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

It really doesnt matter so long as its not a Bush. Having said that, i cant say i like any of the people running and maybe i just havent spent enough time listening to any of them to form an opinion. The reason, i guess, its because its going to be more of the same.
I dont think any Democrats are here to "save us" and neither are the "Republicans"

Im such a cynic (sp) i never used to be that way.

Right! J/O. And that leads me to this. Since she is what we’d have to regard as a shoo-in for the Dems nomination, this ad must be her opening shot in the run for the Big ‘Chilada. She is smarter, more experienced and more determined than any of the 22 candidates of both parties, or 23 if you add Fred.

I aver Fred has misread the Holy Writ and unlike the Heavenly promise wherein the “last shall be first,” in Fred’s case the last shall indeed, be last. Impolitely put, Hillary has the necessary “fire in the belly” to make her a winner. The Soprano-esque tv ad was shot #1 to fix the one characteristic she is short on. Likeability. This new campaign will make her “likeable.” As she and her advisers mold her into the cookie-making but watchful “Mom Next Door” type. She’ll swat the opposition. Get me a ticket to the January 20, 2009, “I Do” ceremony! 573 days and counting.

[edit on 6/22/2007 by donwhite]

Originally posted by dgtempe
It really doesnt matter so long as its not a Bush.

It seems to me it would take an extremely good conclusion in Iraq and very soon and cheaper gas for anyone other than a democrat to be the next president.

I want very much to be wrong. I might even be pursuaded to take my book out of circulation if I am proven wrong, but I have my doubts.

I don't doubt that many of the Democrats who fill out the House and Senate majorities in 2009 will do what they do for idealistic reasons. As they say, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. The tools that mr. bush leaves behind for the Democrats will, I think, prove too irresistable. I have many books on my shelf wherein the aspiring hero or heroin really dos think they can wield power better than the other guy. Most of the time, they are proven wrong.

Notice that Isaid most of the time. I'm fallible and I know it. Just ask my wife.

Originally posted by Justin Oldham

If I walked up to you unbathed and in dirty t-shirt with blue jeans, you'd think of me one way. If you met me while I was squeaky clean and wearing a suit and tie, you'd tend to think of me in another way.

Justin,
Yes I know I would perceive you or any one one way or another depending on how you are dressed and how you present your self. On appearance alone I don't see that as being a debatable issue or much of a factor in the election just because everyone will be doing it about the same.

It's what they are all doing. She just happens to be better at it than her competition. I'm not wild about that, but hey. You can't have everything.

Justin,
yes it is what they are all doing and I got that she is better at it, and I do believe you on that. But it is they way she is doing the manipulating so far is what makes me question if what Freud is saying in those videos that I quoted above is right. She has chosen popular criminal figures to mimic for advertising, to make her self look cool, as one other person put it. And if this is the correct course of action, to look cool based on a criminal character, does that mean Freud was right when he said people are in capable of making a rational decision? Thus in capable of making a rational vote?

Freud's premise is that because we are slaves to our emotions, we can't make entirely rational decisions. We do betray something of our inner selves when we emulate morally contraversial people or act on ethically suspect motives. I agree with that entirely. With this in mind, I'm still scared ofwhat Hillary could do to us. Politics aside, the psychological factors alone worry me.

Some people really did take issue with my portray of a female President. Some said she was too nice. Otehrs said she was too scheming. As an author who may have been ahead of his time, I'm ready to find out. I can'tdeny Mrs. Clinton's skill at politics, but I can take issue with her intended policies on rational grounds. I may not satisfy Freud, but I'm here and I'm ready for the challenge.

I am seeing too many people counting out the Republican chances for the Presidency in 2008.

It's just too easy to say "Bush did a rotten job, so there will be a Democrat President in 2008."

Polls that want you to pick between a generic Democrat and Republican will obviously favor the Democrats. But when you start putting names in the polls, the polls start showing different results.

It is a given that Mrs. Bill Clinton will be coronated, and will represent the Democrat Party. Put her up against Fred Thompson, Rudy Guiliani, or even Newt Gingrich and she flat out loses.

You think John Kerry took a butt-whupping during the 2004 campaign? Well you haven't seen anything, like you are going to see in 2008 Mrs. Bill Clinton campaign. I can't wait for the fireworks! It's going to be a blast!

Originally posted by RRconservative
I am seeing too many people counting out the Republican chances for the Presidency in 2008.

It's just too easy to say "Bush did a rotten job, so there will be a Democrat President in 2008."

I'm with you, fellow conservative. Like I've written before on this very thread, when you accept defeat BEFORE the election, you have already lost. I won't give up on beating Hillary et al until the last vote is counted.

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
Freud's premise is that because we are slaves to our emotions, we can't make entirely rational decisions. We do betray something of our inner selves when we emulate morally contraversial people or act on ethically suspect motives. I agree with that entirely.

Justin,
I won't agree everything you said, although be it I will agree that our emotions be them as privative or primal as they are make up who we are. That being said, I also believe that most people are capable of making a rational decision. Meaning because emotions play a part in who we are, they will not necessarily make a person incapable of making a rational decision.

Originally posted by RRconservative
I am seeing too many people counting out the Republican chances for the Presidency in 2008.

Conservative,
Yes a lot of people are counting out the Republican for the 2008 race, self included. However I heard some on else say on a different forum around here something that did catch my attention. Two of the three front runners come from a group that have never held the office of President. The leading front runner a female is one of them. That being said, could the fact that the front runner for the Democratic party is female be the factor that the republicans want to keep them in office?

I just read that Obama may have over taken Hillery in the category of fund raising. As I said at the beginning of this thread, if you control the money you control the election. So could Obama overtake Hillery?
thread

As a political strategist, I'd have to say that its too soon to know if Obama can "take" Hillary. His superior showing in the second quater numbers suggests to me that a lot of people voted with their dollars for the message they most wanted to keep on hear. It's worth nothing That Obama's good going erases the ten million dollar lead that Mrs. Clinton had going in to this race.

It didn't get a lot of press, but there was a Democrat debate last week (Thursday) at Howeard University. Most commentators generally agree that Hillary won that debate bacause she responded to most questions with a policy answer, or an observation that resonated deeply with most who heard it. For the most part, she was hitting the ball out of hte park with canned answered. Stuff that she'd said before. I watched it, and it was plain to see that the shark was definitely in deep water.

Justin,
I watched part of the debate. Not that I follow politics the way you do. I won't disagree with the commentators that Hillery came out on top. I just still am hoping Obama will take the nomination.

Democrats have two clear-cut choices. Clinton is the establishment candidate, while Obama remains the popular choice. It may very well turn out that Giuliani is the right-wing establishment choice while Thompson becomes the popular choice for the Republicans. As a citizen, 00000000I could live with a match like that. The competition would certain be fierce.

Justin,
So are you saying either the established choice or the popular choice would been good candidates from either party?
Yes no matter what happens I also think the competition will be fierce.

"Good" is highly subjective in this case. I'm a sucker for populism, so I'd be happier to see a non-establishment candidate win...no matter which party comes to power.

It has been decided by the elite that Hillary will be the democrat nominee, Obama know this, he'll give her the nomination. He may run as vice-president, but he will let Hillary be the president. Don't count on Obama to be the nominee.

Even if he would get it, it wouldn't matter, he have the same views, just read his AIPAC speeches.

I've said from the start that Barack Obama will not have the political muscle to be our next President. He will, however, have a shot at the Vice Presidency based on his populist appeal. I'm not looking forward to Hillary, but I do recognize that the Republican stable is empty. History will say that Fred Thompson's entry in to the race came too late, and Giuliani was simply too polarizing a figure to take his party to victory.

Some of my critics accuse me of being a fatalist. As a trained political scientist, with a strong political instinct, I take issue with that characterization. As time passes, and this owmen comes to power, I will be prepared to speak up whenever I see an abuse of power that needs to be commented on. If she proves me wrong in my assertions, I'll be thefirst one to admit it. Until that happens, I'm in this debate 'til the end.

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
Democrats have two clear-cut choices. Clinton is the establishment candidate, while Obama remains the popular choice. It may very well turn out that Giuliani is the right-wing establishment choice while Thompson becomes the popular choice for the Republicans. As a citizen, 00000000I could live with a match like that. The competition would certain be fierce.

I've said from the start that Barack Obama will not have the political muscle to be our next President. He will, however, have a shot at the Vice Presidency based on his populist appeal. I'm not looking forward to Hillary, but I do recognize that the Republican stable is empty. History will say that Fred Thompson's entry in to the race came too late, and Giuliani was simply too polarizing a figure to take his party to victory.

Some of my critics accuse me of being a fatalist. As a trained political scientist, with a strong political instinct, I take issue with that characterization. As time passes, and this woman comes to power, I will be prepared to speak up whenever I see an abuse of power that needs to be commented on. If she proves me wrong in my assertions, I'll be the first one to admit it. Until that happens, I'm in this debate 'til the end.

J/O, you say Obama and Fred are the popular choices. Now, in the case of Obama, are you sure you are not confusing or equating money raising with poll numbers? In the case of Fred, he is killing himself by this delay.

You are wary of the abuses already in hand at the White House and you have expressed doubts the next occupant will not be tempted to keep them to build more power on. I hope not. I’ve written you elsewhere that it is as much who and how power is exercised whether it becomes a real concern. There are real distinction to keep in mind. Both Lincoln and FDR moved through Congress. B43 moves via Secret Executive Orders. The former I admire the latter I fear.

[edit on 7/9/2007 by donwhite]

I'd say that Obama is a popular choice because his money is derived from largely popualr means, which allows him the luxury of waxing so eloquently on purist social issues. It's a situation that many candidates, regardless of party, would like to be in.

Hillary's money comes from Establishment sources. She speaks like an establishment candidate. I don't know what's holding up Fred, but I can guess that it has something to do with political in-fighting. I can't imagine that Giuliani will want to just step back and let the new guy run free. yet more proof that the GOP is hoplessly buggered.

FDR may very well have been the last President to do anything close to what Bush43 has done in terms of Executive power. I do fully expect voters to punish the Republicans for their folly starting in February of 2008 when the primaries begin. I don't like it, and I'd rather not see it, but I'm willing to admit that it's going to happen...and why.