Mrs. Clinton might pick Bill Richardson to be her running mate if she feels that Obama can't be controlled. The Democrats are in a situation werein they can ensrue power for the next two decades, if they play it smart. As we've already seen, the GOP is too divided to offer more than token resistence at this time.

To answer Don's challenge, I don't doubt for one minute that Mrs. Clinton has her act together. She's very squared away, especially when compared to her opposition. I don't care that she's a woman. I'd have the same reservations if she were a man. Bush41 proved himself to be a weak leader when he ate it on that "read my lips" thing. I very nearly cried when Bob Dole was slated run against Bill Clinton in '94. I'm well aware of the fact that Democrats can have good characteristics, too.

By all accounts, Hitler was a nice guy. Caesar was evidently the kind of guy you could have a few beers and shoot the breeze with. Most of history's strongest have reportedly been fun at parties, and good with kids, but their choices...and their ambitions...left a lot to be desired. And so it is...for me... that I don't like her agenda. I find that much ambition in one person...let alone two...is just not healthy for the nation.

Earlier, I thought New Mexico’s Bill Richardson would be a good VP choice for Hillary. The typical geographical balance. Northeast and southwest. I don’t know where I got the idea the Dems were convening in Denver, but it is not there, it’s in St. Paul.

Obama. We cannot continue to ignore Barack. He has been consistently #2 in the polls and has been #1in money raising this year. I always liked him. But I feared the adverse effects on the Hillary ticket with one more social hurdle for the public to climb to back the Democrats. It’s going to be tough for a lot of men to vote for a woman. I hesitated to add to that another social issue and ask the same voter to vote for an African American. That was my thinking. I’m wrong.

Now, here’s my thinking. Barack has “forced” his way onto the Dems ticket regardless who is the top choice. America’s blacks shifted from the GOP beginning in 1932 and those who were slow coming, joined the Dems in the 1960s by necessity. Today, blacks vote 88% or higher for a good Dem. It is not so much rewarding Barack for his spectacular showing, but it is THE time for blacks to claim their reward for being the ONLY consistent base for the Dems. The Dems lost the Union vote as the unions themselves were beaten down relentlessly by the GOP. Today, union members split their vote along the same lies the general public votes. The only SAFE voters the Dems can count on are America’s blacks.

So that makes Richardson a lesser choice. A non-choice. Maybe he will get to make one of the nominating speeches? Richardson, a Latino, should get top billing and be our next Department of the Interior Secretary. With Edwards being our next Homeland Security Secretary. So that’s my vision for 2008.

[edit on 7/19/2007 by donwhite]

Originally posted by Justin Oldham

By all accounts, Hitler was a nice guy. Caesar was evidently the kind of guy you could have a few beers and shoot the breeze with. Most of history's strongest have reportedly been fun at parties, and good with kids, but their choices...and their ambitions...left a lot to be desired. And so it is...for me... that I don't like her agenda. I find that much ambition in one person...let alone two...is just not healthy for the nation.

All of your despots tend to be "nice" guys. A person like Hitler, one of his biggest problems was that he had no perseverance in being good. He wanted to be an artist; he basically gave up on that...I have heard, I am not sure, that he wanted to be a priest at one time.. That obviously didn't happen.

Hillary, from what I understand, from people who have actually met her, she's not a nice person at all. I know several people that have met the Clintons. While everyone of them have stated that Bill and Chelsey seem to be very cordial and friendly people, Hillary is cold, evasive and aloof...











[edit on 19-7-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

There is no doubt that Hillary is a cold shouldered person, but that's not enough for me to oppose her. Party affiliation doesn't impress me anymore. She's made her intent and ideology clear to us, and that's what I'm judging. I don't think her agenda is going to be good for us. I'm ready to be wrong, but that will take some doing. I mean it, actual "doing," and I won't be ashamed to apologize if I am proven wrong.

Originally posted by xpert11
Hillary will win the nomination and select Obama as her running mate . I have always thought that Hillary stayed married to Bill for political or some other

She wouldn't be where she is now without bill. That is Hillary's achilles heel.


As for Hillary's character, follow the panting of her labours. She's a Neo Con. I pray folks can see that.


Obama won't be her running mate. If he has any sense, he'll run with Al Gore. Then, he'd probly become the first black president.

Like any good politicians, Mr.s clinton will borrow from others when she knows that a certain strategy or policy wil work. Even if it didn't originate with her, or her party.

The mere fact that Barack Obama is running for President suggests to me that he could and would settle for Vice President, rather than just walk away. He would not need advisors to tell him that his own Presidency would be virtually guaranteed so long as Hillary can avoid most of the usual mistakes.

Al Gore? He won't take the pay cut to be President, nor will he be even just a little interested in the job. Not now. He's got a vast following that will do more for him than any Presidency could ever hope to reward him for. Rreal or fake, he's got a good thing going and he knows it. I have a small following of my own. I can see the appeal. There's a lot to be said for being liked by millions. Not even I would mess with that.

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
Like any good politicians, Mr.s clinton will borrow from others when she knows that a certain strategy or policy wil work. Even if it didn't originate with her, or her party.

The mere fact that Barack Obama is running for President suggests to me that he could and would settle for Vice President, rather than just walk away. He would not need advisors to tell him that his own Presidency would be virtually guaranteed so long as Hillary can avoid most of the usual mistakes.

Al Gore? He won't take the pay cut to be President, nor will he be even just a little interested in the job. Not now. He's got a vast following that will do more for him than any Presidency could ever hope to reward him for. Rreal or fake, he's got a good thing going and he knows it. I have a small following of my own. I can see the appeal. There's a lot to be said for being liked by millions. Not even I would mess with that.

I think you misunderstand them.

Obama is what he claims to be. Gore would run for prez out of a sense of duty.

It's being reported that Oprah Winfrey has endorsed Barack Obama for President in 2008. It's not a surprise, but it has finally happened, and that puts a lot of new variables in to the mix. Assuming that he is agressive, we could see a shift in the Dem favorites as Hillary loses momentum to the populist wave that propells Obama to victory.

Obama's new litmus test is now going to be the primaries in early '08. If he doesn't overtake Hillary then, he won't do it at all. For the remainder of this year, he now has to contend with the fact that Hillary can't afford to play nice with him any more. The gloves will be off, and she certainly won't hit like a girl.

Look for Martha Stuart to endorse Hillary. Oprah's seal of approval is worth a lot, but it won't be enough if she refuses to open her checkbook. Even with money and fame, Obama's organization may not be cut out to go head-to-head with the shock troops and gunslingers hired on by the Clinton camp. Obama's clean-cut image will tarnish easily, especially when smudged by a little of that old school muck raking that establishment Dems do so well via their media outlets.

[edit on 21-7-2007 by Justin Oldham]

What value could Hillary put on Martha Stewart endorsement ?
Well IMO there are two sides to the argument the first is that having an convicted felon endorse you probably holds more negative value then anything else.
The second view is that having the famous Martha Stewart who's name is in every American Kitchen and TV will appear to the non thinking elements of the population who would think that if Martha says something is good it must be.

Personally I think the second view point will prevail.

None of the above; Al Gore will announce his candidacy just prior to the convention (much to everyone's relief) and suck all the wind out of the Obama and Clinton campigans. I see a Gore/ Edwards or a Gore/Richardson ticket.

Originally posted by groverI see a Gore/ Edwards or a Gore/Richardson ticket.

Gov. Bill has said that he would rather remain gov. of NM than be vice pres. but the words of all and any politicians deserve a measure of skepticism!! Especially those that campaign on "family values."

Martha still has a good PR footprint. That, and she likes to play hardball politics. She would use her unfluence in a round-a-bout way rather than step in front of a camera. I can see her and Oprah having a battle of the checkbooks. If Obama can hold his 'lead' through September, I'll say that the Prsidency is his to have or to lose. If not, I'll continue on with my prediction that Hillary is "it" whether I like it or not.

Personally I think that the best thing the Dems. could do for the GOP is to nominate Hillary as the Dem candidate. I could be wrong but I just don't see her as electable. I think a lot of people already have her number.

I may not be for her, but I am willing t oadmit that she is immenintly electable, given the current state of affairs. Each month that Mr. Bush continues to wreck his own party improves her chances for success. You will note that she holds a commanding lead over her Democrat challengers. It's worth noting tha this (her Presidential bid) has been in the works for quite come time. As dangerous as she can e to our future, she's going to be hard to beat.

Originally posted by duster
Personally I think that the best thing the Dems. could do for the GOP is to nominate Hillary as the Dem candidate. I could be wrong but I just don't see her as electable. I think a lot of people already have her number.

I understand your logic and at one point I subscribed to it as well. However the problem is that there are no forces gathering on the Republican side of the fence to counter the Hillary machine. The Republican supporter base is virtually asleep and has to get behind any of the candidates.

All of this is happening even with the thought of Hillary hanging over Republican party supporters heads.

I've been doing a little homework, and it seems that GOP morale may be worse that I first thought. None of the existing Republican candidates are pulling in good money, and their popularity poll numbers are actually sliding. Once again, I am reminded of Fritz Mondale.

I do hope Hilary wins

Just so you poor buggers can suffer as much as we did under Thatcher
Then you will NEVER EVER elect another woman into power.
Well at least not whilst shes capable of ovulating

Originally posted by Chorlton
I do hope Hilary wins

Just so you poor buggers can suffer as much as we did under Thatcher
Then you will NEVER EVER elect another woman into power.
Well at least not whilst shes capable of ovulating

lol, that made me smile. lets just see what happens before we pass judgement, though funny.

I think it willend up being a Clinton/Edwards ticket. Blood is now in the water between Clinton and Obama I look for the Clinton machine to begin a slow bleed and destruction of Obama.

Can a sitting Senator who is female win that is the 47 million dollar question, Senators usually dont do well when it comes to presidential elections.

I think the Republicans are in such disarry that she can win, there are no Republican candidates in the race that can beat her at this point. So at this point I am more wondering who she will pick for VP.

I also believe she is a 1 term President

[edit on 7/27/2007 by DarkStormCrow]

For what it's worth, I don't hold Hillary's sex against her. I just don't think that sort of thing matters in America. Not any more. From what I have been told by people who have met her, Margaret Thatcher wasn't a people person, but she did know her stuff. Based on what little I have seen, that comparisn may hold true for Hillary Clinton.

I really don't care how much of a frosty box she may be, but I am concerned about those policies that she's entertaining. My hope is that we will pay more attnetion to what our leaders intend to DO. We can't hold them accountable for their personality traits, but we can hold them accountable for their actions.