It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Is Hillary Clinton going to be President?

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 11:11 AM

Originally posted by donwhite

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.


I'm in that 90% you wrote about, however, the difference between your beliefs and mine is that I want to see my fellow Americans earn their good life, not have it handed to them on the backs of other people (who are working hard to earn the good life) through taxes and other government entitlement (giveaway) programs. You claim to be a 'socialist' in other posts, but your stated views seem a little farther down the spectrum than that.

posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 01:45 PM
By the end of this decade, I think we will see a trend in the U.S. in which government will take a dim view of extravagant social hand-outs. This perception may be backed up by political forces. It may no longer be a positive thing to be a welfare recipient.

posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 02:56 AM

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
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.


Perhaps, but she's got alot bagage to carry around and the political slugfest will get quite nasty if she decides to make a bid for the White House. The thing about her is this: people either hate her guts or they're in love with her. I don't think she has much of a chance of pursueding to many people who don't already like her. Maybe I'm wrong but thats the way I see it right now. Personaly, I can't stand her. She has 0% chance of getting my vote. She's to liberal/socialist for me...and I like my guns. BTW, how's Alaska. I've always wanted to go there. Hope to make it someday.

posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 04:47 PM
I don't want to see her win, but I think she's going to surprise a lot of people. Her baggage would matter more if she ran against a person with an utterly un-impeachable chracter. The men or women whom she is most likely to run against have just enough skeletons in their own closets allow her option to deflect much of the harshest criticism hat will be leveled against her.

This election cycle will be the most vicious we've seen in a hundred years. The only thing that will keep it toned down at all will be the laws against libel and slandner. It's clear to me, as a trained political scientist, that she plans to to cast herself as a wounded and angry women. She will praise the troops while damning the current administration for its many ineptitudes.

People like to believe the worst. She will cast herself as the victim of adultery, and swear to high heaven that she won't rest until the country is safe. I would expect her to attack Bush's economic policies right out of the gate. Make no mistake, there will be loads of venom and vitriol. You are likely to see some very passionate speeches that sound a lot like something out of the 1930's.

On top of these most basic and simple of political tactics, she will have the media eating out of her hand, with the exception of Fox News. That's going to amount to a hundred milion dollars in free advertising. Radio, t.v., and internet saturation will be augmenting print media. That's how I derive that number. There's a lot of frustration out there that has no name, but its waiting to be tapped in to. Any Republican candidate who goes after her will be accused of beating up on a girl.

The GOP would need a war hero with a clean background to beat her. My sense of the thing is that McCaine will try to fit that profile, which will mean almost certain defeat for the Republicans in 2008. McCaine and Guiliiiani both have known infidelities in their backgrounds, which allows Hillary to portray them as filandering men...which she knows about...from experience.

When you get right down to it, most oh her baggage can be matched by the people she's likely to face off against. the only noteworthy exception might (might) be Colin Powell, and he's already gotten as far away from D.C. as a person in his position can without leaving the country.

posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 08:41 PM
Justin, I disagree with a few of your insights, but I think you're got it pretty much on the ball, and I like your style. Keep those comments coming, brother!

posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 10:57 PM
In some small way, I owe Hillary some gratitude. She played a role in the development of my first novel, which has opened a lot of doors for me. I have some rather dull hobbies, one of which is profiling politicians. Hillary came to my attention years ago. As much as I disgreee with her politics, I find her political potentials to be scary stuff.

Each generation is blessed with a precious few individuals who are endowed with a political acumen that far and away surpasses the rest of us. As good as Bill was at doing who...I mean...what...he did, he was never the smarter of the two. Her intelligence paired with his instict took them a long way. Now, it's going to be interesting to see if her intellect can be saddled with his...well...him. As scary as she is, I think she can have the White House if she wants it.

Will I stand in her way? I already have.

posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 11:28 PM
You can read more about Senator Clinton's political views here:

It's a long read, but its detailed.

posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 02:51 PM
It's worth noting that most of the peole who post on this board are familiar with her. Although, I would point out that if you look at that wiki link, you will see that she's quite deliberate in the things she does.

posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 05:53 PM
As predicted, Mrs. Clinton has shifted her position on the war without too mucyh discomfort. It's worth noting that since the Conneticutt primary, she's been sneaking ever so slowly to the right on a few issues. I submit, for your consdieration, that none of my predictions about her have been wrong yet. She can still make a mistake, and that error could be large enough to cost her the '08 race, but it's less and less likely as each month passes. I am no fan of Mrs. Clinton, but I do know political skill when I see it.

posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 02:53 AM
It's worth noting that one-time Presidential hopeful Mark Warner has dropped out of the Democrat candidate pool for President in 2008. Gossip on the street says that Mr. Warner was threatened with proof of certain infidelities. I have no doubt that one of Hillary's operative's delivered this message. We should expect to see more of her challengers drop out over the next 12 months.

posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 07:49 PM
I am a bottled and bond old hippy liberal and the only way I would vote for her is it it were a choice between her and newt the gingrich... I will vote for donald duck first.

posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 02:13 AM
I can appreciate your sentiments, Grover, but it looks like you will have to choose between Hillary Clinton or John McCain, or a third party write in such as Donald Duck. I've f0llowed Dona'd's work, and I know he can take a punch. Although his track record with kids would seem to be mixed, I think he'd be a strong advocate for many things I would support.

posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 02:43 AM
I don't know, I guess it's possible but my gut feeling is she can't do it. Although she's tried to change her image over the past few years, I'm sure if she officially entered the presidential race, all her history like Hillarycare and everything else would be dug up . She simply has too much baggage (containing some stuff stolen from the White House) to move into the White House IMHO.

posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 06:48 AM
The Democrats would be damned fools to run with her...not only is she not term in senate simply is not enough, in terms of experince even her husband (with 10 years as govenor) had more experince... but besides that, if she ran it would energize the right like nothing else could while dividing the democrats (there are a lot who feel the way I do), every right wing whack would come out of the woodwork to take a pot shot at her, it would be a bloodbath in fact I am almost certian there would be an assissianation attempt as well.

If the democrats run with her they deserve to lose...they couldn't do anything more polarizing.

posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 03:54 PM
the last two posters make good points. I'd rather vote for a ham sandwich myself, but as a trained political scientist, I can't help noticingwhat I see. McCain himself will be a polarizing figure. Both candidates will have a single message, and they'll wave the bloody shirt loud and proud as they can.

I would hope that the voters would be scared of her. I'd hope they are scared enough to get off the couch and go vote. We may not like the fact that she's changed her spots in the past, but the fact is that she's done it and gotten away with it. You can bet money that the mainstream media will not call her on it when the 08 race gets cranked up.

Her people are doing a lot of expensive polling just now, so I would expect to see another position shift if her operators thing it's necessary. Anyone with atleast one working ear knows just how fed up the general population is with the Republicans. It hurts me to see my team going from one disaster to the next. The fact is that anyone who runs as a non-Republican stands to be taken seriously. That includes Hillary.

posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 07:14 AM

posted by Justin Oldham

The last two posters make good points. McCain himself will be a polarizing figure. I would hope that the voters would be scared of her. You can bet money that the mainstream media will not call her when the 08 race gets cranked up. Anyone with at least one ear knows how fed up the population is with Republicans. The fact is that anyone who runs as a non-Republican stands to be taken seriously. That includes Hillary. [Edited by Don W]

Yes and No. John Harris and Mark Halperin, co-authors of the new book, “The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008,” seem to have a handle on the underlying features of the contemporary American political scene. They point out that it is the Bush43 and Karl Rove tactic to develop a 50.1% margin to achieve their agenda. Narrow focus. Energize your base. That works as long as it works, to paraphrase them. It has worked for Bush43 until about 6 months into his second term when he was shot down by the conservative plan to end Social Security and privatize your economic retirement. He has not recovered from that setback and now, so many other things have gone wrong. Iraq. Afghan. Katrina. Etc.

Bill Clinton , OTOH, took the position in 1992, that he would offer an agenda that appealed to 70% of the public including such hard for Democrats to swallow issues as welfare reform and NAFTA. There is no doubt in my mind that Hillary Clinton has shown herself to be a good adaptor of both the Bush/Rove and Bill Clinton winning strategies. She has co-sponsored several important bills with Republicans in Congress. She has entered into a working relationship with Newt Gingrich. She is supporting the surprise nominee (Lamont?) in Connecticut against Joe Lieberman who is still likely to win, but which will position her as dutiful public servant who respects the will of the people (in the primary.)

Finally, they point out that Hillary (or any Democrat in 2008) can win the presidency if she or he can carry the same Blue States as John Kerry carried and win 1) Ohio - lost by 120,000 votes - and 2) Florida. Lost by 38,000 I recall. So, the task is definitely not insurmountable.

For a new take and additional background on a timely issue, see also a new book by Thom Hartmann, “SCREWED: The Undeclared War on The Middle Class and What We Can Do About It.” Also, you can go to for good info.

posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 12:54 PM

posted by centurion1211

DW, the difference between your beliefs and mine is that I want to see my fellow Americans earn their good life, not have it handed to them on the backs of other people who are working hard to earn the good life through taxes and other government entitlement giveaway programs. You claim to be a 'socialist' in other posts, but your stated views seem a little farther down the spectrum than that. [Edited by Don W]

Socialism once meant the state ownership of the means of production. It was tried in the UK in the period 1945-1955. It did not “fail” but neither did it “work.” As a key part of the socialist experiment the Brits adopted - and still have - the National Health Service. Like every country other than the US, they are able to provide health care to all its citizens and inhabitants, at a cost usually 50%-60% of the price Americans pay for a seriously flawed piece-meal system that serves best the AMA, AHA, PMA and the American Insurance Industry. And Republican politicos. But you knew that.

“Earn” you say? Starting at $5.15 an hour with no fringes. Theodore Roosevelt asked Congress for a “LIVING wage” law in 1912. We came close to that in the late 1930s and 1940s, but we began to falter with the election of Eisenhower and it has gotten successively worse, invariably in the terms of Republican presidents. Entirely predictable. I don't put much credence in those who espouse the virtue of "earning your own way" in this world with such a tilted playing field. Today's socialist wants to see a level playing field. Competition and not mergers, acquisitions and monopolies. Managerial compensation related not only to corporate profit but to employee wage levels, too.

I guess you were referring to these fellows: Bob Nardelli, Home Depot, $31,727,000; Daniel Amos, Aflac, $30,514,000; Duane Ackerman, BellSouth, $15,072,000; Richard Smith, Equifax, $7,651,000; Neville Isdell, Coca-Cola, $3,503,000; David Ratcliffe, Southern, Co., $6,130,000; Richard Anthony, Synovus Financial, $3,581,000; Mike Eskew, UPS, $2,500,000; Phillip Humann, Sun Trust Bank, $2,400,000. All of the above work in the Atlanta area and are not the CEOs of the company. I visited there last week and saw this story how the rich get richer and richer still. Aflac's Mr Amos was the King of Greed raising his own pay 375% last year up from $8,557,000 the prior year.

I wonder if any of those guys even know what the minimum wage is? I’m sure they don’t care, for I’ve never heard one of them urge Bush43 to raise the $5.15. How long do you think one of them would survive living on the street?

[edit on 10/16/2006 by donwhite]

posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 05:33 PM
Hellow donwhite, it's good to see you again. the point you make about the minimum wage is going to be hard for Republicans to deal with in 2008 unless they can hijack the issue. There is some talk in GOP circcles about doing just that after the carpet-baggers come back from the November recess. I would expect this to be the very first issue that Hillary's camp looks in to. Expect her to float a balloon some time in December.

As a life-long conservative I'm still having a hard time watching my team muck things up. They do know better, and I'm painfully aware of that each time I turn on the news. Their mistakes are making it hard for a majority of Americans to earn their way in a consumer environment that should be non-hostile. Instead, we are seeing the mistakes that I would expect from the opposition.

I view Hillary as our punishment for allowing such gross incompetence to flourish in the conservative ranks. I really do think that she's going to out-game the conservatives while she's in office, and we're going to find ourslves wishing for the bad old days. I think that John McCain is likely to be her opposition. If think he will lose for a variety of non-political reasons, and the irony of that will sting.

posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 05:41 PM

Originally posted by dgtempe

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)


to be honest i think it would be re-freshing to have, for the first time, a woman president.
i think it would show growth on a human and conscious level. (can't wait to hear the sexists carpinng)


[edit on 21/12/2012 by zooplancton]

posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 07:14 PM
In my travels as a public speaker, I have heard from more han a few people who doubt that a women could wield that much political power. Never mind the fact that history proves them wrong on a daily basis. I do think that our society has evolved enough to embrace the idea of a female President. I believed in that enough to make it a central part of my book.

Conservative or Liberal, I think that it makes Constitutional sense to say that American Democracy shouldn't care about race, creed, color, or gender, so long as the citizenship requirements are met.

My dislike of Hillary's politics has nothing to do at all with the fact that she's packing ovaries instead of male parts. Every now and again, we see men and women that exibit exceptional political skill. If McCaine was one of them, I'd say so. If I saw any member of the GOP demonstrating Machievellian mastery I would say so. I regret that I have not seen such a thing.

As good as Karl Rove is, he can only work with what he is given. I leanred to have much more repsect for people in his position as I did the research for my last book. I do think that in the future, the GOP and the DNC will 'make' candidates as per what I laid out in my book. 2008 may be the last Presidential race in which we see the front runners as they really...might be.

new topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in