Will Hillary Clinton Be The Next U.S. President?

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 08:16 AM
link   
The question has been poised, is America ready to elect a woman as there president? Clinton is not the first to try but her move is still historic on other counts. She is the first spouse of a former president to try for the oval office. At this stage she is the clear front runner for the Democratic party. One pole put her at forty-one percent with the closest rival Barack Obama at seventeen percent. The Democratic part is getting started early. She is sixth to announce herself as a candidate. Because things are getting started early the people running need to have financial backing early. Her biggest rival will most likely remain Obama.
 



www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk
Is America ready to elect a woman president? Rupert Cornwell asks the Big Question

Why are we asking this now?

Her move is historic on two counts. Other women have tried - Pat Schroeder for the Democrat nomination in 1992 and Elizabeth Dole for the Republicans in 2000 - but none has had as good a chance of reaching the Oval Office - and never has the spouse of a former President attempted to win the top job in her own right. At this admittedly early stage, she is the clear front-runner in an already crowded Democratic field. A Washington Post/ABC News poll at the weekend gave her 41 per cent against 17 per cent for her closest rival, Illinois senator Barack Obama.


Why did she declare so early?


In this utterly unpredictable contest, everything is happening earlier. Bill Clinton did not formally launch his victorious 1992 campaign until September 1991. Hillary is not the first, but the sixth Democrat (and fourth US senator) to declare. The first candidate's debate takes place in New Hampshire in April, nine months before the state holds its traditional first-in-the-nation primary. South Carolina is holding its own debate, probably the following month. Next year's primary calendar is more front-loaded than ever, so that the contest will probably be over by the beginning of March at the latest.




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I had a fear this might happen about fifteen year ago or so. What really drove it home was a day or two ago when I saw that Clinton had fifty-seven percent of the female vote. That would mean that sixty percent of the male vote would half to go to the other side, and that people I just don't think will ever happen. Financing is mentioned, that is very importuned for a campaign. With former president Clinton's contacts, I think financing the campaign will be but a minor nuisance. I hear this morning she already has fourteen million in the bank for the campaign. I will suspect that number will grow with but one phone call. If you have followed any of the conspiracy theories that relate to politics you will know that those who control the money control politics. If that being the case then the next president has already been chosen. Which means Clinton is back.

Related News Links:
mensnewsdaily.com
news.independent.co.uk
www. unionleader.com
english.pravda.ru

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Future Presidents
Obama Attended Madrassa, Says Hillary




posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 07:14 PM
link   
I hope she don't and that Ron Paul is elected. Hilary was at Bilderberg 2006, she's the wife of Bill Clinton, another globalist. Obama, his wife is in the CFR. Ect... They are all crooks.

Go Ron Paul!

Just to say I'm a canadian and I don't care about republican/democrat, only about american citizens, and Ron Paul is the only choice for you to get out of this mess.

[edit on 24-1-2007 by Vitchilo]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 07:24 PM
link   


I hope she don't and that Ron Paul is elected. Hilary was at Bilderberg 2006, she's the wife of Bill Clinton, another globalist. Obama, his wife is in the CFR. Ect... They are all crooks.


I dont know who will be the canadate elected by the republicans, but right now I dont really care. I cant say I support ron paul, or the current Bush for that matter. But I know I don't want Clinton. So I will just be voteing for what ever ( insert string of cuse words hear) the other party runs.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 07:41 PM
link   
The Republicans are so fractured at this point that they'll be lucky to have a candidate in the field, much less one capable of winning. I ca njust imagine some of the back room chat. "I don't want it. You should take it. No, really. I don't want it. I'd be kidding myself. YOU should take it."



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
The Republicans are so fractured at this point that they'll be lucky to have a candidate in the field, much less one capable of winning.


I think you are right with this statement. As to the reasons why clinton will pull this off can still be open to debate. But being fractured it does seem the republicans are.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Too many people simply don't like Hillary and find her cold and calculating. She may be smart and have good experience, but she turns off a lot of Americans.

Obama is somewhat an unknown for most Americans as he is relatively new in the Spotlight.

Rolling Stones recently called Al Gore "The ideal candidate for the Democrats may be the man who won the popular vote in 2000 -- and who opposed the war in Iraq from the very start" Even though he isn't in the running, there is something worth learning there.

From the Rolling Stones:
Why Gore should run- and how he can win



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 08:55 PM
link   
just think about if she wins and goes for two terms that would make 28 years that either a bush or cliton was presdent, plus bush sr was vice pres
before that. I REALY think we need some change. how many people agree?



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by slayerfan
just think about if she wins and goes for two terms that would make 28 years that either a bush or cliton was presdent, plus bush sr was vice pres
before that. I REALY think we need some change. how many people agree?



That is a very good point to note. And twenty eight years in enough time for maby another offspring from one of the families to run for a term of there own.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Well, lets talk in terms of possibility:

Hillary has more than 40% support in the Democratic primaries - she is most likely to be the Dem candidate running for presidency. Like someone said before, the GOP is not likely to win this election.

I'm just saying, we should be prepared. It's not that I don't want a female president, it's that Hillary Clinton is way too left-leaning for me. Obama seems to be good and moderate, but he is just too unknown and new.

Anyway, anyone know why Al Gore isn't running? He would be perfect.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 12:42 AM
link   
I wouldn't mind a woman being the President, but Hillary?....thanks, but no thanks. She would be an extension of what her husband did when he was in office, and probably even worse.

[edit on 25-1-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 01:00 AM
link   
Al Gore has gone on to more lucrative things than the Presidency. He's found himself a niche and he's filling it. I think he's not remembered fondly in political circles but he has made a name for himself in his post-VP life. If nothing else, he's got street cred and he can bring issues to the table that he has some expertise in.

I saw Hillary coming years ago. Ultimately, that's why I chose to write about somebody LIKE her. Bill might be able to sweet talk the jeans off a person of the female pursuasion, but Hillary is something else. I think she's always had more ambition than he does. I think she'll put her own spin on the unitary executive, too. That's what scares me.

I am no fan of her politics. Even so, we could just as easily be talking about a ruthless man who is about to ascend to the Presidency. Whoever takes office next will have more power and more opportunities to get more power than anyone else who came before them. I'm not sure that I myself could resist those temptations.

Her ambition will propel her in to doing things that we won't want. She'll still tell us that it's for our own good. If anyone could pverstep their Constitutional authority, I think it could be her. Thankfully, we don't see skilled and ruthless Machievellian minds but once in a generation.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 01:00 AM
link   
As progressive as we like to think of ourselves; I don't think the country is ready for a woman or a black. Hispanic, different story.

How does President Bill Richardson, sound?



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 01:51 AM
link   
No chance unless she pulls a George W. Bush and steals the election



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 02:38 AM
link   
It really depends on 4 seperate factors.

1) How much damage President Bush does during the next two years.

In realistic terms, President Bush has become an albatross hung around the necks of the members of his party. The man scorns polls, especially popularity polls, which can be a sign of strength to some. But, it also means that he often times makes decisions out of spite, while disregarding conventional wisdom, which is really, really, remarkably bad.

The latest polls have Bush dropping like a stone, with 28% approval rating. Nothing short of a disaster, considering he's bleeding Republican support nearly as fast as Democratic support.

When he decides to send another 20,000 troops to Iraq, even though only 20% of the country actually support it, he tarnishes the GOP brand name. (Regardless of how anyone feels about his decision, we can all agree that it's considered very unpopular). So, conventional wisdom becomes that Bush is only serving the will of a small minority of the American population, at the expense of everyone else.

I can applaud the stance, but it's also political suicide. And, every time Bush makes an unpopular decision, he hurts the next candidate. If he attacks Iran, then I'm not sure another Republican gets elected to the white house for 12 years.

The best thing for frontrunner, John McCain, right now would be if Bush took a two year vacation in Aruba, and never opened his mouth again. Every time Bush talks, McCain's poll standing drops.

2) How republicans react to immigration reform, and in specific, amnesty for illegals already in the country.

Republicans won in 2000 and 2004 because of two groups, Hispanics, and evengelicals. Hispanics carry Florida, New Mexico, Arizona, and Colorado, and they previously came out in record numbers for both George Bush and Jeb Bush, both of whom were well respected by the latino communities.

To Bush's credit, he isolated and ignored the efforts by Tancredo and Sensenbrenner to build a wall, and deport everybody. But, as Bush over-extended himself in Iraq, the only way for Karl Rove to rally the traditonal base was to exploit the issue of illegal aliens.

Basically, if the Republican candidate has any hope of surviving the primaries, then they have to support the wall, and reject amnesty. However, the minute they do, they lose the hispanic vote.

There's been a paradigm shift during the last 4 years. Hispanics make up nearly 12% of all votes cast in during the elections. They were the GOP's new power base, adding 6 million new voters in races across the entire country. But, in 2006, all those new latino voters suddenly felt betrayed by their new party. And, as revenge, they voted for the opposition party.

In 2004, 44% of Hispanics voted for the GOP.
In 2006, 31% of Hispanics voted for the GOP
In 2008, the number is likely to drop further.

When you lose that much of the vote over night, you're in trouble. Especially when races are now determined by several thousand votes.

Any anti-immigrant stance taken by the presumptive GOP candidate, will be viewed as anti-latino by the hispanic community...and they will react. Yet, NOT taking an an anti-immigrant stance will doom any candidate trying to survive the southern primaries.

It's a horrible catch 22 for the GOP

3) Cuba, and whoever doesn't support normalization talks with the Raul Castro, after Fidel dies.

This one is easy. Easy money says Fidel Castro dies before 2008, leaving Raul in charge. Nobody knows what happens then. Will Raul violently crack down on pro-democracy supporters? Or, will I be buying beach front property in Cuba?

The candidate who supports normalization talks, and lifting tariffs on Cuba, while allowing it to remain a communist nation, immediately loses Florida. No question.

The candidate who supports democracy in Cuba, armed revolt or otherwise, immediately wins Cuba.


4) Who wins the Southern Republican primaries.

This comes back to the first two points. Traditional conservative values have suddenly been thrust out of the mainstream. While still murky, the majority of American people support stem cell research, abortion rights, gay civil unions. These issues have been played out on the national scale.

Musgrave and Allard aren't introducing anti-gay legislation anymore. They can't. Across the board, the conservative agenda is being jettisoned for a more populist approach. A great short term fix, but Republicans are eventually going to have to re-examine their positions, and decide if these issues are worth losing for.

Take Terri Schiavo. Many Republicans felt strongly about using the full weight of the United States government to keep her alive. And yet, the decision was widely critisized as intruding and domineering, and flat out wrong. 70% of the American people HATED the GOP response.

Conservative idealogy isn't in the mainstream anymore. People got a taste with Bush, and they flat out rejected it. And this is actually a very interesting problem, because in 2008 - unless your name is John McCain - if you win the GOP primaries, you won't win the general election.

Newt Gingrich and Sam Brownback just flat out, don't have a chance of winning the general election, they're too far right...but they're going to win Alabama and Mississippi, and South Carolina, and Texas.

Plus, we have Conservative anger at the GOP.

Will it depress the vote? Will conservatives and evangelicals deny their votes, and protest the polls until the GOP swings back in their direction?

These are some pretty good questions. Richard Viguerie is already calling for Evangelicals to leave the GOP, and start their own third party. Unlikely, maybe. But, if Giuliani wins, all hell's gonna break loose. Heck, if McCain wins, it might happen.

5) What does all of this have to do with Hillary?

Hillary will win the Democratic nomination. She has the best primary ground team in the party, meaning she has lists and names of of voters that she can depend on. She has a 20 year history with most of the district heads, and the state party chairmen.

She's going to easily raise 200 million dollars during her campaign, literally sucking up the resources for every other candidate.

She'll pick Obama if he put up a good fight. Bill Richardson if he can carry New Mexico. Or Wesley Clark if Iraq is a disaster.

Hillary has to carry the same states that Kerry did, and then add one. And given the developements during the last two years: dropping hispanic support, losing the western plains to the libertarian democrats, the mass exedous of Republicans from the Republican Party of Kanas - and most revealing about voter disatisfaction - the loss of 350 state seats across the nation.

Suddenly, Florida, New Mexico, Arizona, Montana, Colorado, Ohio, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Virginia are all up for grabs.

Hillary only needs one.

The only thing the Republicans can do is run a moderate, populist candidate. And, the only one I can see surviving the primary, and having a shot at the general is Mike Huckabee from Arkansas.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 02:52 AM
link   
The coming Presdintial Elections have already been played and won and even someone like me from across the pacific can see what is about to unfold in the US.

The NWO has had a hand in this election much more so than any other - they have played the exact right cards to confuse the masses totaly into arguing with themselves on wether they should choose race over sex over what they currently have.

The NWO has selected Hilary as a candidate because there is a high chance the majority of US public will not want a female as a President and not think she strong enough to handle the tough situations.

Obama will not win for one simple reason, he's Black. Sad but true this is how the public will view it and his allegiance to the nation will allways be questionable as will his ability to counter pressure from Black groups whilst in office.

This only leaves one choice for the majority and it will be whoever the Republican party elects as candidate. Which will sadly mean that you Yanks are in for 8 more years of Republican Pupetry Leaders doing the bidding for the devil - the devil being the NWO and the next leader will be the one who take matters into the last phase - ridding all possible objectors to his rule.

Kick them all out of office I say for they each spend from the same pocket. You need a leader elected from the people to serve the people....not the corporation or New World Wankers



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 03:11 AM
link   
I don't think Hillary is a shoo-in by any stretch of the imagination. To think that she is the best we can expect from our country is depressing.

The difficulties she will encounter in the next two years depends in large part on how the newly elected Democratic congress performs. And right now, they are off to a less-than-stellar start.

[edit on 25-1-2007 by jsobecky]



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
I think she'll put her own spin on the unitary executive, too. That's what scares me.

Justin,
you are very good with your words, thanks for posting your thoughts. I do basically agree with these two statments.


Thankfully, we don't see skilled and ruthless Machievellian minds but once in a generation.


I don't really know if I can agree with this one or not, but I do think there is little doubt about the skilled and ruthless Machievellian mind.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa
As progressive as we like to think of ourselves; I don't think the country is ready for a woman or a black. Hispanic, different story.



I don't think your right there. Some reports have said that fifty sever percent of women already support her. This is before the race even gets started. If you want to turn the hole thing into a gender issue look up the census figures. The voting age women just might have the men out numbered.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Brimstone,
You posted a very good essay on this topic thank you. The main thing that really came home to me was the sentence below.


Originally posted by brimstone735


Conservative idealogy isn't in the mainstream anymore.


I have really felt that was true the last few years or so my self. You also seem to have a very good grasp on all of this. Would you mind if I ask what drives you to be so up to date on all of this?



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

The difficulties she will encounter in the next two years depends in large part on how the newly elected Democratic congress performs. And right now, they are off to a less-than-stellar start.



Jsbecky,
Thanks for bringing up that point. How congress preforms is something I had not considered at this point. I unfortunately feel that she may be the shoe in as you put it. But the reasons why more because the people who control the money already made the choice.





top topics
 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join