Hillary Is In

[Rikter8]

Here we go Gang... Hillary's in the race.

Looks like she's doing the old Fireside Chat too - this should be very cool.
As she said, its going to be VERY interesting
C

 

[SpeedoGuy]

I see nothing about her that leaves me feeling enthusiastic. On the other hand, I don't hate her either. It'll be interesting.

 

[Male Bonding etc]

I see little about any of the candidates so far that enthuses me. By the time we vote in 2008, the surviving candidates will have been hyped into things almost unrecognizable, and we will have to pick someone. Hopefully we won't feel like we are voting for the lesser of two evils this next time.

 

[jakeatolla]

Looks like the Democratic leadership race is going to be very PC.

 

[JustAsking]

Looks like the Democratic leadership race is going to be very PC.

jake,
I get that impression, too. It will be interesting to see that happen for a change. I wonder how long it will last, though. I am cautiously optimistic.

 

[Sklar]

I see little about any of the candidates so far that enthuses me. By the time we vote in 2008, the surviving candidates will have been hyped into things almost unrecognizable, and we will have to pick someone. Hopefully we won't feel like we are voting for the lesser of two evils this next time.

Sorry to pick apart your quote, Male Bonding. You've stated in a few sentences just about everything I both agree and disagree with in voting.
I'm very glad to see Hillary enter into the ring. Let me tell you why:

1) Experience. Love her or hate her, she is at least qualified to run, experience wise. Here is what I know about Obama. His first named means blessed. At least it does in Hebrew. Currently, right now, he only has two (2) years of experience as a politcian. By the time the election comes around he would have four (4). I know nothing about his life prior to him coming on the scene at the last Dem convention where he spoke. He has a good story to tell, but being a good story teller does not make one the President of the United States of America. What bills has he introduced into the Senate? What has he DONE?

Hillary, for all her faults, at least has experience. She currently has six (6) years as a Senator. By the time the election comes along she will have had eight (8). She was First Lady for eight (8) years before that. She was also very active in politics while her husband was Gov of Arkansas. I remember numerous times President Clinton had said that his biggest secret weapon is Hillary. I also remember one quote by him, and I am going to paraphrase here: "Regarding Hillary and me, we ARE the President."

By the time we vote in 2008, the surviving candidates will have been hyped into things almost unrecognizable, and we will have to pick someone.

I don't think hyped is the correct word to use. I see this next campaign as being very dirty, nasty, back stabbing (similar, if not worse, to what happened to Lieberman when he lost the Dem nomination in his state) and filled, FILLED with character assassination. First from within the Party and then during the general election. Hillary will not be the front runner candidate. She will be the front runner target! She has the most baggage of anyone to run for President.

She will be attacked, just as Nancy Pelosi was attacked. For no reason other than the fact that she is Hillary Clinton. Here we have the first viable woman to run and she will be attacked as no man would have been attacked. I know I am putting the cart before the horse here but let's face it, we already have people on the right (I'm talking to you Hannity) that have already said publicly that he will be doing what he can to make sure she fails. He has been saying this for at least two years.

Hopefully we won't feel like we are voting for the lesser of two evils this next time.

I really hate this saying. I loathe it with a passion. Let me tell you why. The founding fathers wanted a way to transfer power without having the population resort to civil war. If you think about it, we have a bloodless coup every election. We are not voting for Satan and Belzebub here. We are voting for PEOPLE. Ordinary people who want to accomplish extra ordinary things.

YES, you may disagree with the politics of a certain politician. That does NOT make them evil. All that means is that their view of things is not YOUR view of things. That's not evil, that's perspective. Regardless of how bad someone's Presidency is: Jackson's, Nixon's, Carter and the current President's (the following is the only bias opinion I will put in here: I know a lot of members at LSPG abhore President Bush, that is the only reason I put him in here. At this time, I will NOT declare his Presidency as either Good, Bad, Failed or Successful. Please don't engage me on this on this thread. I DO NOT WANT TO HIJACK IT.) Now back to the thread. Regardless of how good someone's Presidency was: Lincoln's, FDR's, JFK's, Ronald Reagan's someone will ALWAYS take the other side.

That doesn't make them Evil. That makes them people. I wish everyone will remember that. We will never vote in a goody two shoes. When it comes down to voting and I've said this in other threads, too, you have one of two choices. Either vote for someone or you vote against them.

That is not Evil, that's a choice.

You may not like either candidate, but that's not the candidate's fault. That's your choice.

Does that make them evil?

No.

Does that make you evil?

No.

It's a pithy saying for people to justify why they voted the way they did.

Thanks for taking the time to read this,


Sklar

 

[madame_zora]

Chalk me up for another cautiously optimistic one. The race is still far away, they have plenty of time to get ugly if they want to. It is my sincerest hope (though probably sheer folly) that they realise how important it is going to be to find someone to promote who can best do the job, regardless of personal interest in the postion.

I'm glad Hilary's running. It had to be done sometimes- why not now? Her running will allow girls to dream larger dreams from the beginning, and that's a good thing. I also think she'd be highly competent at the job, with the experience she brings to the table but I'm not convinced she's well-liked enough to win. I think the repubs would love to see her win the nomination though, the smear campaign would be only too easy.

 

[Sklar]

I'm glad Hilary's running. It had to be done sometimes- why not now? Her running will allow girls to dream larger dreams from the beginning, and that's a good thing. I also think she'd be highly competent at the job, with the experience she brings to the table but I'm not convinced she's well-liked enough to win. I think the repubs would love to see her win the nomination though, the smear campaign would be only too easy.

OMG! Write this day down in your books people!

Madane_Zora and I actually agree on something!!!!!!!
:biggrin1: :biggrin1: :biggrin1: :biggrin1: :biggrin1: :biggrin1: :biggrin1:

 

[madame_zora]

OMG! Write this day down in your books people!

Madane_Zora and I actually agree on something!!!!!!!
:biggrin1: :biggrin1: :biggrin1: :biggrin1: :biggrin1: :biggrin1: :biggrin1:

We actually agree on a lot. It's still fun to break each other's balls sometimes on the other stuff though, isn't it? :biggrin1:

 

[Lex]

Go Hillary. Bill back in the White House. A female President, Maybe an Af-Am VP (Obama)--what is there to be pissed or upset about? The fact that both of them think they have a shot is progress in and of itself.

 

[D_Elijah_MorganWood]

I think it's interesting although not surprising that her branding doesn't say Clinton anywhere but Hillary. Wonder if it was her idea. I saw her speak in person years ago and have been impressed with her ever since. She has many qualities that would make for a good president, question is how many will support her...

 

[Lex]

She has many qualities that would make for a good president, question is how many will support her...

I agree. The interesting this is that to derail either she or Obama, detractors will have to send quasi-sexist and racist messages to appeal to the far right. I wonder if they can get away with it. Neither Hillary or Obama have dirty political records (hence her first name branding, I bet--to separate her from Bill).

 

[D_Elijah_MorganWood]

CNN.com Video

Decent video about Barack Obama's bid although nothing in it is new.

I like him but not for president. He's not ready yet.

I don't blame Hillary for not wanting to ride on her husband's coattails. She doesn't need to, her own political resume' is definitely sufficient.

Obama has already disclosed so much of his personal info that I don't know what else they'd dig up. Since he's younger and attractive, the Republicans will sink to mudracking (like they wouldn't anyway).

 

[Rikter8]

I think they should pass a law for clean campaigning. None of the slamming crap.

Personally, I think the candidates that attack the other and call peoples homes like the republican party did here, aren't even a consideration in my book.
I mean - my phone rang at least 2-3 time a night during the last election period about how bad the democrats were. Same recorded message OVER and OVER and OVER. That really pisses me off, especially when i'm busy trying to concentrate on schoolwork, or have my hands buried in wires and solder.

I really like the idea of her Fireside chat she is proposing. It shows that she is looking at the major issues at whats affecting us here - right now.

This country is so screwed up, with so much corruption, I strongly hope whomever wins will have the strength and courage to help get this wonderful country back on its feet, Erase all the recent Pencil In's on the constitution, and get things running smoothly again.

 

[Male Bonding etc]

Actually, Sklar, I pretty much agree with everything you said (agreeing
AND disagreeing with what I said).

Regarding the use of "evil," it was merely my use of a cliche. I also HATE it when individuals are described as evil. It is the consequences of their actions that can be described as evil, not the individuals themselves, in my opinion. Yes, we vote for or against someone, but in the last two presidential elections, I felt our choices were dictated by hijacked political processes even more than usual.

I lived in Texas before, during and after George II became governor. I continue to marvel at how his operatives were able to knock Ann Richards, a very popular governor, out of the way and then make him even look at all like presidential material. If Gore could have accomodated himself to the fact that he was part of a very successful administration rather than emphasizing the scandal(s) in trying to distance himself, he might have had a clear majority in the popular vote and the electoral college.

Four years later we had Kerry, a man I've always had some limited admiration for in that he seemed to have a conscience, running against a rogue administration. Unfortunately, so many of those voting for Kerry felt they were merely voting AGAINST the Bush Dynasty. It is much more powerful to be voting FOR something or someone. The close results do not demonstrate to me that this was an electorate happy with the current administration, but rather it was an electorate not sufficiently inspired by those who aspired to replace it.

On the subject of the Clintons jointly being president, I am ambivalent. I know Hillary does have some agenda differences with her husband, and I know she is proving herself to be capable and savvy in her own right, in addition to being experienced. The first eight Clinton years, especially from the current perspective, were a pretty good time for this nation. However, I am loathe to see us settling into a dynastic presidency, and I particularly do not want to see mudslinging, character assassinaton, and dirty tricks taken to the level I fear they will be taken with her available as the target.

My sincerest hope is that in 2008 our electoral process can bring before us some truly inspiring choices, both in the primaries and in the general election. If Hillary demonstrates that she remains the best choice AND THAT SHE CAN WIN, then by all means, let us have her lead us. If her campaign is going to enable the heirs of the current bunch to succeed, let her bow out as gracefully and as early as she can!

 

[Onslow]

Go Hillary. Bill back in the White House. A female President, Maybe an Af-Am VP (Obama)--what is there to be pissed or upset about? The fact that both of them think they have a shot is progress in and of itself.

First off I despise Hillary.

Second--is the country truly ready to accept either Clinton or Obama?

As to progress Lex, we need to head back in our wayback machine and visit the year of 1972 when history was made big time. I present for you one Shirley Chislolm. Chisolm was the first African-American female elected to Congress (in the 1960's) and ran for President in 1972, garnering 151 delegation votes towards the nomination. I always look at her as being the first big step towards equality for all on the platform of national politics.

 

[JustAsking]

1) ... Experience. Love her or hate her, she is at least qualified to run, experience wise. ...

I can identify with that sentiment, and it is certainly true that Hillary is far more experienced than Obama. Also, the Clintons are probably the most astute politicians in the US today when it comes to the political process.

However, experience hasn't turned out to be the magic bullet one would think it would be. The current administration is being run by some of the most experienced men in American gov't. Very few have the decades of experience that Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the others have. Its quite clear that these are the men who are setting policy, not GWB. And this massive amount of experience has not performed very well domestically and around the world.

I, too, am wary of Barack Obama's lack of experience in national government, but after reading his books, I am astonished at his intelligence, compassion, and now many years of experience in grass roots politics and other kinds of organizations he has. The question is, will the compassionate, charismatic, intelligent, and inexperienced Obama be a JFK, or a Jimmy Carter. (Here I am claiming that JFK was an effective president and Jimmy Carter was not.)

Barack Obama has the popular charisma when giving speeches of a JFK, and the personal charisma and seeming integrity of Jimmy Carter. So it is very possible that he could end up as the Democratic nominee. His effectiveness as president would have as much to do with how he fills out his staff as it does his own experience. He probably already knows that. So I bet he will take the gamble and indicate very early who he would be appointing as his advisors. This way, his lack of being a "known quantity" will be offset by the reputation of his appointees.

Anyway, this is a great thread, with a wide range of excellent opinions. Keep it going.

 

[Male Bonding etc]

Anyway, this is a great thread, with a wide range of excellent opinions. Keep it going.

Was that like a thread killing statement, or are we all transfixed by the long awaited trials and hearings?

 

[Sklar]

Was that like a thread killing statement, or are we all transfixed by the long awaited trials and hearings?

The election is still well over a year away. We have plenty of time to:

1) Drool over our prospective candidate.

2) Throw mud at the candidate we don't like.

3) Watch early hopefulls crash and burn.

4) See other people nominate themselves and see where it goes.

Unless something significant happens, we really won't see anything too earth shaking going on.

Patience, Grasshopper.

The killing field is before us.

 

[Male Bonding etc]

Patience, Grasshopper.

The killing field is before us.

Ah! Wise One! I must atone for my impatience...

However, may I humbly state that I do think the current focus on Global Warming and the Mess in Iraq may start some early killing in this field... or at least some overdue scrutiny of the deeds and misdeeds of the current occupants of the esteemed high office... and that is giving the contestants, even at this early stage, some sound bites to employ?

Grasshopper