The defeat of John Kerry has left Hillary Rodham Clinton as one of the most powerful elected officials in the national Democratic Party - as well as the top prospect for the presidential nomination in 2008, according to party officials and strategists.
Now this is interesting.. the possibility of the first bipartisan sponsored female presidential candidate in history. And she has a long political history with which people are quite familiar. The question is, if today were Nov 1, 2008, would you consider for a moment voting for her bearing in mind that Bush will not be up for office in that election?
i'm not real positive, myself, that i'd vote for hillary. in fact, if the gop candidate is john mccain, i might consider voting for him, i'm not sure at this point.
mystic, with all due respect, i've read most of your posts. be honest with us. you wouldn't vote for ANYBODY who ran on the democratic ticket, would you? if i'm wrong, please give me an example of a democrat you'd vote for, liberal or moderate, dead or alive.
i'm not real positive, myself, that i'd vote for hillary. in fact, if the gop candidate is john mccain, i might consider voting for him, i'm not sure at this point.
mystic, with all due respect, i've read most of your posts. be honest with us. you wouldn't vote for ANYBODY who ran on the democratic ticket, would you? if i'm wrong, please give me an example of a democrat you'd vote for, liberal or moderate, dead or alive.
I always feel Im pretty honest about things. I backed Kerry on the abortion thing...I tell it as it is...I think by now people know that Im straight forward about my feelings.
Anyhow...I would have no problem voting for someone if I thought there issues were good. Dem or Rep. I dont think it would be right to name names of men that are dead....its really no good now, and I dont really know if I understood the times when they were around to know what issues would have been good for me.
You would have to give me some names, and let me look into what they feel about the issues and how they vote on specific things. (I cant honestly say that I could name names without looking at how they view certain issues that mean something personally for myself). Thats how I tend to vote.
I dont vote just because someone is republican...it tends to be my usual vote, but thats not the reason. I refused to vote for Kerry because of many of his issues that I didnt agree with.
I wouldnt vote for Hillary because I think we had enough of Bill...he wasnt a bad president by any means, I mean I could think of worse....I just dont think Hillary is the answer. Personally, I cant stand her....I dont think alot of people can.
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
fuscia said this in post #4 : I am a democrat and I would never vote for Hilary. I think she is too corrupt and does not deserve to be President.
I saw a documentary recently which touched on this corruption point about the Clintons. It was Republican policy to smear them both and despite the enormous effort they put into it they only managed to get Bill Clinton on his affair with monica Lewinsky and lying about it. Everything else was thrown out. Saying that, if she stands all that is going to be dredged up again, so whether it's true or not, she may have too much baggage to be a good candidate.
I saw a documentary recently which touched on this corruption point about the Clintons. It was Republican policy to smear them both and despite the enormous effort the put into it they only managed to get Bill Clinton on his affair with monica Lewinsky. Everything else was thrown out. Saying that, if she stands all that is going to be dredged up again, so whether it's true or not, she may have too much baggage to be a good candidate.
LOL!!
Oh Yeah...they had no whitewater involvement...Clinton just happened to pardon Susan McDougal just because...
Just because there was insufficient evidence doesnt mean they werent involved.
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
mystic said this in post #8 : Just because there was insufficient evidence doesnt mean they werent involved.
Remember the concept of innocent until proven guilty? If there's insufficient evidence, then you must be presumed innocent - you don't believe in that principle or what?
Regarding your comment (mystic) about a lot of people who "can't stand her", I think you're right and so does the Democratic party which they acknowledge in the article I linked. However her approval ratings have been soaring in N.Y. - more than 60% now up from 30 some-odd percent prior. Just food for thought.. you might be interested in reading that article, there's some interesting information presented there that weighs both sides of the question as to whether or not she would make a feasible candidate for `08.
Remember the concept of innocent until proven guilty? If there's insufficient evidence, then you must be presumed innocent - you don't believe in that principle or what?
I totally believe in that. Ive been arguing that statement for more than a year now somewhere else...but it is what it is. I didnt say they were guilty of anything. I just said just because there was insufficient proof doesnt mean they werent involved (doesnt mean they were either)....I guess I could have added that I dont know..because I dont. Yes, they werent found guilty of anything...thats true. But to blame it all on the republicans is just ridicluous....the pardon of McDougal was pretty iffy in itself.
Regarding your comment (mystic) about a lot of people who "can't stand her", I think you're right and so does the Democratic party which they acknowledge in the article I linked. However her approval ratings have been soaring in N.Y. - more than 60% now up from 30 some-odd percent prior. Just food for thought.. you might be interested in reading that article, there's some interesting information presented there that weighs both sides of the question as to whether or not she would make a feasible candidate for `08.
I dont know if she would make a good candidate...something about her doesnt sit well with me at all. I just think the dems can come up with someone more charismatic than hillary. If they are looking to increase votes, I dont think she is their answer.
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
I dont know if she would make a good candidate...something about her doesnt sit well with me at all. I just think the dems can come up with someone more charismatic than hillary. If they are looking to increase votes, I dont think she is their answer.
Fair enough, indeed.
I don't know enough about the whitewate thing to speak to one side or the other, but it just seems strange to me to use something that is questionable as a negative tick against the Clintons..
I don't know enough about the whitewate thing to speak to one side or the other, but it just seems strange to me to use something that is questionable as a negative tick against the Clintons..
Well, I actually didnt bring it up..I just expanded on someone else's comment. Thats not the reason I wouldnt vote for her....I dont place that much emphasis on that. I think Bill did an okay job...like I said, he wasnt a bad president.
I'd rather have him back as President than have her.
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
I like McCaine. He's a great person. Not sure if he is Presidential material. he does have 4 years to get ready though. If it had been McCaine instead of Kerry, I may have take a serious look at him.
As far as Hilary goes, I'm not sure either. She has a dark past with the Black Panthers in the 60's that might haunt her during a campaign for President or VP.
I don't think we need a leader under the 'Emotional" ticket.
"Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those who say this are witless." ~Ayatollah Khomeini
Remember the concept of innocent until proven guilty? If there's insufficient evidence, then you must be presumed innocent - you don't believe in that principle or what?
Regarding your comment (mystic) about a lot of people who "can't stand her", I think you're right and so does the Democratic party which they acknowledge in the article I linked. However her approval ratings have been soaring in N.Y. - more than 60% now up from 30 some-odd percent prior. Just food for thought.. you might be interested in reading that article, there's some interesting information presented there that weighs both sides of the question as to whether or not she would make a feasible candidate for `08.
WHAT? You mean OJ is innocent? LOL
This is my take from a republican perspective. Hillary may be very popular in NY but NY is unique. It's voted democrat for a long time. The democratic party needs to look for someone that will have a more broad based appeal. They really need to be able to crack into the midwest or southern states. I might be wrong but I don't think hillary could pull it off. Senators running for president have a real tough time being elected. I don't think it's worked since the original JFK. Not that it's imposible though. What do you think about Martha stewart running? I know it sounds like a joke but I do know a lot of people who are fans of hers. Just a thought.
11-04-2004 06:40 PM
