Reply
Sat 18 Nov, 2006 01:19 pm
Sorry, but it had to be said. Those of you dreaming of Hillary in '08 are going to f*ck it up for the democrats if you put that bobble-headed witch up against the republicans.
Just so you know.
Re: Hillary will NEVER be president.
kickycan wrote:Sorry, but it had to be said. Those of you dreaming of Hillary in '08 are going to f*ck it up for the democrats if you put that bobble-headed witch up against the republicans.
Just so you know.
I like Hillary. I'd support her. I fear you're right though.
However, if bush continues being the arrogant ignorant jack ass he is, he may drag down the repubs so badly that a Michael Dukakis/John Kerry ticket could win by a landslide.
^^ THATS a scary thought..
Too bad Obama cant run..
kicky, I agree with you like 199 percent. The only problem is the New Yorkers will probably overwhelmingly vote for her. I don't see her even a little bit charismatic, and wouldn't want to see Obama run with her as some pundits have suggested.
sozobe wrote:Why can't he?
Doesnt he have to have more experience? Or at least hold his office longer then he has?
cicerone imposter wrote: and wouldn't want to see Obama run with her as some pundits have suggested.
I dont mean run with her.
I mean run on his own.
If the Democrats have any sense, they would put up a candidate who has a chance of winning. They would need a moderate who understands the importance of the terrorist threat, and would not simply turn tail and run. The problem is not the war in Iraq, but the way the war is being conducted, (and possibly the place where it is being fought) that has the country so polarized.
I am happy that the Democrats have control of Congress, not because I am so enamoured of the Democrats. Personally, I think that both parties are "full of themselves", and rife with corruption. I truly believe that there needs to be some balance in the government, and there was none, with the Republicans running the whole shootin' match. Add to that a president who was more concerned about the bible than the Constitution, and you have a recipe for disaster.
In the last election, the Democrats could have won, if only they had put up a candidate with some substance. Kerry was a will of the wisp. I don't particularly like Clinton, and I think that she comes with a lot of negative baggage. If the Democrats have any sense, they will pick and choose very, very carefully. [/b]
shewolfnm wrote:sozobe wrote:Why can't he?
Doesnt he have to have more experience? Or at least hold his office longer then he has?
Nope.
Right now, for many people, his relative newcomer status is a big positive. Hasn't been corrupted by the political process etc. etc.
In terms of requirements for running for president, if that's what you mean -- age, citizenship, etc. -- he's set.
I caught the tail-end of a newscast yesterday about the US increasing troops in Iraq by over 50 thousand. I forgot the time-frame, but that's going in the "right" direction. If it truly is a war on terrorism, we need to send many more to Iraq to let terrorists know, they will never establish a home base anywhere. The half-ass job we've been doing for the past 3.5 years is a crime.
The prob with Hillary is that you keep waiting for her to shut up and for Bill to start talking. It's painful to see the two of them on stage together.
Hmm, they could run the campaign entirely around getting Bill elected as First Man...
Cycloptichorn
When Bill does talk, he says he agrees with what Hillary is saying.