Does Hillery have "IT"? (Long question)


May 29, 2005, 12:39 PM
We all know that Bill Clinton WAS NOT a friend of the Second Ammendment. We also have reason to think that Hillery will be at least as bad or worse. In the vein of "know thine enemy", I have a question for you.

Whatever you say or think about Bill Clinton, he was a powerful man even outside the fact that he as a Democrat and president. Slick Willie had almost the total support of the Dem's. Many were Dem's who voted that way 'cause muh granpaw did till he died and I will too! He got a lot of support from the large labor unions. He was supported by many of the minorities of various flavors to which he pandered. He got a lot of votes from 'lil ole ladies' who thought he was 'pretty'. He got a lot of votes due to his glib speech making abilities.

Most of all, though, Old Bill had a political "MACHINE". He had a loose cadre of hangers-on that he had garnered throughout his long political career who hitched their wagon to his star and would do most anything to assure his success. They raised money (in legal, slightly shady, under the table, probably illegal ways, outside the US, etc), they got him votes the same way, they controlled the liberal media (and/or made them part of the machine) so that the voters heard mostly what they wanted them to hear, they did all they could to discredit anybody who opposed Bill in any way, they did all they could to protect Bill from any scandals in which he was neck deep, and, finally, some say they even resorted to blackmail and possibly murder. Such was the "Slick Willie Machine".

Pore old "Al-the-bore-Gore" had support of many Dem's and a lot of others common to those who supported Bill, but he DID NOT HAVE "THE MACHINE"!

The question is: IF Horrible Hillery decides to run for the Dem nomination for President, will she have access to the same "MACHINE" that Bill had before her?

We need to decide because she is NOT a friend of ours and the second ammendment but a super-liberal, world-wide-government, 'you are government property', cradle-to-grave government control type person who would be a devistation to the USA second to none I believe.

Does he have "IT"?

If you enjoyed reading about "Does Hillery have "IT"? (Long question)" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
May 29, 2005, 12:48 PM
I think the "political machines" exist independently of any particular candidate. They're constantly looking out for their own best interests, and will "hitch their wagon to the star" of any candidate that offers them the best return for their support. I think if Hillary decides to run, she'll have to sell herself to the "machines" as being the best choice for them to pursue their own interests by providing her with support - just as a Republican candidate will have to do the same with his/her own party's "machines".

May 29, 2005, 12:59 PM
Bill Clinton didnt happen in a vacuum and he didnt create his political machine from the ether through force of will. Be careful not to confuse the various leftist political organizations that will support Hillary (in hopes of payback when she is elected) with the organization that is connected directly to her and Bill.

If anything, Bill's machine is very much the creation of his wife, who is a far better organizer. Bill was horribly disorganized until Hillary got control of his campaign for governor way back in the day. Hillary is sort of the Spock to Bill's Kirk. Hillary lacks Bill's people skills and loveable personality, so expect her to rely on Bill to handle most of the public relations when she runs. Bill will do his best to give Hilllary the urban black and southern vote while Hillary goes for the intellectual, urban and housewife vote. I predict this will be unsuccessful as long as the republicans can continue to put on a show like they did in 2004. Rove is going to be very hard to beat. The Clintons are just too tarnished from the previous 8 years and if she runs it will be very ugly.

Hillary will continue to espouse social-democratic ideology until she realizes that it can no longer win elections for her. The problem is that she has to transition in a manner than doesnt sound contrived and doesnt endanger her grip on the blue states- otherwise she will end up like Mondale or Dukakis. Remember that she wants to win- she is a pragmatist rather than an idealist. I strongly suspect that Bill's realization that gun control cost Gore the 2000 election came from Hillary, not from himself. So she knows. The problem is that she cant move the Democratic party to the right of where it currently is without the cooperation of the party leadership. The democrats may take another 10-15 years to sort this one out.

May 29, 2005, 01:06 PM

Absolutely. If Mrs. Clinton does decide to run - barring some unforseen happenstance that destroys her reputation - she will be the next President of the United States.

A lot of women will vote for her just because she's a woman. A whole lot of folks will vote for her because her last name is Clinton. Anyone who claims to be a member of the Democratic party will vote for her because she's a democrat. Furthermore she is currently working very, very hard to convince the electorate that she has moved right and is becoming more moderate. That will gain her the votes of some RINO's (as an aside I believe that Bill did move to the right while president - maybe the process of being involved in how the real world works caused the move - it is possible that Hillary saw the same things Bill did and is moving right for real). She may be a liberal but she's no northeastern liberal (NY Senator not withstanding) and can claim the South as her historical Political Stomping grounds and that will earn her votes that would normally go to the repugnicans too.

There's a lot of overlap there but in my estimation she could pull down well over 55% and maybe 60% of the popular vote.

AND the biggest issue of all that will lead to her becoming Prez is that the republicans have no one with the experience, name recognition or the stature to stand against her. I don't believe that even Condoleeza Rice could beat her (America's come a long way but reality tells me it isn't ready to have a black President who happens to be a woman and a conservative at that). In addition Ms. Rice has never held an elected office and that's a big strike against her even if America is ready to have a black, woman president.

The odds are IMO that in 2008 America will elect Mrs Clinto. Our only hope in that event is if the repugnicans retain control of the house and senate.

To paraphrase Standing Wolf:

America is stupid enough to elect that creature...

2nd Amendment
May 29, 2005, 01:12 PM
Let's cut to the ugly chase: Women will vote for her en masse. Women who have never voted before will vote for her. Minorities will vote for her. They'll come out in droves just to vote for her. She will own the femal and minority(black) vote in this country and that is all she needs to win. The equation really is that simple.

Now figure the Repubs run McVain or Guilliani or some other useless incompetent of their ilk. Not only does Hitlery get the women and minorities but solid Repubs stay home or vote third party.

The Republican party either runs Dr Rice in 2008 or else. That's the only chance of splitting the female and minority vote and I don't want to hear about this silly "she has no experience" crap. if that's what you think then by all means, don't vote for her. For most Americans is a non-issue. For most(PC, TV oriented, sound-byte trained, beer-swilling, sports watching, public school graduated) Americans it's going to be about race and gender and then the usual media-created hot-button issues. That's reality, work within it.

That or hope like hell someone digs some really good dirt on that Clinton creature and makes it stick between now and then.

May 29, 2005, 01:17 PM
Rice wont get the minority vote if blacks still listen to Clinton/Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton/Farakhaaan. They are convinced that any black who doesnt love welfare is an uncle tom.

Mark my words.

Clarence Thomas should be seen as one of the role models for black America, but black people cant say enough bad things about him given the first opportunity.

2nd Amendment
May 29, 2005, 01:45 PM
Rice would split the female vote, though. And even in a worst case scenerio she'd siphon off some of the minority vote. Add in the fact Repubs would go out of their way to vote just to make a statement AND consider certain segments of voters; gun owners, anti-infanticide forces, white males in general would vote in overwhelming numbers against Hillary if the opponent is even slightly palatable and that is, probably, enough.

For those still determined Rice won't/can't run you better find another female and/or black between now and then for the Repubs to run. That or dig up, and make stick, that dirt I hoped for earlier. If Hillary remains (nominally)"clean" and the Repub's candidate is a white establishment male you can kiss the 2008 election, and most of what defines the US as a free country, goodbye.

May 29, 2005, 03:15 PM
All you have to do is sour people on Bill/Hillary. Bush was no great candidate, but enough people got a bad taste in their mouth about Kerry that Bush was able to win.

Dont read to much into the individual qualifications of each candidate. This is about ideas as much as it is about charisma or experience.

The republicans do have to find someone though.

May 29, 2005, 04:05 PM
Let's cut to the ugly chase: Women will vote for her en masse. Women who have never voted before will vote for her. Minorities will vote for her. They'll come out in droves just to vote for her. She will own the femal and minority(black) vote in this country and that is all she needs to win. The equation really is that simple.

Not only that, but she can get a Midwestern vote--she is, after all, from 'Chicago.'

The Republicans will have put up an "information machine" that will put the Swift Boat Vets' campaign to shame. IMO, a real education campaign on her history can have an impact. You can go all the way back to her graduation speech at Wellesley--but I think it's a hard sell.

And if the Religious Right is perceived to have a dominant impact in the Republican machine, there are millions of UMC leading-edge Baby Boomers ready to desert. These are not RINOs, but they vote on the issues--and for them, non-religion is the position for government to be in, not running back to the Capitol to vote for 'life,' a la the Shiavo debacle.

May 29, 2005, 04:36 PM
H-Clinton has some major baggage. She will invigorate the GOP base and donators at the same time she inflames the unions for her former position as a member of the Walmart Board of Directors.

On the GOP side, don't count on Rice - she was an Shermanesque as humanly possible with Tim Russert. He asked her repeatedly and she said "no" each time. Leftwinger-Tim had a look of relief on his face when he got that response.

Instead, look to Blackwell, Secretary of State from Ohio in the VP slot. He's the guy who "gave Ohio to Bush" last fall, so look to the Demos to villify him as an "Uncle Tom" or whatever the current term for not staying "on the plantation" is... oh yeah, "he's not black enough."

Word is he could serve as #2 man on the ticket with current Senator, former Governor, George Allen of Virginia (1994-1998)

Just one angle.


May 29, 2005, 04:42 PM
"We are going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good"

That says all I need to know about Hillary. I hope the repugs run Condi in 2008.

May 29, 2005, 05:12 PM
my mom got to meet Hillary, and was unimpressed- Hillary was rude and very obviuosly out to make herself look good for media. i dont think she has it

May 29, 2005, 05:54 PM
She can and will get the nomination. It's up to the republicans to nominate and run a top-notch candidate and campaign, failing that Hillary will win.

A wildcard in the equation is McCain. He'll never get the republican nomination, not now. Which means there's a real possibility that he'll run as an independent. This will assure a Hillary win, no matter who runs on the republican side.

May 29, 2005, 05:54 PM
George Allen. Hmm. His record isnt exactly overflowing with information. GOA has him rated as a C. His social issues stances seem pure Falwell. He isnt exactly the second coming of Ron Paul.

I'm sure flyover country will love him.

Do any VA posters have anything to say about his time as a governor?

May 29, 2005, 05:59 PM
Yeah, I don't think George Allen will be our best buddy, but likely not as bad as Clinton or even McCain. Blackwell on the other hand is said to be quite pro-RKBA (no research done on my part).


Standing Wolf
May 29, 2005, 06:04 PM
IF Horrible Hillery decides to run for the Dem nomination for President, will she have access to the same "MACHINE" that Bill had before her?

Yep—and she's running.

It's lately occurred to me that if the Republicans in Congress continue to stumble over their own big feet and/or hide under their beds at every opportunity, the odds on America electing Mrs. Snopes Clinton must necessarily rise.

Lessons tend to be repeated until they're mastered.

May 29, 2005, 06:39 PM
I believe the "Bill" machine is alive and well. The Democrat lineup for the 2004 presidential race was filled with losers. There were far better candidates than Kerry, but the Clintons didn't want the Dem's to win.

The Republicans should be grooming a candidate now, but I don't see it happening. Newt Gingrich is obviously setting himself up to run, but he'll have as much of a chance as Alan Keyes. Hillary would pulverize him.

I hate to repeat myself, but I believe there's a way for Dr. Rice to get the elected office experience she needs: have Dick Cheney resign next year due to health problems, and GW appoint Rice as VP.

Hillary has been working very hard at moving to the middle, and her negatives are declining. She has more star power than Schwarzenneger did, and there isn't a Republican on the scene at the moment who can match her. Except Rice.

May 29, 2005, 08:29 PM
Yes Hillary does have "IT"........ But if she would go to the Congressional Free Medical Clinic she could get a shot or two and get rid of "IT". :mad: :D

Sean Smith
May 29, 2005, 08:41 PM
If Hillary runs she will get all the black and female votes by default, barring any extreme unforseen stupidity on her part of course. That puts her a long way towards winning right off the bat.

I do think she is beatable, but it will take a good Republican candidate, or her self-destructing, to cause it. She really doesn't have any charisma; in fact, she inspires viscreal unease in people who aren't even opposed to her political positions. And she hasn't really accomplished squat in the Senate. Her support comes from being a woman named Clinton, not her tangible accomplishments or outstanding likability. And somehow I think that a clever campaign could provoke her into emotionally self-destructing... not because she's a woman, but because she's Hillary Clinton.

May 29, 2005, 08:50 PM
As another poster indicated, Condi would split the women's vote, and siphon off a few black votes. I'm afraid a lot of women would vote for Hillary just because she's a woman, sort of. Condi is probably our best bet to attempt to neutralize Hillary's "star power".

Here's something to consider: Hillary would do very, very poorly among white, male voters; much worse than Kerry did in 2004. The big problem is that Hillary is so unlikeable; she comes off as the mother-in-law from hell. What a b***h! The likeability factor was detrimental for Kerry, and all the goose hunting, beer drinking and talking about "Lambert Field" could not change that. All the moving to the middle may not help Hillary all that much, if Hillary is even less likeable than Kerry (a safe assumption).

Standing Wolf
May 29, 2005, 10:09 PM
...I believe there's a way for Dr. Rice to get the elected office experience she needs: have Dick Cheney resign next year due to health problems, and GW appoint Rice as VP.

Being appointed to an elected office doesn't quite make the grade.

Frankly, I think we're suffering from a surfeit of experienced politicians.

May 29, 2005, 10:23 PM
What about Delay? Assuming he beats his current troubles, what is the likelihood that he would run? He is A ranked by GOA and he played naughty tricks to keep the AWB off the table in 2004.

lee n. field
May 29, 2005, 10:24 PM

2nd Amendment
May 29, 2005, 10:28 PM
What color is Delay? What gender is, umm...he? :) Oh yeah? Write his honky chauvinist ass off. :D

May 29, 2005, 10:37 PM
You all don't seem very concered over McCain running a 3rd party campaign. Need I remind that Bill Clinton only won his first term, because Ross Perot siphoned off enough votes from Bush Sr.?

It could be history repeating itself come 2008.

May 29, 2005, 10:52 PM
As things appear today Hillary is likely to be the next President of the United States. Is that the end of America? No, only the end of America as we now know it. There was a War of Secession; there could be another--or there could be a War of Expulsion. Linear extrapolations don't compute.

May 29, 2005, 10:53 PM
McCain isn't going to run a third party effort - the deal was put in place last fall when he campaigned with and for the Shrub. The deal is he'll get to run as a Republican and the Bush enterprise won't screw him.

Hillary can win. What a choice voters will have - Monster A or Monster B. I'll vote third party. Whoever wins - we lose.

May 29, 2005, 11:16 PM
Hillary may be able to get some support among the Dems, but she has such massive negatives I can't imagine she'd have a chance of beating a halfway tolerable GOP candidate. Tens of millions of people actively HATE the woman.

Felonious Monk
May 29, 2005, 11:23 PM
You all don't seem very concered over McCain running a 3rd party campaign. Need I remind that Bill Clinton only won his first term, because Ross Perot siphoned off enough votes from Bush Sr.? Didn't the Dems make the case that Ralph Nader was doing the same thing to Kerry?

I would love to see Condi run on the GOP ticket, just because it would fly in the face of the NOW and the NAALCP to have the first black woman president to be a conservative. :neener: :cool:

May 29, 2005, 11:55 PM
There may be another antidote to Hillary becoming President - United Nations Secretary General Bill Clinton (

If Bill became Secretary General of the UN, either through Koffi Annan's resignation or when Annan's final term expires on 1/1/2007, it would stack the cards heavily against Hillary running for President. If she ran, she would have extra obstacles:No doubt the Clintons, with Bill at that point well into his second year as secretary-general, would try to depict the combination as downright beneficial. But American voters might well be inclined to think that the world would be better off not being run exclusively by the Clinton family. If Jeb Bush’s membership in the "Bush dynasty" is considered an obstacle to a presidential race by him in 2008, what should we be expected to think of having the world’s closest approach to a government, and the world’s most powerful nation, ruled by a husband-and-wife team?

May 30, 2005, 12:10 AM
I speak as a Native Arkie here, who grew up under the various Clintonista regimes in Arkansas.

Slick Willy didn't win because he had a political "MACHINE."

Such a "MACHINE" is not the reason that Slick Willy won. The reason he won was because of another "IT" which Hillary most certainly does not have.

Slick Willy won and won because of his personal charm, his great acting, his ability to make even die-hard antagonists feel a personal connection with him.

And I am talking about the man in person here, not as he came off on TV or in a recorded sound-bit.

I can't stand Slick Willy, but I can honestly say that no one, and I mean no one, at least not in recent US political history, could work a room full of live folks like Slick Willy.

He thrived on personal contact. He could make you feel like you were the only person in the room, even in a room full of hundreds.

I know firsthand, because of some personal encounters I had with Slick Willy back when he was just the governor of Arkansas.

Is Hillary organized? Heck yes, she is organized.

She is also 1) wooden 2) cold 3) artificial 4) not good in wide-open, uncontrolled venues like a room full of live people.

She also comes off as being calculating, staged, awkward, as well as bitter, mean, hectoring and shrill.

In a public situation, she is almost the exact diametric opposite of her Slick erstwhile husband.

In short, her personal style and demeanor and personality makes Al Gore look like a suave playboy Mac-daddy in comparison.

Hillary doesn't have a chance in Hell of getting elected president.

Only hard-core Dem fruit-loops who never have any contact with people beyond dinner parties full of left-wing Manhattanites think otherwise.


May 30, 2005, 12:23 AM
One more bit of truth here.

Lots of people, even folks who intensely dislike Slick Willy's policies and politics, very much like Slick Willy as a person. (I am not one of them). But lots of folks who think Slick Willy had very bad political ideas would love to spend an afternoon with Slick Willy because he comes off as a charming, likeable guy. That's what made him so freakin' dangerous...his charm and style that camoflagued what I consider to be an amoral sociopathic core.

Now the flip side.

Lots of people, even folks who intensely like Hillary's policies and politics, dislike Hillary very much as a person. Lots of folks who are lockstep liberals would not enjoy spending an afternoon with Hillary because she is fundamentally a disagreeable, cold, distant, unlikeable person.

It's just who and what she is. She has been ever thus.

That's not a winning ticket for the Presidency....when lots of folks who agree with your policies don't like you as a person.

Hey, that sounds like John F'in Kerry...............


May 30, 2005, 01:03 AM
McCain hurts Hilly worse than any R that runs.
He's a Rino so his platform looks D not R.
I hope he does run. Perhaps it would move the Rs to the right.

What no one is mentioning is the damage the current guy to doing to the next R candidate for PoUS that runs regardless of who that might be. Dr. heal thyself comes to mind before we start the hand ringing over Hilly.

I'm not sure R. Limbaugh, S, Hannity and all R apologists and spin doctors put together can get the nose up on the powerdive W has the party in.


May 30, 2005, 01:08 AM
Hillary doesn't have a chance in Hell of getting elected president.

You know, I hope you are right, but I have also noticed it getting hotter lately. :evil:

Bush had no landslide over the likes of John Kerry, and any prospective GOP candidate is unlikely, at this juncture, to match W.'s general appeal, especially with 9/11 fading. Hillary has many liabilities as a campaigner--I think we are all aware of her philosophical and political liabilities--but she's going to be the recipient of an avalanche of Oprah votes.

May 30, 2005, 01:18 AM
is what mine is.

And I sure hope it translates into making her unelectable.

The trouble is, will all the Oprah voters feel that way?

May 30, 2005, 02:19 AM
McCain isn't going to run a third party effort - the deal was put in place last fall when he campaigned with and for the Shrub.
Any deal to the contrary, the republican base just plain won't vote for him for nominee, and I'm sure his pollster is telling him that. If you haven't noticed, McCain's been making his own deals lately, his backstabbing Frist made him unelectable as a republican. Either he won't run at all (unlikely), or he'll run as an independent. If he does, Hillery will win hands down.

May 30, 2005, 08:22 PM
Are husband and wife still considered to be one entity? I know when it comes to the fifth amendment they are, except in very, very extreme circumstances. Of course they have taken the wrecking ball to previous laws. And they have been busy trying to knock this one down too.

If so it should be reciprocal, and applied to other laws. Legally they should be one entity. She should not be able to run, what with term limits and all.

Of course that's idealogy not reality. Yeah, if she runs she's probably a shoe in. What makes me sick is I suspected this would happen two years ago. I am guessing some deal was made between GB I and the dems; "Yeah, my son get's TWO terms, that's the only way I sacrifice my second term. After that we'll let you have the office again"...

May 30, 2005, 09:24 PM
Bill doesn't look that good. Hillary may get in on a sympathy vote.

Dave R
May 30, 2005, 11:04 PM
I don't feel quite the sense of panic that some do.

Remember, in BOTH Bill Clinton victories, he did not win 50% of the popular vote. He needed the 3rd party candidate to split the conservative vote. I think Hillary will be LESS popular than Bill. She's got the legacy of his scandals, and hers.

Now, translate that to the electoral college. Which red states would flip to blue? If HIllary could take Ohio and/or Florida, I think she could win. I dunno if she can.

May 30, 2005, 11:44 PM
I've read every post here, and I have two more comments to make.

1) All the folks saying Hillary, one of the most divisive, disliked people in recent American politics, is a guaranteed, shoe-in, can't miss President really, really amaze me.

It makes me wonder if some of y'all are smoking that cheap street crank again?

2) One more blunt, to-the-point observation. All comments saying that "all the women" are going to vote for Hillary just because she's a woman and for no other reason at all smacks of plain old-fashioned sexism.

Y'all all might as well be saying that because women are such silly, emotionally-driven, irrational creatures that they shouldn't be trusted with guns.


For example, I can't think of a single woman to whom I am related by blood or marriage who would throw a bucket of stale horse piss on Hillary if she were on fire and crawling across the sidewalk, much less actually vote for her.

All you guys flippantly saying that every single woman will vote for Hillary just because she's a woman strike me as, well, absolutely silly.


May 31, 2005, 12:54 AM
nhhillbilly, your posts are always thoughtful, but I think your view on this subject is skewed by living in a conservative/libertarian state.

The 2000 election presidential election was a referendum on Clinton versus conservatives. The fact that Al Gore lost--by a razor-thin margin--means only that Al Gore ran a poor campaign. Coming off of eight years of solid economic boom, "peace in our time" (meaning, of course, that Clinton didn't take on anything too big), and that Gore faced a challenger who was an abominal public speaker should have meant that Gore would win handily.

2004 saw one of the largest election turnouts in history, driven in no small part by the New Voter Project (a "non-partisan" group guilty of massive voter fraud favoring Kerry),, and other groups bent solely on not necessarily electing Kerry, but defeating Bush and the Republicans.

You may not see it on your ground, but I sure see it here. The Blue stater's are in a frenzy. They've been whupped twice by some dip from Texas who can't even pronounce the word "nuclear."

No matter where I go, no matter how trivial the conversation, it all boils down to "that %&&*# Bush."

2008 is going to be the most defining moment in American politics since the Civil War (war of Northern Aggression to you Southernors).

The liberals are seething mad, determined to win at any cost, willing to sacrifice their own. In fact, they already have sacrificed one of their own: Social Security reform. It was a signature issue for Clinton and Gore, and for Democrat elder statesmen like Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan decades prior.

That's all tossed overboard now. Nothing matters more than stopping Bush, no matter the cost: to you, your children, or the children of your children.

Hillary is hated by conservatives and most libertarians. She's loved by the 35% of people who identify themselves as Democrats, and by a sizeable chunk of the "mushy middle" who only vote every four years.

You may dismiss women who would vote for Hillary because she's female as some kind of anomoly, but I guarantee you that there are women who will do exactly that. It's taken me some ten years to get my wife to hate that Hillary thing and, even then, it's only because I've been slowly weening my wife from the liberal side.

By 2008, Hillary's financial dealings will have been relegated to ancient history. She will have neutralized her kiss of Yassar Arafat's wife by her current moves toward supporting Israel. Her anti-war stances are being neutralized as we speak.

She is doing more advance work than Slick Willy ever did. She's making all the right moves. Is she a cold, calculating bitch? Yes, but that can be cured with a few Dale Carnegie courses at the very least.

In 2000, the number of people who would have voted for Slick Willy--if possible under the Constitution--outnumbered the votes for Bush or Gore. The fondness for the Clinton glory days lives on.

The preparation for a 2008 Hillary run has been in place since 2000. Al Gore should have beat GW. Even Kerry should have been able to defeat GW. The Clinton's didn't want it and, what the Clinton's want, they get. The support--or lack of--that they gave to Gore or Kerry was telling.

Can Hillary carry New York, California, Florida, Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and enough other key electoral college states to win? In a New York minute. She may not carry New Hampshire, or Alabama, but she sure can carry enough Blue states--and enough wobbly Red states--to win.

I hate Hillary. You hate Hillary. But you and I aren't enough to stop her.

Old Fuff
May 31, 2005, 10:26 AM
As I've said before, it is way too early to draw conclusions. About the only thing one can bank on is that there won't be an incumbent in the race, and that will make a difference one way or another because an incumbent president always as some advantage unless they have really messed up.

During the next 2 ½ years a lot of things will happen that can't be foreseen now. We could suffer another terrorist attack of major proportions - even possibly involving nuclear or chemical devices. It is probable that North Korea and/or Iran will successfully develop atomic weapons within this time period. It is not impossible that either or both will attack someone with their new toys. Anything that happened, or was even seriously threatened, would have a profound effect on how voters would feel about their safety and security in a new sometimes-unfriendly world where two oceans no longer provided protection.

In an entirely different vain, no one knows what the state of our economy will be, and many people vote their pocketbooks. For many reasons Americans may be feeling less or more secure in the economic sense then they do now.

The illegal immigrant issue continues to fester and grow, and in some areas it will have an impact, but on which candidate?

Most of these questions and many more will probably be answered by late summer in 2007, but not necessarily before. But for the time being we can be sure that various potential candidates in both major parties will be jockeying for position. That said, the earliest leaders might not turn out to be the nominated candidates. The recent poll concerning Mrs. Clinton is an example, and undoubtedly a trial balloon - the first of many.

Watching and waiting is never easy, but it's sometimes necessary.

One last point ...The winner is always the candidate that gets out the most voters in those states that have the electoral votes. Not necessarily the one that simply gets the most votes.

May 31, 2005, 11:06 AM
Back to the original question - does Hillary have "IT?" I think that "IT" is not a political machine, but the political persona necessary to be elected President.

Here is a little insight directly from Hillary, courtesy of the Washington Post:The unseasoned Senate candidate once confided to Ickes, "I never realized how good Bill was at this until I tried to do it."

May 31, 2005, 11:11 AM
What if............ McCain decides to run for the WH in 2008 as a DEMOCRAT? :what:
He would take the nomination away from Broom Hilda and have a very real chance of being elected. And yes, that possibility scares the hell out of me.... :barf:


rock jock
May 31, 2005, 11:24 AM
One thing Hillary lacks that every leader must have (even tyrants) is poise. IF she becomes President, she will lose the respect of the American people very quickly with her public outbursts. She will be her own worst enemies.

2nd Amendment
May 31, 2005, 11:36 AM
2) One more blunt, to-the-point observation. All comments saying that "all the women" are going to vote for Hillary just because she's a woman and for no other reason at all smacks of plain old-fashioned sexism.

Problem is I kept a running poll of my employees and a sizeable, HUGE, percentage openly said they were voting for Slick because he was "good looking". Now I am hearing exactly what I said above from women they'll vote Hillary because she is a woman and they gotte stick together. There's an additional dose of "We Hate Bush" in that, too from the Dems, but I hear the gender thing even from supposed Republicans.

Likewise, none of the women in my immediate family voiced these sentiments, but a few further out on the branches did and are. So if you want blunt I'll give you blunt, yes, I do think there is something just flighty enough about women today to do exactly what I said. What the cause is I'd love to know but in the end the result is what is going to matter.

Ala Dan
May 31, 2005, 11:36 AM
We as gun owners have too view "Horrible Hillary-Billary" has a threat to
our second amendment rights. My personal belief is YES, she will make a
run for the White House in 2008 and I do believe that there are enough
senseless persons in America that will vote for her. This is why I'm a big
advocate of stocking up on weapons right now! When she makes her
stand against our second amendment rights, I'm afraid other types of
politicans will jump on her bandwagon. :uhoh: :eek: :scrutiny:

May 31, 2005, 11:58 AM
2) One more blunt, to-the-point observation. All comments saying that "all the women" are going to vote for Hillary just because she's a woman and for no other reason at all smacks of plain old-fashioned sexism.NPR did a poll last week of women voters. 60% said they'd vote for Hillary for no other reason than that she is a woman.

Call it sexist if you will - I call it reality.

May 31, 2005, 12:10 PM
I do think there is something just flighty enough about women today to do exactly what I said

A good chunk of America is "flighty" today, not just women. Groupthink prevails; it goes with consumerism and the cultural indoctrination that passes for "education." Plenty of people--all kinds--vote in blocs. I personally have no doubt that women will come out in droves to see Hillary be the first woman President, qualifications or no qualifications.

Look, we get the challenges we need. Hillary is a test. Can we keep the Republic? I guess we're going to find out how much we really want to. I can't imagine Hillary as a viable Commander-in-Chief, especially in these embattled times. Bill was bad enough, but Hillary now...? It should be interesting to see what upheavals occur in our military culture over such an event. The implications are that are vast; it could go anywhere...even across the Rubicon.

If we can hold Congress and shore up the Judiciary we can perhaps gridlock Hillary into paralysis and let her be an inspiring four-year footnote in the history books.

May 31, 2005, 12:38 PM
If we can hold Congress and shore up the Judiciary we can perhaps gridlock Hillary into paralysis and let her be an inspiring four-year footnote in the history books. +1

If you enjoyed reading about "Does Hillery have "IT"? (Long question)" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!