I WANT HILLARY TO RUN IN 2012

No.

My vote is up for grabs at the moment.

I'm liking Huntsman from what I've seen so far. His chances of getting the Rep nod are pretty much slim and none. I'd vote for Obama again over anyone else currently on the Rep side. I'd vote for Obama again over Huntsman if he's successful in the primaries but then pulls a McCain and picks a "are you out of your mind?!?!?!" running mate.

I highly doubt I would ever vote for Hillary. I learned a long time ago to never say never, but her name on the ballot would push me closer to voting Republican.

Really not true:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/18/AR2010081805644.html





What does that mean, exactly? He inherited a really bad situation from Bush, that was getting worse by the minute, and he successfully slowed that down and maybe even turned things around. What would you have done differently?



Where's the dismantling? They've won some purely symbolic stuff that doesn't actually begin to dismantle the health care plan.



Wusses don't get the new health care plan passed in the first place. (Among the many other things he has in fact gotten done.)



A strain of political thought that really pisses me off goes something like:

Politician A sucks, so to show Politician A I think he/ she sucks I will vote in Politician B instead. Ha, take that, Politician A.

[Politician B takes office]

Damn, Politician B sucks even worse than Politician A did. Hey look, there's Politician C....



Government is messy and stupid and you can't just waltz in and impose your agenda -- something I was happy about with Bush and am less happy about with Obama (since I actually like Obama's agenda). He's been getting a shitload done in really difficult circumstances.

IMO the problem isn't Obama, it's been the spineless Democrats in the Senate and House.

Republicans are willing to go to the mat, and it looks to me like the Democrats just rolled over.

Hillary was my choice all along.

Why does your sense of honesty fly out the window, Farmer, when it comes to US war crimes?

A vote for Hillary is a vote for Michelle Bachmann.

Hillary would NOT be any different. In fact Obama is not any different than bush. He has kept every single policy that bush was promoting. I would even go as far as to say that politics in the US is just a public display of displacement. Where the politician claims one thing publicly but does something completely different anyways. Followed by a speech as to why things have not turned out as they were suggested and place blame on something completely absurd. None of this would change if Hillary were president, I am certain of that.

Edmund?

i mean, there was a man who was on top of it all

No way - I see no evidence that she'd be any more effective than Obama at anything at all.

Cycloptichorn

Hillary consistently gets my goat. I think she is quite a bit to the right of Obama, who has given me enough angst in this regard already, if only from his concessions under difficult circumstances. But I don't think his choices are all pressed by circumstance; he is plain more of a hawk than I want in office, if wishes could be choosers. Still, he presently has my next vote.

I would have trouble voting for a Republican but it isn't completely impossible; unlikely, though, because of the package that would show up even with a Republican I could agree with on some points.

Exactly! Obama, more than any other politician, is willing to try something else if one method is not working. He is the most flexible and pragmatic person in government today.

I think she is going be Obama's VP. You will have to wait another 4 years for a presidential run.

It would be kinda cool though, wouldn't it - the first set of husband and wife presidents and the first set of husband and wife war criminal presidents? That's assuming of course that Hillary was to continue in the war criminal traditions of past presidents.

Well the major problem with our political system currently is that huge corporations have large investments wrapped up in the presidency that to make any changes you first have to get past these businesses but you can't because so many people are invested in them. So you either fight a bunch of wealthy people for their earnings or you screw over the poor populous. Which do they always side with? I think we know the answer to that and so they lie to the public and continue doing their thing not caring what happens.

If "huge corporations" have large investments in the presidency, as investments go it's right up there with time shares on the Titanic.

That was pretty damned good . . .

How can you say that? Major corporations are profiting tremendously under Obama. Many have posted RECORD levels of profit in the last three years, and executive compensation is also at an all-time high. What's not for them to love?

Cycloptichorn

That's interesting actually. Biden is no longer needed for the "experience" aspect -- when Obama runs in 2012 he'll have four years of experience as president, which is four more years than anyone he might be running against. Biden won't be running in 2016, and that's the traditional hand-off for a two-term president (as in Bill Clinton --> Gore).

I'm not sure if Hillary would be the one or the best choice, but I hadn't really been thinking about the possibility of Biden being a one-term VP, and who would replace him if so. Hmmmm....

No president can know everything - it's a generalist position. Thus a president is dependent on advisors, which one has to choose quickly; I figure all of the advisors are invested in their points of view, defensive of their ideas. How many are bought and sold, I don't know, but it's scary enough if none of them are.