CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › So Hillary's running for Pres...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

So Hillary's running for Pres...

post #1 of 74
1/20/07 at 4:02pm
Thread Starter 
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/us...rtner=homepage

Will she get the nomination? If she does, does she have a chance of winning?
Reply
post #2 of 74
1/20/07 at 4:09pm
The Republicans are going to win again.

They're going to run with McCain, right? That guy is undefeatable. Reps will always vote for their party, and a large number of dems may actually prefer to vote McCain.

Plus, who will the Democrats use?

Edwards? He is respected but no one believes he can do the job. Plus he was the vice for the candidate that lost last time.
Obama? He looks like he's 25, few people know him, and his middle name is Hussein.
Hillary? Not in this century.
Reply
post #3 of 74
1/20/07 at 4:09pm
I highly doubt it. The rest of the country isn't New York state. Call me cynical, but I don't think we're a civilized enough nation yet to elect a president who doesn't have a Y chromosome.

In any event, this is good news for Republicans, who can dust off the attack ads they've been dying to air since 1991.
Reply
post #4 of 74
1/20/07 at 4:21pm
Thread Starter 
From an outsider's perspective, the only thing that could make this election more fun would be if Jeb Bush decided to run. Bush vs Clinton again!! Let's keep it in the family, folks...
Reply
post #5 of 74
1/20/07 at 4:30pm
Everyone can be president
Reply
post #6 of 74
1/20/07 at 4:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexus
They're going to run with McCain, right? That guy is undefeatable. Reps will always vote for their party, and a large number of dems may actually prefer to vote McCain.
Im not so sure he is what he used to be. Stock falling.
Reply
post #7 of 74
1/20/07 at 4:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexus
The Republicans are going to win again.
Doubtful. It seems most of the country is fed up with Republicans right now. Understandably so. It seems like that entire party is fighting to bring America back to 1801.

Quote:
They're going to run with McCain, right? That guy is undefeatable. Reps will always vote for their party, and a large number of dems may actually prefer to vote McCain.
McCain will burn out before he gets through the primaries. Independents are starting to flee his ship faster and faster. Plus, his cozying up the Rapture Ready Republicans isn't winning him any friends, either.

I will never, ever vote for that man. He is a despicable human being and I can't wait till he slinks off into the sunset where he belongs.

Quote:
Plus, who will the Democrats use?

Edwards? He is respected but no one believes he can do the job. Plus he was the vice for the candidate that lost last time.
Obama? He looks like he's 25, few people know him, and his middle name is Hussein.
Hillary? Not in this century.
I agree on Hillary. But Edwards is intriguing. Remember: everyone though Dubya was an idjit too, prior to 2000. Turns out they were right, but Edwards may surprise you.
Reply
post #8 of 74
1/20/07 at 4:49pm
Yeah, out of those three Edwards would be the one I would give my vote to.

Is Al Gore definetely not joining in the race?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Devildoubt
Doubtful. It seems most of the country is fed up with Republicans right now. Understandably so.
The Mega PR Operation has already begun. Bush will gradually take on more and more blame for the state of things, and the next republican candidate is gonna shake his head in disapproval/distancing.
Reply
post #9 of 74
1/20/07 at 4:52pm
McCain would be a good candidate and that's why he's not going to make it past the primaries. He's trying to be more conservative just to make it to the general election, but Republicans still percieve him as a "liberal".

Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush ... and now Clinton again. This is a sick joke.
Reply
post #10 of 74
1/20/07 at 4:52pm
Agreed. Can we just move away from this family nonsense?
Reply
post #11 of 74
1/20/07 at 4:55pm
Yeah, plus that doesn't include the 2 terms of a Bush vice presidential candidate, and Jeb Bush still out there thinking someday he might run.

Is this the best the country can offer?
Reply
post #12 of 74
1/20/07 at 5:45pm
We agree El Capitan. I thought we fought a revolution in part so that all of the people in charge didn't come from the same family.

Gotta believe that a Hillary campaign is doomed. Not because she's a woman, but because she's a particular woman. If people thought Bill was hated by the end of his terms, he still had nothing on her.

I don't know. I'm still waiting for a Dem to join the race that I can feel confident supporting.
Reply
post #13 of 74
1/20/07 at 6:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica
McCain would be a good candidate and that's why he's not going to make it past the primaries. He's trying to be more conservative just to make it to the general election, but Republicans still percieve him as a "liberal".
McCain sucks as a human being and as a candidate. Mr. Straight Talk Express has spent the last six years cozying up to Bush and his lamebrain style of Texas Conservatism. Once McCain supported the Military Commissions Act of 2006, I lost any respect I had for the man. As far as I'm concerned, McCain is just another Bush Style Conservative that neither deserves respect or public office. He should retire to Paradise Valley and dream sentimentally of the days when his penis worked.
Reply
post #14 of 74
1/20/07 at 6:13pm
clinton can not win. period. she would be torn to shreds.
Reply
post #15 of 74
1/20/07 at 6:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCynic
clinton can not win. period. she would be torn to shreds.
You're just being Cynical.

Get it? Lord, the wit...
Reply
post #16 of 74
1/20/07 at 6:40pm
Is the Democratic Party so incompetent that they would choose Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate?

The danger in going with Obama is that they may burn him out too soon.

I'm intrigued by Edwards stance on fighting poverty. Although it will probably be all talk and no action in the end.

And yeah, McCain sold his soul to the last administration and I've also lost any respect for the straight-talker.

But what do we care? I'm only Canadian!
Reply
post #17 of 74
1/20/07 at 6:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCynic
clinton can not win. period. she would be torn to shreds.
670 posts and you still can't use capital letters?
Reply
post #18 of 74
1/20/07 at 6:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexus
and his middle name is Hussein.
Wow, I thought you were joking, but then I looked it up, and it got even funnier. The guy's doubly unlucky when it comes to his name.
Reply
post #19 of 74
1/20/07 at 7:55pm
I'm putting all my support behind Obama right now. He's a great candidate. However, I'd vote for any Democrat, because Republicans have sold their souls (a long, long time ago).

Howevere, I like Chuck Hagel.
Reply
post #20 of 74
1/20/07 at 8:01pm
I think on the Republicans side you're forgetting Mike Huckabee. He really seems to have a chance winning back some voters to the Republicans side assuming they do the smart thing and nominate him instead of losing groung quick Mccain. As far as the Dems go, Obama and Edwards look like their best shot to take the big game with.
Reply
post #21 of 74
1/20/07 at 8:15pm
I'm a liberal Democrat from Illinois and im sure not voting for Obama. The guys been in the Senate for 2 years and now he's going to run for president? The guy has virtually no record to speak of, and what little voting record he does have is a very dubious one.

And I hate Hillary.

Edwards I would vote for in a second.
Reply
post #22 of 74
1/20/07 at 8:22pm
I have a real big issue with Obama. It's not the "he's black thing". It's not the "Hussien" thing.

Obama spoke at the last Democratic convention prior to him even being elected to the Senate for his first term. This was less than 2 years ago. Even then there was a murmor of "he's going to be president one day".

Well...now he's going to run. Hasn't been in the Senate for 2 years and going up against Hilary and the Clinton press spinning machine. He's going to be destroyed.

He should have waited a few more years until he got seasoned a bit and then went for it. He was going an uphill battle to begin with, now there's people further up the hill throw crap down on him.

It's a shame, he could have been a great candidate if he just finished cooking.
Reply
post #23 of 74
1/20/07 at 9:02pm
On the other hand, there's something to be said for striking while the iron is hot. Sure, Obama could wait another eight years, but then he'd be the guy people were talking about eight years ago. He's got a popular profile right now, so why not? And at any rate, somebody has to be the first serious black candidate for president. The first probably doesn't have a chance in hell, but somebody's gotta throw their hat over the wall. He's as good a choice as any. Better than most, actually.
Reply
post #24 of 74
1/20/07 at 9:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Alexor
670 posts and you still can't use capital letters?
that's an inaccurate statement.
Reply
post #25 of 74
1/20/07 at 9:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCynic
that's an inaccurate statement.
So prove him wrong.
Reply
post #26 of 74
1/20/07 at 9:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg David
So prove him wrong.
He just did.
Reply
post #27 of 74
1/20/07 at 9:27pm
Obama could end up waiting a minimum of 4 and up to 16 years. No man's that patient.

Hillary creeps me out. I can't shake the feeling that she has sold her soul to the same masters as Dubya, a long time ago.

Personally, I think the world needs Gore. Him not becoming president in 2000 was one of history's greatest lost opportunities.
Reply
post #28 of 74
1/20/07 at 9:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexus
He just did.
Quote:
that's an inaccurate statement.
Somehow, I missed the capitalization in that sentence.
Reply
post #29 of 74
1/20/07 at 9:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastronikolas
Personally, I think the world needs Gore. Him not becoming president in 2000 was one of history's greatest lost opportunities.
Agreed. Gore is the most electable Democratic candidate. I thought for sure we would see him in the race, but it appears he doesn't have any interest. I'm seriously bummed. A Gore-Obama ticket would be unbeatable, and I'm surprised there isn't more talk about it.
Reply
post #30 of 74
1/20/07 at 9:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg David
Somehow, I missed the capitalization in that sentence.
You have to think out of the box, man.

spoilers: That was his 671st post
Reply
post #31 of 74
1/20/07 at 9:58pm
actually, i can use the shift key anytime i want. it's fairly simple, i think you just hold it down and press the letter you want to be bigger than the other ones.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg David
So prove him wrong.
give me one good reason.

please, no more derailing. it's just sad, derailing a thread because someone doesn't type the way you want them to.
Reply
post #32 of 74
1/20/07 at 10:21pm
Yeah, I'd certainly vote for Obama, but I think he's too inexperienced to really have a shot. Gore or Edwards would be great. Hillary not so much. There was a time when I would have actually considered voting for McCain, but that time has certainly passed.

Also, the lack of proper capitalization makes it harder for me to take a post seriously. It isn't that difficult to use the English language properly.
Reply
post #33 of 74
1/20/07 at 10:24pm
I'm kind of stumped as to why NOT spending years and years running for President is seen as a negative for Obama.

In fact, a run now couldn't really hurt him. If he loses, he won't be damaged goods forever. People will just say he was too unseasoned, and he can try again in a decade or two. When he's a washed-up, soulless husk like Kerry. Yay!

Seriously though, you guys are underestimating the power of Oprah.
Reply
post #34 of 74
1/20/07 at 10:30pm
Also, McCain is undefeatable? In what reality? He lost most of the left when he signed off on the torture bill. On the right, he's getting caught in the middle of the split between the free-market types and the religious nutjobs, and not appealling to either.
Reply
post #35 of 74
1/20/07 at 10:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCynic
give me one good reason.
Because if you're rebelling against the rules of grammar, then you need to find something better to rebel against. Otherwise, as previously mentioned, it's silly not to, it makes you look dumb, and your posts are viewed less seriously. It's like a ton of mispellings. Then again, maybe it's truth in advertising.
Reply
post #36 of 74
1/20/07 at 10:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Prankster
I'm kind of stumped as to why NOT spending years and years running for President is seen as a negative for Obama.

In fact, a run now couldn't really hurt him. If he loses, he won't be damaged goods forever. People will just say he was too unseasoned, and he can try again in a decade or two. When he's a washed-up, soulless husk like Kerry. Yay!

Seriously though, you guys are underestimating the power of Oprah.
It's a negative for Obama for a few reasons.
1) It makes his run for the senate seem incredibly disingenuous and makes it seem as if he never had any intention to be a senator to begin with and was just using it as a spring-board for the presidency. This will ring very hollow with a lot of voters.

and 2) like I said above, the man has almost no real record with which people can make an informed decision about the man. I cant in good conscience vote for a man just because he has great charisma.
Reply
post #37 of 74
1/20/07 at 11:26pm
I really don't think you can reasonably conclude that he only ran for the senate assuming that he would immediately jump into the presidential race. It's pretty clear that we was being urged to run by people within his party, rather than making a blitzkrieg for the presidency from day one. Not that I don't believe he had any ambitions in that regard, but it seems like a stretch for him to believe he had a shot in '08 back when he was first running for the senate.
Reply
post #38 of 74
1/20/07 at 11:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg David
And at any rate, somebody has to be the first serious black candidate for president. The first probably doesn't have a chance in hell, but somebody's gotta throw their hat over the wall. He's as good a choice as any. Better than most, actually.
Jackson was a serious candidate in 1984. He landed 450 delegates.
Reply
post #39 of 74
1/21/07 at 12:15am
A SKIRT in the oval office?

Unless she's sucking the President's dick, not likely.
Reply
post #40 of 74
1/21/07 at 12:42am
I think Hillary's support is coming mostly from uninformed soccer moms. I think this faction will weaken, and she won't get the nomination.
Reply
post #41 of 74
1/21/07 at 2:16am
Obama may have only had two years so far in the US Senate but he was elected as an Illinois State Senator several times if that means anything to you guys.He didn't just come out of the blue and get elected to the US Senate.Besides, the longer Obama puts off running, the more ammo his longer Senate record gives critics.We've all seen how easy it is to manipulate the reasons a Congressman votes for a bill or a proposed bill. Just look at Kerry in 04.Bush was elected president and he's never been a member of a lawmaking body before(that I'm aware of). The only reason I wouldn't want Obama to win is because he(or whoever wins) will be unfairly stuck with trying to solve the problems in Iraq which will still be going on.
Reply
post #42 of 74
1/21/07 at 2:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbrother
Just look at Kerry in 04.Bush was elected president and he's never been a member of a lawmaking body before(that I'm aware of).
Bush was a two term governor of Texas.

But I don't see why Obama should not run now. People keep harping on the fact that he has very little federal experience. But neither did Carter, Regan, Clinton or Bush Jr.

Yes the people of Illinois elected him to serve a full term as their state senator, but he's not guaranteed to still have all this buzz 6 or 10 years from now.
Reply
post #43 of 74
1/21/07 at 3:23am
Yeah, I love Senator Obama (he is the first candiate I've ever considered "going to New Hampshire" for), and I've never felt that his original run for Senate seemed like a spring-board for a Presidential campaign. All that I've read and seen indicates that he's not coming to a decision lightly, and is weighing the years of good he could do in the Senate vs. running for President. It's not like, say, John Edwards, who made it pretty clear that he was only in Congress to go on to bigger and better things one day.

And I mean, honestly, '08 represents the Senator's best chance.

As for Senator Clinton, fan-fucking-tastic. The absolute worst thing the DNC could do right now is support her for President. I like President Clinton a lot, and I will vote for whoever the Dems support, but it's time for a change in the White House.

I agree, though, that a rejuvinated Gore paired with Sen. Obama would be unbeatable. The sad, "politics as sport", side of me wants to see Gore/Obama vs. McCain/Giuliani. That would be one hell of a fight.
Reply
post #44 of 74
1/21/07 at 3:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wee-Bey
Bush was a two term governor of Texas.
Governors aren't a member of a law-making body.
Reply
post #45 of 74
1/21/07 at 3:50am
Bush was a two-term Governor of the state with the weakest (power-wise) Governor in the country.

Two things to keep in mind with Obama:

1) He's tackling the whole "lack of experience" issue head-on. He's going to relate it to his political idol, President Lincoln, who only was elected once (I believe it was once, may have been twice) to the House of Representatives before being elected President.
2) Obama hasn't taken a stand or stood at the forefront of any legislation covering a controversial issue since he has been in the Senate. He's always trying to play it easy. That's the problem I have with him. At least with Clinton people can say they like or don't like her stance on the war vote. You can't point to anything like that for Obama since he's been in the Senate. Additionally, his mentor in the Senate (not sure if anymore) is Joe Lieberman. Take that for what you will.
Reply
post #46 of 74
1/21/07 at 3:57am
Note on Senator Clinton for everyone, if you think about it, what else can anyone say or do to her that would be really damaging to her that hasn't been said or done by now? Most people are firm on their opinion of her and she can't really go down from this point. She can only go up. What about a Clinton/Obama ticket? First woman and black man elected to the White House? I think a lot of people would vote for that on the simple fact alone that it would be a historic event and they can say they were a part of it.
Reply
post #47 of 74
1/21/07 at 3:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by donde
What about a Clinton/Obama ticket? First woman and black man elected to the White House? I think a lot of people would vote for that on the simple fact alone that it would be a historic event and they can say they were a part of it.
That's probably what we're looking at, to be honest with you.
Reply
post #48 of 74
1/21/07 at 4:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by donde
Note on Senator Clinton for everyone, if you think about it, what else can anyone say or do to her that would be really damaging to her that hasn't been said or done by now? Most people are firm on their opinion of her and she can't really go down from this point. She can only go up. What about a Clinton/Obama ticket? First woman and black man elected to the White House? I think a lot of people would vote for that on the simple fact alone that it would be a historic event and they can say they were a part of it.
Not nearly enough for them to actually win.
Reply
post #49 of 74
1/21/07 at 4:51am
But they'll probably do it.

Sure, they'll go head to head for a couple of months...but come the primary, we're looking at a big sloppy make-up and a renewed "team effort" out of the Clinton and Obama camps.
Reply
post #50 of 74
1/21/07 at 4:52am
Do all you people vote based upon who you think has the better chance of winning within your grouping?
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › So Hillary's running for Pres...