Originally posted by Justin Oldham
I'm half tempted to ask if you reda my book.

Politics and Patriotism isn't on my shelf yet, but I think America is ready for a female President.
I may pick up a copy though, it sounds like a good read.

Hilary Rodham Clinton engenders almost as much anger as Dubya does. I hope the next President, whether Democrat or Republican, man or woman, will be someone who isn't hated by a large minority of the electorate.

Of course, I also hope I'm going to win the PowerBall Lottery, too, for what that's worth.

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Hilary Rodham Clinton engenders almost as much anger as Dubya does. I hope the next President, whether Democrat or Republican, man or woman, will be someone who isn't hated by a large minority of the electorate.

THAT is going to be a real trick. As polarized as the country is today, I just don't see how the next President will be able to win over a public majority in their first term. If the future President did spend most of their first term winningh earts and minds, they might win over a full 50 percent of the population as they go in to the second term.

Future officeholders will be trying to preserve party loyalty more than is being being done today. With minorvariations, you will see the old party machines re-invented and put in to wide-spread use.

If you look at the hush-hish beind the scenes stuff going on now with Lieberman and DeLay, you'll see a glimpse of what I'm talking about. Hillary won't start making those deals 'til December. Those who follow such things will know it when they see it.

Hillary has more baggage than a 747.... I really don't see her winning a national presidential election unless the Republican candidate screws up royally.

edit:

I think the real question is will she get the Democratic nomination? Sure she looks like the frontrunner now, but there's still a lot of time for someone else to emerge and her to fade away....

new edit:

It does seem that the real left-wing part of the Democratic party like Move On.org and other such groups are becoming increasingly anti-Hillary over her support (or at least lack of despise) of the Iraq War. It's pretty hard to underdstand exactly where she is, but these groups want her to be a total dove to get their support--and these groups are gaining more and more influence within the Democratic party.




[edit on 7/10/2006 by djohnsto77]

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Hillary has more baggage than a 747.... I really don't see her winning a national presidential election unless the Republican candidate screws up royally.

Most of the presidential candidates we've ever seen have enough political baggage to sink the Titanic. Historically, the deal makers can get around that. Hillary is a deal maker. She's also the kind of person who doesn't play fair. Anyone who runs on the Republican ticket with even a little Bush stink on them will be easy pickings, if they insist on trading on their accomplishment(s). As they old saying goes, there is more than one way to skin a cat.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
It does seem that the real left-wing part of the Democratic party like Move On.org and other such groups are becoming increasingly anti-Hillary over her support (or at least lack of despise) of the Iraq War. It's pretty hard to underdstand exactly where she is, but these groups want her to be a total dove to get their support--and these groups are gaining more and more influence within the Democratic party.

I go back to my first statement. Starting in December '06, you'll begin to see a numbero of Hillary's competitors suffer from any number of revelations, press leaks, or....accidents of one sort or another. By mid-March '07, you'll see her competition staying in the race just to parley their voter base in to cabinet posts or the VP slot.

This woman will not hesitate to use the cloak and the dagger. As a person who has delivered political strategy advise, I'm here to tell you that nobody in the Republican camp is ready to play this rough. The Clinton Playbook is short and to the knife point.

Back to the original post, I do think that America is ready for a female president. I would never have said that 10 or 15 years ago, but now we are ready, imo.

posted by bombers8

Back to the original post, I do think that America is ready for a female president. I would never have said that 10 or 15 years ago, but now we are ready, IMO. [Edited by Don W]

Geraldine Ferraro was not only a very pretty woman, she was smart too. She was a Representative from New York. I assume you know she ran on the Dams ticket in 1984 with former Senator and Jimmy Carter’s Vice President, Walter Mondale, against the Reagan-Bush41 team successfully seeking its second term.

I think she broke the ice that makes it possible to discuss on a realistic level, the possibility of a woman making a run for America's top job. The number of women who have served abroad as the top officer of governments includes Golda Meir, a Russian by birth who grew up in America and who was Israel’s prime minister during the crucial 1973 Yom Kippur War. We all know of Margaret Thatcher, who was labeled the Iron Lady by the Russians. She presided over the United Kingdom from 1979 to 1990, including the Falklands War. Angela Merkel is the new conservative chancellor of Germany. Queen Elizabeth II ascended to the throne in 1952, some 54 years ago and has been eminently successful. And who can forget reading of the influence exerted by Queen Isabella on the voyage of exploration of 1492?

Sen. Hillary Clinton is a proven candidate. She is running now for re-election. The GOP plans to outspend her 7 to 1. They did more in 2000 but she still beat them handily. For her, it will be good practice to get ready for 2008 campaign which starts the day after this year's election on November 7, 2006. I wonder how Bill will play it between November 8, 2006 and election day, November 4, 2008?



[edit on 7/11/2006 by donwhite]

Geraldine "pottie mouth" Ferarro? Holy cats. That's a name I haven't heard for a long time. Yikes, but I remember feeling pitiful sorry for Mr. Mondale. I'll never forget what my dad said. "Who needs cable? I've never seen anyone actually get screwed on network televison before."

On a more serious note, I do think a woman can be President today. Hilly may scare the crud out of me, but I don't take issue with her gender.

The examples cited by Don make the point that women have served well in other political jobs.

So what can be established is now that Hilary could very well be the next president, and it would not be so bad.... but having a women as pres, it would creat political problems right?

We've established that having a woman as President might not be so bad. The general opinion seems to be that the country is ready for it. Having Hillary as President might not be good for us. Her ambition may be our undoing.

In the event of women president leading the USA, would you think that other countries would down mind our abilities as a country to operate and hold a strong apperance?

Originally posted by anxietydisorder

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]

Oh yeah this would all be very entertaining to watch . I'm Canadian too.

so that is what Hilary looks like, wow.....
so in the event of this happening, the canada people would love it, man well at least we would be on the same page as great britain right

What sort of foriegn policy could we expect from Hillary Clinton? Try to be serious. She's got to fill out her cabinet, and set some goals. I know what my picks are for her cabinet, but I'd like to see some other responses.

Anyone who thinks she will pull out of Iraq "soonest" is kidding themselves. My speculation is that she'll "let" her Secretary of State wrangle things so that we see a three year draw-down. You'll see 30,000 troops left in Iraq at the end of her first term. Just enough to keep the government in power.

We should actually expect an increase in troop numbers in Afghanistan. Look for strength levels to reach 75,000. In spite of everything else that has gone wrong, there's a lot of good PR to be had from Afghanistan, and she'll milk it.

These are just two of the things I expect her to do.

As a democrat, I believe Clinton has a good chance to get the nomination, but winning is another questions. Republicans hate her and she will be a constant target. Can she win, yes... but she will have to fight for it... right now, y dream ticket is as follows:

President: Clinton
Vice President: Byah
Secretary of State: McCain
Secretary of Defense: Clark (not sure about this)
Secretary of Homeland Security: Guiliani

This way, both sides are happy... sort of.

Of course... a double party ticket will be interesting too... McCain/Byah, McCain/Clinton, Romney/Warner... vice versa.

[edit on 9-8-2006 by MasterRegal]

I don't doubt that Hillary would cherry-pick from the GOP camp if she could. I've been paying close attention to DNC happenings as part of the research from my next book. My sense of the thing is that she will have to offer those posts as plumbs to high-ranking Dems to create a united front. The defeat of Joe Lieberman has sent a clear signal to the base. Top Dems plan to tap in to the frustrations of a great many voters. Even so, Hillary isn't immune to internal party politics. If she doesn't share the wealth, so to speak, she will find herself getting a teaste of Joe-mentum.

I've done my est to construct a profile of Mrs. Clinton, for book research, and she's got a Machievellian streak in her that I don't think most people have understood. As an example, I would mention the fact that her husband campaigned for Lieberna, but she's already gone over to the attack of Lieberman and it hasn't been quite 24 hours yet. As the REpublicans watch with growing frustration, I don't think they've got anybody in-house who could draft the playbook to beat her.

I'm nbot in favor of her, but I am a trained political scientist. I know there's a pirhana in the gold fish tank when I see one. The Republicans have all the tools they need to stop her laying at hteir feet, but they won't do it. I'm alreadu on record regarding this point. The GOP will make the same mistake they made with Bob Dole. Old-school party politics will go down to defeat in the face of a more skilled political adversary.

I've got news for all of you. Hillary cannot run for president beacause she has already been president for 8 years

I have no doubt that she took notes and paid close attention to things while she was last at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. I'm sure she will feel like she's coming back to familiar ground. That experience you laugh about will stand her in good stead during the '08 race.

Re: The discussion of Geraldine Ferraro as the "first woman..."

Actually, I met the first woman to receive an electoral college vote for vice-president; it wasn't Geraldine Ferraro, but Tonie Nathan -- 12 years before Geraldine ran for national office.

Our choices would be A) a lying shill for the bush admin who has been rendered honorless after 6 years of sucking up and covering for them

or

B) A liberal windbag who has never had an original thoughtor idea in her whole sorded career?

Ill choose option C which would be to move to Canada.