"I’m in. And I’m in to win." - H.R. Clinton

[dex]

"I’m in. And I’m in to win."
SENATOR HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, announcing her campaign for president.

What makes a leader is their vision of what is needed in the future and their ability to make it happen.

The issue I have with H. R. Clinton is that I don't know what she stands for. I get the sense her policies are focused on just winning without any core beliefs to guide her or her followers. I think this is similar to William Clinton also.

What will be interesting if she is elected is that there will be an area where she will surprise her supporters if she is elected. My guess is that she will be much more conservative than what her supporters expect.

Past surprises:
LB Johnson - Texan gets 1964 Civil rights act passed
R. Nixon - Anti Communist opens up China
Ford - Helsinki agreement
J. Carter - ?
R. Reagan - Negociated with USSR
Bush I - Increased Taxes
B. Clinton - Welfare reform - cut benefits and got millions of poor off the rolls
Bush II - Has not vetoed one spending bill

However, this having been said when it comes down to the general election the decision process usually comes down to selecting the least offensive candidate - no matter what your party affiliation.

You don't have to agree with previous presidents but you can identify their vision for example:
LB Johnson - help the poor and civil rights
R. Nixon - anti communisim and attempted to represent the silent majority against the social uncertainty of the 60's
Ford - public service; international human rights - specifically USSR
J. Carter - international human rights; represent the disenfranchised in Washington DC
R. Reagan - Re establish international and internal respect for the USA
Bush I - public service as defined by the "Greatest Generation"
B. Clinton - ?
Bush II - Reaction to the preceived abuses of the B. Clinton administration

[RAE]

Dex, I agree with you that it's hard to figure out what H.R. Clinton stands for. For example, she supported Bush in this absurb war early-on (when public opinion was not heavily against it), but she has gradually shifted to opposition once it became clear (to the public) that this was not a good idea. At least people like Obama, Feingold, and Dean opposed it from the start, when that stance was not particularly popular.

Having said that, I'll vote for just about ANY democrat in this next pres. election, as I have many fundamental disagreements with policies of the other party, and they have done so much damage to the country that I cannot imagine putting a Republican back in office again.

OK, I'm sure that will get a reaction.........fire away, folks.

[newguy88]

Originally Posted by RAE

Dex, I agree with you that it's hard to figure out what H.R. Clinton stands for. For example, she supported Bush in this absurb war early-on (when public opinion was not heavily against it), but she has gradually shifted to opposition once it became clear (to the public) that this was not a good idea. At least people like Obama, Feingold, and Dean opposed it from the start, when that stance was not particularly popular.

Having said that, I'll vote for just about ANY democrat in this next pres. election, as I have many fundamental disagreements with policies of the other party, and they have done so much damage to the country that I cannot imagine putting a Republican back in office again.

OK, I'm sure that will get a reaction.........fire away, folks.

I would vote mcCain /gulliani if that is what is running against say clinton, and this is from a liberal independent who voted for one republican in my lifetime. Regan.

[Leonidas]

Originally Posted by dex

However, this having been said when it comes down to the general election the decision process usually comes down to selecting the least offensive candidate - no matter what your party affiliation.

It's obvious that most of the candidates play to that by trying not to offend too many people that lean toward voting for them and then fill the record with verbosity that allows them to later pull out a quote that allows them to claim a different stance if that becomes convenient. I've gotten pretty good at being able to vote and hold my nose at the same time.

[frayne]

Reminds me of a little Johnny joke:

One day a fourth-grade teacher asked the children what their fathers didfor a living. All the typical answers came up
fireman, mechanic, businessman, salesman, doctor, lawyer, and so forth.


But little Johnny was being uncharacteristically quiet, so when theteacher prodded him about his father, he replied
"My father's an exotic dancer in a gay cabaret andtakes off his clothes in front of other men and they put money in his
underwear. Sometimes, if the offer is really good, he will go home with someguy and make love with him for money."

The teacher, obviously shaken by this statement, hurriedly sent the other children to work on some exercises and then took
little Johnny aside to askhim, "Is that really true about your father?"

"No," the boy said, "he works for the DemocraticNational Committee and is helping to secure the nomination of Hillary Clinton
in 2008, but I was too embarrassed to say that in front of the other kids."

[Alex]

George McGovern said the exact same words.....

[lets-retire]

frayne---HAHAHAHA.


On the other side Clinton's conservativeness has only recently been developed. About the time when people started talking about her running for president, it seemed she started to talk a little more to the right. However, I think if you really want to see where she believes look at what she tried to do when it was Billy's booty on the line not hers. She is very very left leaning...to the point of falling over leaning.....almost laying on her left side, she's leaning so far.

[F-One]

She'll be the best thing for helping the Republican candidate - she'll consilidate the Republican voters against her and too many people like NewGuy888 who just don't like her.

[HFWR]

They now have a Hillary box meal at KFC!

Two small breasts, two big thighs, and one left wing...

[Cattusbabe]

Originally Posted by HFWR

They now have a Hillary box meal at KFC!

Two small breasts, two big thighs, and one left wing...

Now thats a cold shot.

As far as her running. Yawn. I'll tune into this circus after a few primaries.

[haha]

Originally Posted by HFWR

They now have a Hillary box meal at KFC!

Two small breasts, two big thighs, and one left wing...

[donheff]

Originally Posted by RAE

Dex, I agree with you that it's hard to figure out what H.R. Clinton stands for. For example, she supported Bush in this absurb war early-on (when public opinion was not heavily against it), but she has gradually shifted to opposition once it became clear (to the public) that this was not a good idea. At least people like Obama, Feingold, and Dean opposed it from the start, when that stance was not particularly popular.

I agree with Dex that she may end up being more conservative than people predict. As to early support for the war, more than 70% of the country agreed back then. We had Colin Powell, Mr. Trustworthy, staking his credibility on the fact that Saddam was ready to unleash a virulent small pox epidemic. Fool me once, shame on you; fool my twice, shame on me. The shame for the war resides with Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney/Rove, not Clinton. The only shame HC, me and other dupes need harbor is shame for believing those bozos had the US' best interests at heart.

[Craig]

Would be rather amusing to watch the Democrats run Hillary. Would be like the Republicans running David Duke.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Charles

Would be rather amusing to watch the Democrats run Hillary. Would be like the Republicans running David Duke.

Troll alert

[2B]

Originally Posted by Charles

Would be rather amusing to watch the Democrats run Hillary. Would be like the Republicans running David Duke.

What little exists of a background on Hillary is very left wing/socialist. Her run for the senate and her 6 years in it so far has been designed entirely for her running when it looked right. If Kerry was in, she'd be cooling her heels this time unless Kerry looked like a disaster in '08.

I wouldn't trust one speech or one vote she's made in the last 8 years. Everything is designed for what we are about to see.

I've posted here before that 2008 is for the dems to lose. I suspect they will again find a disaster of a candidate and Hillary would fill the bill. The repubs have also shown remarkable skill in picking their own losers.

Bill Clinton only got reelected in 1996 because the repubs nominated the "800 year old man" (Bob Dole). Bush II only got reelected because of the dems nominating an uber-liberal, anti-war radical that tried to run on his war record. The real marvel is that Bush II was elected in the first place because a VP of a popular president (as Clinton was in 2000) is usually a shoe-in. I guess cardboard candidates don't do well even with a big headstart.

Unfortunately, it looks like 2008 will be a good year for wearing clothespins.

[Nords]

Originally Posted by Charles

Would be rather amusing to watch the Democrats run Hillary. Would be like the Republicans running David Duke.

Were you the guy complaining how the threads have gotten too political & vicious?

[Buckeye]

When a man suggests universal healthcare for the residents of the most populated state (i.e a not so small country), the is reactions both positive and negative but not over the top. When a women suggests it for the country, the sky is falling and she is a liberal wacko. I'm not necessarily a Hillary supporter but it was very interesting to see the differing reactions when the same idea was presented by and women and then by a man.

[dex]

Originally Posted by dex

What will be interesting if she is elected is that there will be an area where she will surprise her supporters if she is elected. My guess is that she will be much more conservative than what her supporters expect.

I think I need to explain this comment a bit. Hillary might do something more conservative than what her supportors expect in a similar way the other presidents did. Maybe she will eliminate the IRS and go to the flat tax or some such. I also think there is a possibility she might be more millerteristic than expected to show that as a woman she isn't a push over!!!!!!?? I think you get the idea.

[samclem]

Originally Posted by Buckeye

When a man suggests universal healthcare for the residents of the most populated state (i.e a not so small country), the is reactions both positive and negative but not over the top. When a women suggests it for the country, the sky is falling and she is a liberal wacko. I'm not necessarily a Hillary supporter but it was very interesting to see the differing reactions when the same idea was presented by and women and then by a man.

Hillary and Aaanold differ in many aspects of their political philosophy and their background. The state of public debate on health care has changed significantly in the last 10 years. Also, the plans they proposed are very different. Given all this, why do you believe the difference in public reaction to their plans is due to their sex?