an informed clean way.
If you want to get disgusting then that is what you should do in private.
Are you ******, or just plain stupid?
For-Life
07-09-2007, 11:12 PM
Are you Muslim, or just plain stupid?
No, I am a strong Christian believing in the true lessons Jesus Christ taught like forgiveness and love (not hate and racism). Though I do have Muslim relatives and friends.
As for the second part of your question I think the way I have handled this and the way you have is a clear indication of who is what.
Bill West
07-09-2007, 11:17 PM
American politics affect the whole World.
I am not going to censor myself from expressing my informed comments in a clean, respectful way.
You don't want to censor yourself, just other folk who don't agree with your twisted way of looking at things. LIBERAL ATTITUDE!
For-Life
07-09-2007, 11:20 PM
You don't want to censor yourself, just other folk who don't agree with your twisted way of looking at things. LIBERAL ATTITUDE!
No, I have no problem with you debating me. I love debating. If you want to bash Hilary for being more socialist than you desire, or for a perception of Obama being weak on federal defense then that is fine and we can enjoy a gentlemenly debate.
If you want to call people Muslim, stupid and liberal then I have a four year old you can debate with.
OPTIDONN
07-09-2007, 11:22 PM
Well there are argument for and against him being Christian. I have read them both. It was an example, and there are others out there.
Well there may be some arguments but the fact is he and his followers considered them selves Jewish by faith and due to the fact that he was born to Jewish parents he was also Jewish by race. Some times people assume that Hitler shared the same religious ideology as modern skin heads, which is not the case. But I get what you mean. Now let the fighting resume!
Bill West
07-09-2007, 11:24 PM
No, I have no problem with you debating me. I love debating. If you want to bash Hilary for being more socialist than you desire, or for a perception of Obama being weak on federal defense then that is fine and we can enjoy a gentlemenly debate.
If you want to call people Muslim, stupid and liberal then I have a four year old you can debate with.
What is wrong calling a Muslim, Muslim. I did not call anyone stupid, I ask you if you were. And do you deny that you are a liberal?
For-Life
07-09-2007, 11:24 PM
Well there may be some arguments but the fact is he and his followers considered them selves Jewish by faith and due to the fact that he was born to Jewish parents he was also Jewish by race. Some times people assume that Hitler shared the same religious ideology as modern skin heads, which is not the case. But I get what you mean. Now let the fighting resume!
Nah, I am done for the night. I have to head to bed, because I need to wake up early tomorrow.
I apologize for not just ignoring Bill West, but I feel it needed to be said.
For-Life
07-09-2007, 11:26 PM
What is wrong calling a Muslim, Muslim. I did not call anyone stupid, I ask you if you were. And do you deny that you are a liberal?
but you accused Obama for being bad, BECAUSE he is a Muslim.
By asking me if I was stupid is calling me stupid, and that is clear so please do not hide behind being Mr. Innocent.
Calling someone a Liberal is not as much of an attack, but my critique there was the poorness (for lack of a better term) for using it in a debate as a solution.
Bill West
07-09-2007, 11:27 PM
No, it is not, and personally I have no problem with that term. If you wanted to use the male equivalent for Obama, that is fine to me too.
It was criticizing someone for being Muslim, which is racist. You know that is what I meant, and you should have more respect for the board the posters than to say that stuff here. Go say it to your buddies in private, but not here.
I think I only critized the DUMBOCRATS.
Pete Hanlin
07-09-2007, 11:55 PM
Good god, why does every political thread have to run straight to the lowest common denominator?
Do you think we could have one political discussion without resorting to calling Republicans lunatics, throwing personal slurs at Sen. Clinton, or making prejudicial remarks about someone's religion?
Bill, I take it you don't care much for Sen. Clinton- are you capable of describing why in some sort of logical way?
Personally, I happen to find Sen. Clinton extremely distasteful as well. From her personal demeanor (which one could describe as perpetually angry), to her politics (which are downright scary to a conservative like me), to her egocentricism (a "vast right-wing conspiracy," geesh).
I think that there is no such thing as leaders in this country.
I know Lee Iacocca gave popular voice to the notion that this country is bereft of leadership, but I personally hope someone in the upcoming election proves him wrong. Now, I've become quite cynical about that prospect, but I'd love to have someone make me into a believer again.
optigrrl
07-10-2007, 12:01 AM
So we've heard from the conservatives and the liberals- any Libertarians or members of the Green Party?
GOS_Queen
07-10-2007, 09:58 AM
Grubendol:
The fault in our system is our "representatives" have stopped being represtentative of those that voted for them. They tend to be more representative of those that throw the biggest pile of money at them, or thier own personal objectives.
Chip
I agree. However, I was really impressed with the way the American public rallied and showed their muscle to their elected officials in light of the immigration/amnesty :rolleyes: bill - TWICE!
I think most of the American people (myself included) have been led to believe that they don't matter in the process. As I have become more politically active as of late, I have definate plans to monitor these elected "officials" :hammer:because they obviously need babysitting ... and they seem to LIKE feedback :p
GOS_Queen
07-10-2007, 10:10 AM
So we've heard from the conservatives and the liberals- any Libertarians or members of the Green Party?
After the past 8 years of "I don't know WTF" ... I changed my party affiliation from Republican to Independant a few years ago. I had become jaded and disenfranchised. :( A couple of months ago, I was at a chess club meeting and two of the players encouraged me to take a look at the Libertarian party. I started doing some research, took the "worlds smallest political quiz" and discovered that I really identified with the beliefs of the Libertarian party! WAHOO!!! I was so excited to feel like I "fit in" (I always struggled with "liking" certain positions on both sides of the spectrum). So, I was all ready to register as a Libertarian ... and then found out that ... being a supporter of Ron Paul ... in a CLOSED primary state ... I have to (gulp) register as a Republican to vote for him in the primary ... :hammer:
Does anyone have extra anti-nausea pills?
The absolute second the primary has ended ... I'm switching my affiliation to Libertarian! :cheers:
As far as the Green party, I think Oregon has quite a few belonging to that party but I don't know too much about it.
Grubendol
07-10-2007, 11:08 AM
Greens are awesome, IMHO. My wife and I have been giving some consideration to moving to the Portland area in about 5 years...the politics of that region is a big plus for me....and the weather is SOOOOO up my alley.
Pete Hanlin
07-10-2007, 11:26 AM
Thanks for drawing my attention to the World's Smallest Political Quiz- that was fun.
I'm not quite ready to abandon the GOP for Libertarianism (sp?) quite yet- since the typical Libertanarian (sp?) seems just a bit "wacky" for my taste. Well, that's assuming anyone can define a "typical" member of the Libertarian Party- they all seem to be individualists.
I'm not thrilled with President Bush- but I still believe he's better than either former VP Gore or Sen. Kerry would have been (which is really quite pathetic when you think about it). What's been REALLY screwed up is Congress. First, we had a Republican Congress that couldn't seem to get its act together on anything. Now we have a Democrat Congress that seems to expend all its energy letting the President know they don't like him and trying to do the opposite of everything he attempts.
What we need is a new "Contract with America." That is, a group of candidates that will list EXACTLY what legislation they hope to accomplish so the voters can put them in and hold them accountable to the list. If the President (regardless of who s/he is) stands in the way of that mandate, then out s/he goes.
DragonLensmanWV
07-11-2007, 03:23 PM
I think that almost everyone agrees (except some who live in PerfectLand) that whoever wins this time around is going to inherit quite a mess.Now the big question: Will President Bush clean it up some before he goes out, or will he just make it worse out of political spite?
For-Life
07-11-2007, 03:24 PM
I think that almost everyone agrees (except some who live in PerfectLand) that whoever wins this time around is going to inherit quite a mess.Now the big question: Will President Bush clean it up some before he goes out, or will he just make it worse out of political spite?
I do not know if he will make it worse out of political spite, but I definitely do not see him trying to rectify it. I figure he is complacent and will just do whatever he is going to do.
Spexvet
07-11-2007, 05:24 PM
I do not know if he will make it worse out of political spite, but I definitely do not see him trying to rectify it. I figure he is complacent and will just do whatever he is going to do.
I think he feels that he's doing exactly what needs to be done, to the best of his abilities. His attitude must be "what needs fixing?"
Grubendol
07-11-2007, 05:43 PM
Those who do not believe in government cannot govern. The current administration is a perfect example of that, and that is precisely why things will be much worse for the next president than they are even now.
I was listening to a report on NPR today about how the dollar is doing so poorly compared to the other major monetary systems of the world that we could be shaping up for a decent sized recession soon.
Personally, I happen to find Sen. Clinton extremely distasteful as well. From her personal demeanor (which one could describe as perpetually angry), to her politics (which are downright scary to a conservative like me), to her egocentricism (a "vast right-wing conspiracy," geesh).
I remembered these comments when watching the CNN/You Tube debate the other night. The impression I've had is not that Hillary Clinton is truly angry about the state of various issues, but that she fakes anger and indignation to make others believe she is concerned. For those of you who have the time, compare Clinton's anger regarding the lack of universal healthcare (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuRLwReqTxw - last 10 or 15 seconds of the clip) to Mike Gravel's anger regarding the Washington status quo(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldtmuZHVUWY - about the middle of the clip). Far be it from me to evaluate someone's true feelings, but Clinton's anger seems much less sincere than Gravel's. Did anyone else get that impression?
gemstone
07-25-2007, 11:36 AM
the democrats are in deep trouble. They are if she loses too.
chip anderson
07-25-2007, 12:43 PM
Hillary Clinton is truly angry about anything she thinks it might be usefull to be angry about. According to those that have had to spend time with her personally and away from the media she is also angry about most everything and everyone else.
She makes a fine first banshee.
Don Lee
07-28-2007, 02:03 PM
Hillary Clinton is truly angry about anything she thinks it might be usefull to be angry about. According to those that have had to spend time with her personally and away from the media she is also angry about most everything and everyone else.
She makes a fine first banshee.
I hope the country votes like the poll says.
http://www.stophernow.com/site/PageServer?pagename=hillary_show_ep1
democratic is a process.
democrat is what they are.
Don
chip anderson
07-29-2007, 11:51 PM
Just in case, didn't Lee Harvey Oswald have a child?
Don Lee
07-30-2007, 03:32 AM
Just in case, didn't Lee Harvey Oswald have a child?
Are you suggesting it could be mrs. clinton (wife of the former impeached president) or are you suggesting his child as a candidate?
Don
democratic is a process
democrat is what they are...
DragonLensmanWV
07-30-2007, 07:54 AM
Are you suggesting it could be mrs. clinton (wife of the former impeached president) or are you suggesting his child as a candidate?
Don
democratic is a process
democrat is what they are...
Sounds to me like he's suggesting he wants Oswald's child to assassinate her, which is going too far in one's personal hatred.
hcjilson
07-30-2007, 08:31 AM
Please try to stick to the subject of the thread which I beleive was "Another Clinton in the White House?" These sidebars and name calling are getting tiresome.
Thanks in advance. hj
Andrew Weiss
07-30-2007, 10:36 AM
I think the major problem with Hillary Clinton as a candidate, as others have alluded to, is that she appears to be packaged. Whether Bill Clinton was packaged or not, he never "appeared" to be. It looks to me like Hillary spends too much time doing what her handlers think will get her the votes, and too little time showing us who's really in there. Even if "who's really in there" scares the pants off some people, I think it would be better than the carefully-polished surface -- and would probably get her more votes.
The major problem with Hillary as a potential president, in my view, is that she is a polarizing figure in American politics. Her negative numbers are high, and there is a solid core constituency which will never approve of her no matter what. We've already been through two terms of a president like that, and look at the results: a country more polarized, more inclined toward back-biting, personal insults, etc. than before (just look at some of the posts on this thread), and a government less able to accomplish anything that we as a country really need. Do we really want more of that?
I think we need something different.
Now I'm signing off and going back to work. Have fun, y'all.
Senator Clinton is so used to softball questions that she believes Democrats who ask tough questions are Republican plants:
Clinton got one of those hard questions in New Hampton, and it led to a heated exchanged.
Randall Rolph of Nashua challenged her for voting last month to designate Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. Some Democrats said they feared that such a designation could be interpreted as a congressional authorization of military force in Iran.
Rolph compared Clinton's vote on the Iran measure with her vote to authorize war in Iraq. "It appears you haven't learned from your past mistakes," he said.
Clinton responded that his interpretation was wrong and suggested that someone put him up to asking the question. The man said he did his own research and was offended that she would accuse him of getting it elsewhere. She apologized but insisted he must be looking at the wrong version of the bill.
Their exchanged grew heated as he insisted the bill would authorize combat. Clinton snapped back, her voice rising, "I'm sorry, sir, it does not."
"I know what we voted for, and I know what we intended to do with it," she said. She said it gives the authority to impose penalties.
Many in the crowd applauded her in an effort to cut off the exchange, although afterward at least a couple others in the room came up to thank Rolph. He said he is still undecided about which Democrat he will support, but it will not be Clinton.Source: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/08/democrats.iowa.poll/index.html
[Rolph] said he came into the event uncommitted, but ruled out voting for Clinton after she insinuated that he was a patsy even though he had spent the morning on government websites looking into the question himself.
"It was an insult," he fumed following the event. "It was basically calling me stupid. That I can't think on my own. That I don't have the ability to research or come up with a coherent or concrete thought on my own. How dare she!"
He continued, "She never did answer the question. She just, what I say is, *****-slapped me."
Whether this incident does any damage to the well-oiled Clinton machine remains to be seen. But one thing it does make clear is that no matter how scripted Hillary is, over the course of a long campaign, she will not be able to mask her contempt for average Americans who dare to challenge her.Source: http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12131
For those of you that plan on voting for Senator Clinton, does this not bother you?
gemstone
10-08-2007, 12:12 PM
It is looking much liked Hillary is going to win the primary. Which running mate would make the strongest ticket? ( I think SHE likes Edwards).
blueyedviking
10-08-2007, 02:08 PM
Thanks for drawing my attention to the World's Smallest Political Quiz- that was fun.
I'm not quite ready to abandon the GOP for Libertarianism (sp?) quite yet- since the typical Libertanarian (sp?) seems just a bit "wacky" for my taste. Well, that's assuming anyone can define a "typical" member of the Libertarian Party- they all seem to be individualists.
"Libertarianism belligerently rejects the very need for any justification for its belief in something called "liberty." It repudiates the need for any intellectual foundation to explain why "liberty" is desirable and what "liberty" means. Anyone from a gay-rights activist to a criminal counterfeiter to an overt anarchist can declare that he is merely asserting his "liberty"—and no Libertarian (even those who happen to disagree) can objectively refute his definition. Subjectivism, amoralism and anarchism are not merely present in certain "wings" of the Libertarian movement; they are integral to it."
Peter Schwartz - On Moral Sanctions
Yes, my politics are "libertarian" but I would NEVER join their party or vote for them for the above reasons.
I am from Canada and we DO have a libertarian party up here (referred to as a 'fringe party') who have asked me to run but when I explained to them why I wouldn't they left me alone.
Yes, my politics are "libertarian" but I would NEVER join their party or vote for them for the above reasons.
I am from Canada and we DO have a libertarian party up here (referred to as a 'fringe party') who have asked me to run but when I explained to them why I wouldn't they left me alone.Indeed. Asserting to others that you are principled and objective, but that they are not is a sure way to get them to leave you alone. Given that there is no political party that I am aware of that adheres to Objectivist principles, do you generally refuse to vote (as a matter of principle) or do you vote for the lesser threat (as a matter of pragmatism)?
Is there anyone planning on voting for Senator Clinton because they think she is going to end the war in Iraq?
Is there anyone planning on voting for Senator Clinton because they think she is going to end the war in Iraq?No one? That's good!
As I wrote elsewhere: If you want the war over ASAP, then don't vote for Clinton, Obama, or Edwards. None of them will commit to getting the troops out of Iraq by 2013*...and, gee whiz, you'll probably have to elect Clinton to TWO terms given that she expects to bring them home by the end of her second term in 2017.**
I'm afraid that Democratic voters are setting themselves up for a "bait and switch".
*Source: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/27/dems.debate.ap/
**Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gov-bill-richardson/2013-get-our-troops-out_b_66355.html
Senator Clinton is so used to softball questions that she believes Democrats who ask tough questions are Republican plants:
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/08/democrats.iowa.poll/index.html
Source: http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12131
For those of you that plan on voting for Senator Clinton, does this not bother you?In hindsight, there is quite a bit of irony in Clinton's accusation. Has anyone been following this story? Student describes how she became a Clinton plant (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/13/clinton.planted/index.html)
http://www.rumormillnews.com/Images/HILLARY-WEBPAGE.jpg
This image was captured from Senator Clinton's website. Anyone notice anything strange about it? For those of you who believe that Mrs. Clinton is the second coming of Satan, check out the stars on the flag.
Grubendol
01-21-2008, 10:09 AM
Well if you want to point out the stars, then let me point out this:
http://www.gop.com/Images/blank.gifhttp://www.noagenda.org/images/kainemailer.jpg
The stars are UPSIDE DOWN in the RNC logo. Food for thought on the satan front ;)
As for the discussion of running mates, I want Edwards on the ticket no matter how it happens.
Well if you want to point out the stars, then let me point out this:
http://www.gop.com/Images/blank.gifhttp://www.noagenda.org/images/kainemailer.jpg
The stars are UPSIDE DOWN in the RNC logo. Food for thought on the satan front ;)HA! I guess that confirms what we've known all along!
chip anderson
01-21-2008, 03:42 PM
Democrats want McCain for the Republican nominee. Republicans especially conservative Republicans won't vote for him.
Republicans want Hillary for the Democrat nominee. Most Democrats won't bother to vote for her either.
This is why we have so much negative campaigning this year. The people doing everything are actually working for the opposite parties.
Chip
Grubendol
01-21-2008, 04:17 PM
C’mon now….If the choice for a conservative Republican is between McCain and Obama or Hillary who do you really think they will vote for?
No, Liberals & Democrats do not want McCain because the conservatives won’t for him. If they honestly are supporting one of the Dem nominees, they do not want McCain because he he could actually get moderates and liberals to vote for him.
If I were a Democrat, I would want Huckabee to be the Republican nominee.
If I were a Republican, I would want Clinton to be the Democratic nominee.
Grubendol
01-21-2008, 05:26 PM
If I were a Democrat, I would want Huckabee to be the Republican nominee.
If I were a Republican, I would want Clinton to be the Democratic nominee.
What he said.
What he said.I'll try this the other way...
If I were a Democrat, I would not want Giuliani to be the Republican nominee.
If I were a Republican, I would not want Obama to be the Democratic nominee.
Grubendol
01-21-2008, 05:54 PM
I'll try this the other way...
If I were a Democrat, I would not want Giuliani to be the Republican nominee.
If I were a Republican, I would not want Obama to be the Democratic nominee.
I think I would personally modify that a bit actually
if I were a Demo, I would not want McCain or Giuliani to be the nom
If I were a Repub, I would not want Obama or Edwards (especially Obama/Edwards) to be the nom
Spexvet
02-01-2008, 09:30 AM
Hardcore of either party will vote for their party regardless of the candidate - their perspective is that a moderate of their own party is still better than someone from the other "baaaaad" party. The idea for each party should be to lure the "independents" and those willing to vote outside their own party to vote for their candidate. A moderate will be more likely to accomplish this than an extremist. McCain and Guiliani are both relatively moderate, so as a Democrat, I want Romney to be the republican candidate.
Steve Machol
02-01-2008, 11:03 PM
After Bill Clinton's disgusting race-baiting and dissing of Obama, I have a had time seeing how I could ever vote for Hillary knowing that the next 4 to 8 years will continue the politics of division and personal destruction of the last 16 years. It's time for this Country to come together as Nation again, instead of a bunch of vicious tribes.
Pete Hanlin
02-02-2008, 12:24 AM
Okay, I'll go out on a limb...
If the Presidential election is between Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain, I'll cast my vote for Sen. Obama.
Considering neither candidate meets my primary consideration (fiscal conservativism), I suppose the primary consideration of the remaining candidates becomes "Which one is would I rather have as the executive representative of this country?"
Between those two, the answer for me would be Sen. Obama. Although I disagree with a lot of his politics, I believe he has a lot of integrity and I do think he would bring a different tone to Washington. Although I don't think the current admin has done a horrible job- there is no doubt that the "atmosphere of cooperation" George Bush promised during his first campaign has never been realized. Perhaps Sen. Obama could achieve that much as President.
Okay, I'll go out on a limb...
If the Presidential election is between Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain, I'll cast my vote for Sen. Obama.
Considering neither candidate meets my primary consideration (fiscal conservativism), I suppose the primary consideration of the remaining candidates becomes "Which one is would I rather have as the executive representative of this country?"
Between those two, the answer for me would be Sen. Obama. Although I disagree with a lot of his politics, I believe he has a lot of integrity and I do think he would bring a different tone to Washington. Although I don't think the current admin has done a horrible job- there is no doubt that the "atmosphere of cooperation" George Bush promised during his first campaign has never been realized. Perhaps Sen. Obama could achieve that much as President.I'm not trying to beat up on Pete, but I've heard a lot of this on the news lately... that the economy is now the number one issue among Republican voters. As far as I'm concerned, that's a bunch of malarkey. Case in point, Ron Paul has been getting his a** handed to him by Republican primary voters because he is against the war in Iraq... not because of his economic views. Truthfully, fiscal conservatism is really only a secondary consideration among "conservatives" this election cycle.
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.