Gore and Hillary in 2004?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 16 2002 @ 01:31 PM
link   
"He said he hasn't ruled anyone out as a presidential running mate including Sen. Joe Lieberman, who ran for vice president in 2000, or Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton"

Bout Time - you're pres. dream ticket



www.upi.com...




posted on Nov, 16 2002 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Let's hope not
. Another Clinton in office
. Or Gore for that matter.



posted on Nov, 16 2002 @ 08:49 PM
link   
That seems to be totally stupid. Bush barely beat him last time, but if he runs this time, he'll be stomped!

If I were Al (Thank God I'm not!) I'd wait until 2008.

I expect he'll Be running against Condi Rice.



posted on Nov, 17 2002 @ 01:02 AM
link   
No great surprise at Albert's demonstrating, once more, his masterly grasp of indecision.
It's a rum thought though -shades of La Ferraro and Mondale (who of course has yet again shown his innate gift for leadership by being humiliated in the mid-terms). And it was Ronnie and GB1 who zapped them, interestingly enough.
I suspect VP would not be sufficiently ambitious for La Clinton.
On a quick Estragon-count, I make it about 6 VPS who've been subsequently elected to the Presidency since Van Buren (I omit death, resignation or assassination).
Mind you, I wouldn't put it past Bills&Hills to have Al bumped off.



posted on Nov, 17 2002 @ 01:15 AM
link   
yeah TC - that's the 'buzz' Condi and Hillary in '08. Condi would get my vote, money, and heart. Gore is playing the fence more than I did w/ my wife when it came to the question of marriage,lol. Either why he'll be ran over by a 'typical' GOP re-election (Reagan/Nixon). Let Gore run, bring it on!



posted on Nov, 20 2002 @ 01:26 PM
link   
But please educate me as to why Hillary Clinton is such an object of disdain for your ilk?



posted on Nov, 20 2002 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Well I do'ny like the Clintons, and Gore for many reasons.

1.) Clinton disgraced himself. No president should have done that.

2.) Hillary says yes to anything the Democrats say. If they said let's blow up New York, she'd say yes.

3.) If it was up to Clinton when he was president, the military would be a rowboat, and ten boy scouts.

4.) Gore can not do anything on his own. He would be taking orders from Clinton.

5.) Clinton could have had Osama bin Laden. He was captured, and Clinton refused.

That is a few of the many reasons, I will never vote for Hillary, Gore if he ran again, and why I never voted for Bill. That is just a few of the many reasons I dislike them.



posted on Nov, 20 2002 @ 02:27 PM
link   
No more Clintons.
prorev.com...

prorev.com...

prorev.com...

www.uhuh.com...

Just thought I would add a few more to the list.



posted on Nov, 20 2002 @ 02:56 PM
link   
So... let's see:

* She didn't dress like a president's wife was supposed to.
* She got involved in politics.
* A reviewer hated her book.
* There were some questionable finances.
* She didn't keep her yap shut (ala Laura Bush -- now, tell me, have you ever heard of Laura doing anything?).
* She's a democrat.
* She's liberal.
* She's a woman.

Yes, that's enough for the conservatives to label her an agent of the devil. If Laura had been an Uppity Woman and if SHE had run two oil companies into the ground (as George W. has), it'd be all over the news.

BTW, Nyeff -- that "hit list" of the Clintons' is an urban legend:
www.snopes.com...



posted on Nov, 20 2002 @ 03:23 PM
link   
There where only 3 on the list that I thought where questionable.The airplane and helicopter crashes and most of the others I figured were just *loose connections* at best.



posted on Nov, 20 2002 @ 04:08 PM
link   
I thought I would get true grit reasons here, folks, not urban myth.
Really, she is an accomplished person by anyone's standards in both her academic & professional lives, did the mothering duties very well ( Chelsea - scholar & well adjusted kid - compare THAT to any Bush offspring ), did the faithful wife thing very well, and though I had reservations as to her coming to my state, she's proved to be a solid Senator.
Really, someone please answer based on her own merits, lack there of, voting record....something besides what is on the Arkansas Project pamphlet of destroying the most probable candidate for a future election.



posted on Nov, 21 2002 @ 09:12 AM
link   
True Grit reasons are: America isn't ready to elect a woman to the presidency. I frankly don't think they'd elect Iron Maggie or Mother Teresa if either appeared on the ballots.

I do think that we'll see a Black as president long before we see a woman as president (and in an interesting side note, Black men in America had the right to vote before women of any race did.)



(and yes, kids are a reflection of the parents. Just compare the Bush twins (and Jeb's daughter... poor thing's a drug addict) with Chelsea. Excellent point.)



posted on Nov, 21 2002 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Why do I not like Hillary? Because I do not agree with her morals, beliefs or politics. Because I understand that she, above all else, is out to pursue her own personal ambitions and does not have the best unterests of the country at heart. As far as her Being a decent mother, time will tell, but I do not see how that could be considering her morals and beliefs (do not get stuck on "religion" when you read the word "beliefs").

While I have to say I agree that it'll be a while before we see a woman president, assuming we ver do, do not try to play that race/gender card bullcrap. It is transparent and will not hold up to scrutiny in this case.



posted on Nov, 22 2002 @ 08:56 AM
link   
So that means, Thomas, that you think we'll have a woman president before we have a Black/Hispanic (or maybe Jewish) president? Do you have your eye on a woman in a prominent office position who would have the grit and determination to run the country AND who could get elected to the Presidency? Rice hasn't seemed terribly gutsy or controversial... the three with the real grit that I've noticed (Albright/Clinton/Reno) are not favored by conservatives. Do you think they'd go for Rice, instead?



posted on Nov, 22 2002 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Thomas......make the argument as to why that perspective is valid. Give examples of her wayward morals. How her beliefs are counter culture to American values. I'll grant you politics not being to your likeing, that's fair.
Time has already told of her being a decent mother: she's raised an accomplished daughter who has no deviant behavior , at least that has not been seeped into the mainstream's knowledge, through a time of the most calculated and adversarial scrutiny to a presidents family in history. She did not benefit from a media gag order as the Bush Twins have.
I'll ask all capable of intellectual honesty: do you think Chelsea if caught in a photo falling down drunk with legs askew and then later busted again for underage drinking would be as lovingly disregarded by the 'press' in let's say 1997?



posted on Nov, 22 2002 @ 06:43 PM
link   
I've travelled in small circles, and knowledge about folks like the Clinton's personal life isn't hard to find out. Some things I prefer to keep to myself as I find them not proper to relay due to ethical considerations.

Why is my perspective in need of validation? I don't think it does. I think, as a matter of fact, any assertion that Hillary is anything but an immoral power-hungry ultra-liberal with an all-consuming desire to bring about a government control that many think the Republicans actually want is in more of a need of validation.
What has built my opinion of Hillary is public knowledge; it's out there for anyone who wants to know to read.

I wouldn't even try and guess which "minority" member is first to become president. As long as the democrats continue to claim to be the party for the minority and viciously attack any minority member that doesn't walk in lock-step with them, I'm sure the person won't come from there. Could it be Condi? Hard to say, but there are several, several months to build her public persona for such a run. She'd have a much better chance than Hillary, and ceratinly a better chance than Mrs. Dole.



posted on Nov, 23 2002 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
I've travelled in small circles, and knowledge about folks like the Clinton's personal life isn't hard to find out. Some things I prefer to keep to myself as I find them not proper to relay due to ethical considerations.

Why is my perspective in need of validation? I don't think it does. I think, as a matter of fact, any assertion that Hillary is anything but an immoral power-hungry ultra-liberal with an all-consuming desire to bring about a government control that many think the Republicans actually want is in more of a need of validation.
What has built my opinion of Hillary is public knowledge; it's out there for anyone who wants to know to read.


This is called talking out of your azz in my part of the US, my friend. It also is reminiscent of the prepubescent boy who swears to his buddies that he has a girlfriend....but she live over in the next state.
I travel in small circles myself, and knowledge about the type of man CEO Bush is, is not hard to come by.
I ask for validation because we have nothing but the woman's Senatorial voting record to go on for her political views. We have a healthcare initiative she chaired, but outside of those two things....what? Here's where you validation to wild speculations on your part is necessary. Otherwise, it's just more of Right Wing talk radio unsubstantiated rant.
In the real world, Thomas, on somethings a liberal approach is best, sometimes a conservative approach is best. The only guarantee of failure is to be too static and not deviate from one or the other when necessary.

As for government control & the power-hungry desire to centralize it under one chair, open your damn eyes already & look at your boy Bush....you need look no further.



posted on Nov, 23 2002 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Whatever you'd like to say or even think, makes no difference to me. Really, do you have any intentions of changing your opinion on the basis of my typing? Seriously, whatever I know of Ms. Clinton, and of the upbringing and childhood of Chelsea, what would any of it mean to you? Really, now, you and I have a totally different view on the world; what I think is right and wrong seems to not agree with yours. You and I have tossed ideas about enough to understand this. Why would you even ask on what grounds I find Hillary not fit?
Once again, if you want to understand where I stand, all you have to do is understand the Articles of Confederation, the constitution for the united states of America, the Bill of Rights and the KJV 1611. If you have even a curury understanding of Hillary, you'll know that these documents are usually a hindrance to her desires.



posted on Nov, 24 2002 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Really it is very simple for me.We all saw how crooked the Clintons are,and all the scandels that happened when they were in office.Why would we want to go through it again,it was not a point in time I care to repeat.



posted on Nov, 24 2002 @ 10:22 PM
link   
I 2nd that nyeff!

Does anyone here favor a Gore/Clinton ticket? (just wondering).

Though it looks like Kerry is starting to position himself (or more so) for a run. Perhaps his 'nam record will be a plus - maybe he came team up w/ Bo Grietz, he has some experience in running for pres. (lol) and he was a 'nam guy.

[Edited on 25-11-2002 by Bob88]





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join