Is Hillary Clinton going to be President?

Do you guys believe that Hilary Clinton will be the next Prsident, I believe she and Rice will run for, whats next a woman President. This is very possible is it not.





(Mod edit: Added an "l" and a "?" to the title. -- Majic)

[edit on 12/15/2006 by Majic]

I think Clinton will not win, if she runs in 2008. Anyone that is going to win needs to get some of the 'other' voters, a republican needs to get democrats, and a democrat needs to get republicans. Clinton doesn't stand much of a chance of getting republican voters, though she may be able to swing some because of her pro-war stance.

However, she doesn't have, I beleive, strong support in the democratic base. She's pro-war, so that looses the further left, and, she's a woman, so that looses most of the old-schoolers that are still within the party, both in terms of support through votes, AND support from the party machinery.

I look forward to 2008 because if the Republicans and Democrats both have women running for President it opens up the field for third parties. I would love to see Hillary become President just so Bill could be the First Lady. It would look good on him......

Condoleezza Rice would be my choice though if I was American, I think she would do a good job.

Hay two woman standing for president. White or Brown? What difference does it make? Because that is the question. Well Hillary the Witch did show commitment to her husband even when he did not show it to ether the party or her. Then again she is pro war but she has mentioned global warming. CongoLisaLice is also pro war (this is called U.S democracy) but I don't think she's mentioned anything about climate change. If I were her I would follow Hillary by taking up the issue. Then the U.S people will be asked to choose someone from...
1. Two woman
2. Both pro war
3. Both (finally) acknowledging climate change

Of course I’m sure if they appear on TV one will say she is more this than the other woman without actually committing themselves to much (if anything). And I bet both women will use slightly different perfumes. It also seems Congo will have something of a skin advantage, (I just hope she bothers to visit New Orleans next time there's a hurricane). Yeah it will be a fair race but maybe a little too fair? Providing that is Bill keeps his other women out of it!! I wonder; does he ever watch that program called Wife Swap? Cos if he does I guess one way or another he’s bound to be back in the Whitehouse.

Lady Margaret Thatcher served as the UK’s Prime Minister longer than any person, man or woman. I would never have voted for her but then, that’s me. I would choose between the Liberal Democrats and the Labor Party. Only. The Conservative Party stands for nothing I stand for.

So why was Maggie so popular, so long, in the United Kingdom? Wikipedia says she served from 1979 to 1990. That James Callaghan preceded her - I don’t recall him - and John Majors followed her. I do have a favorable recollection of Majors. I do know she deigned not to touch what America’s health industry spokesmen have bad mouthed since 1945, British socialized medicine. National Health Service. It’s offered as the bogey man to easily misled Americans.

Wikipedia says she gained national notice for a Cold War speech given at Kensington Town Hall in which she attacked the Soviet Union much as was Ronnie Reagan to do later, as an 'Evil Empire' although she did not use those words. In response, the Soviet Defense Ministry bestowed on her the title, “Iron Lady” which stood her in good stead. I have little regard for the presidency of Ronald Reagan, so you can see that was no plus for me.

I like Hillary Clinton. I don’t like Condoleezza Rice. I forget whether she was a protégée of Karl Rove or VP Cheney. In either case, that is cause for concern to me. She was said to have written a half dozen books, but I discovered that all but one was “co-authored ” which in American politics means you didn’t really write it, you gave someone general directions and they did the writing. Not against the law but very deceptive. I expect she carried a lot of coffee into the Oval Office. I must confess I called her Ms. Token, and Sec. Powell, Mr. Quota. The GOP keeps just enough African Americans around to keep from being sued. They just grit their teeth and bear it. Like Senator Lott.

Of course, Hillary has to get re-elected this year before she is considered a genuine 2008 contender. The GOP outspent her $75 million to $15 million in 2000, but she won election by a handsome majority. I don’t know who is running against her in NY but I don’t think they can beat her. Insult her, assault her, slander her, defame her, yes, the GOP will do all that in spades. But beat her? Not in this life. Not in NY.

And therein lies her weakest point for a national race. She is a lightning rod for all the ‘anti’ people in America. Every right wing kook in the world will want to get into the fracas. Pat Robertson will label her the Anti Christ. James Dobson, Pope of Colorado, will call for "tough love" to beat her. Jimmy "Cry Me A River" Swaggart wll lampoon her. But, alas, that is for another time and post.

I’m for Hillary.



[edit on 6/18/2006 by donwhite]

Hillary Clinton will win the 2008 presidential election.
I will be shocked if she doesn't.

I don't like Hillary. However, I will console myself with
the fact that with her in office it means that John Kerry
(Ted Kennedy's puppet) won't be running things - THANK GOD!!!

BTW - Dr. Rice isn't going to run. She has already said so.
Neither will Jeb. He has already said so and he couldn't win
anyways. His family has too much baggage.

I doubt that we will see Hilary Clinton in the oval office.
If the dems are dumb enough to nominate Hilary they would gift the election to the Republicans. I reckon a neo con could run and beat Hilary.
The side show known as Iraq will probaly kill the dems in 2008.

Hilary pres don't make me laugh Rice can whip her butt in elections

I think Hillary Clinton will be the next President of the United States for several reasons. I think this is so likely that I modelled a character in my first novel after her. Check my profile for details.

Although I am not a fan of her work, I am a trained political scientist and historian. I think she embodies a degree of political skill and cunning that we haven't seen in this country for many years. She's a real Machievellian thinker, and the fact is that she wants the job badly enough to do what it takes to get it.

When looking at any presidential candidate, you've got to get under the hood and find out what drives them. How ambitious are they? How rithless? What are they NOT willing to do? A slow and careful analysis of Hillary shows that she's not afraid to do whatever it takes to get ahead. Her competition is not quite so...ardent.

Add to all this the fact that the Republican presidential stables are...empty...and you'll see that the 2008 race promisesto be messy and eventful. Mrs. Clinton has already demonstrated her ability to be on the right side of an issue. She's also demonstrated some real skilly at keeping her mouth shut and staying out of the public eye until jus the right moment.

Very few peole are such good students of human nature. Very few people are so skilled in the 'use' of the media. Fewer still have her history of unrelenting action when it comes to whatever might be called for to win.

I learned a long time ago to respect my adversaries. Portraying a character like that sort of person is my own way of resisting her rise to power. While many would like to see Dr. Rice face off against Hillary in the election, they won't get their wish. Condi has a different agenda, and a different personality. I think you'll find that she understands the nature of her situation better than most would give her credit for. She knows that she hasn't got the temperment to fight a Presidential contest.

Like it or not,the only person to depose Hillary Clinton will be another Democrat. The next President will not be a Republican.

Now, J/O, most of the time to be labeled “Machiavellian” is not considered a compliment. OTOH, when “The Prince” was first published, it was widely acclaimed as both insightful and useful. I tend to label Machiavelli as an ultra pragmatist. Whatever works. Not of course, to include breaking the law, as in Pres. Nixon’s case. It is after all, the politicians chosen trade to accommodate the widely varying interests of a large number of people. This is not easy and invokes the sausage making simile. And a thankless task it is.



So ardent? How about “so adept?” Even apropos? Well maybe that’s too much. It is not a defect of character to say one thing in Albany and another in Syracuse, especially if you need votes in both places. I think citizens understand this. You have to speak to your audience. That does not need to preclude you from speaking to another audience. Indeed, what works in Albany may not work in Syracuse. Sure, the Swift Boat 527s will juxtapose those speeches, but that is just one more hurdle to deal with.



It’s called “Fire in the Belly!” But surely , J/O, you jest? You are taunting the Republicans on this board. You know if you know anything that the GOP is not going to nominate a black person to be anything higher than doorkeeper. To speak of Ms. Rice as the GOP nominee is to make a bad joke. Colin Powell would be 4X a better choice, but he “knows better.”

You know, J/O, that Americans used to choose senators - Harding, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford - ok but he was a Congressman. Then, we seem to have shifted to governors. Reagan, Clinton and now Bush43. So, I’d look to the governors both Dem and GOP to see if there is a viable alternate candidate on the presidential scene.

The only downside to Hillary as a candidate is what observers call the “Lightning Rod” effect. She has been painted with the broad brush of liberalism and feminism so familiar to the Right Wing. OTOH, trying to be nice got Al Gore a second place. It’s about time the Left jumped in and waged the kind of war we could wage. And have a right to wage. Every thing good about America since 1933 came from the Left. Over incessant Right opposition. We can be proud of the legacy of the Left. It is a starting point the Right cannot touch. The Left is humane. The Right is not. Let’s stress the record and the differences. And let the votes fall where they may.

Let it happen!



[edit on 7/9/2006 by donwhite]

Ms. Clinton has as good a chance to become President as any of the current crop of wanna-be's. That being said, I won't vote for her, and I can't really articulate a reason...something about her just leaves me cold. Not a good way to convince people to one's views, I know, but there it is...I simply can't tell you why she leaves me cold.

I don't think she's the shoein that others seem to think she is. Her views on the war have earned her, rightly or wrongly, the enmity of a goodly portion of her party, which can't be helpful to her cause.

I have no trouble acknowleding the skill or cunning of any politician. I do, however, make the case that the profession itself has a number of weaknesses that can only be overcome by character and morality. Democrats and Republicans alike are capable of the same abuse of the same powers. Both have the same potential for taking a bite out of the Constitution.

As a conservative, I do not condone the centralization of power. I make no secret of my dislike of today's modern GOP. Today's Republican party is rotten to the core and pitifully disfunctional. I also feel enclined to make similar observations about the Democrats.

Both sides have had it too good for too long. They've made so many in-house deals with each other that the very notion of an ideological 'destinction' is purely sematnical. For example, when you hear Don talkingabout his liberal leanings, its clear and you you know where he's at. Listen to a Republican or a Democrat who isn't talking about the war, and you'd have to flip a coin just to have a real shot at making the 'right' guess.

As individuals, we do a better job of talking about our beliefs than the people in power. Our alliances, if we have any, are not so twisted and inter-mingled. As we watch the '08 candidates begin to emerge, you'll see very few speaking clearly and without ambiguity. I may not like Hillary, but you'll notice that when she speaks...there is no doubt about what you heard.

Anyone who runs for President under the Republican banner will spend more time apologizing (McCain), or they'll be too busy running a stake through Bush 43 (Romne) to really say what they mean. Part of that stems from the fact that they lack the clarity that comes from Machievellian ambition.

Secretary Rice won't run because she really does know better. She's carried water faithfully for the losing team for too long to be dis-associated from it. If you look carefully, you'll see that she's aiming to be remembered as a Secretary of State. When they time comes, she's out and she'll be glad to be spinning her own version of events to her own advantage.

It has been said that the best people for a job are the ones who don't want it. Collin Powell is highly respected because he did walk away. In his own words, he says he isn't Presidential material. I'd respect anyone, regardless of gender, who said that about themselves.

You can make the case the the Left lost it's way in the 1990's. You can now make the case that the Right has lost its way in the first decade of this new century. I remain hpeful that both sides will get back to their roots and re-member what they stood for. If that happens, we may yet see better days.

And therein lies our differences, J/O. I like big government. I love pro-active government. Government is the means we have to do things as a group we do not have the ability to do as individuals. Am I preaching “lock step” as in the North Korean Army on parade? Absolutly not! For me it is simple. There are areas where individuals excel, and there are areas where the public belongs.

I believe 90% of Americans want to see their fellow man have a good life. And etc. So it is not really Red v. Blue values. We all have essentially the same values. We just see different ways to get there.

Take “downsizing” of government. A GOP mantra since at least Ronnie Reagan if not before. The measure of success of a politician was how much he or she could reduce the number of Federal employees. I, OTOH, thought the Federal employees were A) well paid and added money to the local economy, thereby improving everyone’s lot in life, and B) they not only performed services appropriate to the public sector but were also well trained and represented a valuable human resource.

Let’s look at the Department of Energy website. It says at one place, the DoE has 18,000 employees. At another place it says it has 112,000 persons under contract. So is this how privatization works? The poor dumb taxpayers look only at the number of employees. Is it 18,000 or is it 130,000? Who pays who how much? The Federal budget is so large - $2.75 T. - it is beyond comprehension anyway so maybe politicians think numbers of employees count more.



Well, part of that is necessary, I am sure you will agree. A lawyer explained to me his friendliness to police while paying little regard to his client. The lawyer said, “I’ll see this cop 10 times a year the rest of my working life” but I’ll never see this client again. Why ruin my good relations with the cop over this clod? The 100 US Senators have both great power and great responsibility. They work with each other every day. They must be collegial, be trustworthy, or nothing could happen. The same is true in the House but to a lesser degree due to shorter terms, more turnover and its sheer numbers.



Well spoken, Justin Oldham


[edit on 7/9/2006 by donwhite]

Jesus, I hope you're wrong. She's better than Kerry? Sorry, I don't see that. In fact I see her, if she wins, as just continueing on with the machinations of the MIC.

BTW, didn't she already have 8 years?

Well, Don. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on the roles of government. For now, I'll concern myself with the fact that neither party is worthy of our votes, in my opinion.

Consider just one thing. If we have this much growth of government under an alleged Republican...what are we going to see under a Democrat admistration?

I was a Federal civil servant for seven years. In that time, I witnessed more fraud and abuse of fiscal power than I've ever seen in the private sector. THAT should be a seperate discussion all it's own. given the failures of today's GOP to reign this in, I cringe in fear at what the Dems have in store for us.

I think you're gonna get your wish. Pro-active government, indeed. It's not hard to see what Hilary's play book is going to read like. She's going to walk the tight-rope like no other political leader since FDR. If she remains capable of choosing (skilled) people for her team, she should able to change positions faster than Mr. Kerry or Mr. Gore ever dreamed possible.

If she's got any one real skill, it's being able to do that chameleon thing. Nobody in the GOP...who is alive at this time...has that skill. You're right when you say that I do tend to look at politics in a bloodless way. That's what allows me to say that Hillary is Machievellian all the way.

I dont think so. I think the good old Diabolds will come through again and we will have a Republican president.
Now, that's ok with me as long as it isnt anyone presently affiliated to Bush & Co.
If it is....I'll go nuts. I'll go to Tahiti and live on a hut i make on the beach.

I’m not sure if the Civil Service is growing or not. Once upon a time the number of Federal employees was around 2 million. The Postal Service was broken off and is now at best a quasi governmental endeavor. Our first big effort at privatizing the government.

All things being equal, government should grow at the same rates as the population grows, minus any improvement in efficiency or other labor saving devices or methods.



Without being overly specific I’d like to know what you are referring to as “ . . more fraud and abuse of fiscal power . . “ because I too was in the military for about 6+ years. I worked for Travelers Insurance Company about 7 years. The company nearly went bankrupt in the mid 1970s due to employee theft.



Some people describe that as FDR’s secret of success. He never become wedded to a program or scheme. Try it but be ready to discard that which is not working. I think the public liked him for not being an ideologue. Not a one size fits all type.

Plus, FDR had a heart and a dream. And a great sense of humor. And he was self-effacing when the situation called for that.





And was not Machiavelli enviously successful?

I think she'd love to have #1600 as her return address again.


I'm Canadian, but I love to watch the American politics, it's like a soap opera.
I hope Senator Clinton becomes President, but then has a torrid love affair with one of her Secret Service agents.
(maybe a limo driver, or a body guard ?)

She could deny everything until she started showing obvious signs of pregnancy, then she'd have to step out from behind the podium and make Bill look like the poor betrayed bastard that will stand behind his spouse no matter what.

That sort of thing would keep me entertained on CNN for weeks.




But,
Shhhhhhhhh,,,, Quiet everyone.....



The big secret is a Bush landslide in 2012.
That will wrap up the Mayan calendar, and the world will then come to an end...


[edit on 9/7/2006 by anxietydisorder]

I'm half tempted to ask if you reda my book.

I would need to know what her agenda is- i'd need to know her intentions- i'd want to know a lot more than i know about her right now to ever vote her in (supposing the voting is real)
I wouldnt mind seeing a good Republican, although i'd love to see a Democrat just to get Limbaugh and Hannity's undies in a knot. Yes, i'm evil. Were it not for the likes of them, a good Republican president would be just fine with me- as long as there was no prior affiliation with the current bunch at the WH.