Poll: Thumbs Down on Prez Hillary Clinton

Im not sure if this is good news or bad. I really want to see her run and loose. At least she will no longer represent New York

Quote:

---

Poll: Thumbs Down on Prez Hillary Clinton

By a margin of three to one, Americans say they would "definitely" vote against Hillary Clinton for president, a CNN/Gallup poll released Tuesday has found.

While just 16 percent say they had made up their minds to back Clinton when she seeks the presidency in 2008, 51 percent say there's no way they want to see the former first lady back in the White House.

Men are the most vehement when it comes to the prospect of another Clinton presidency, with 60 percent telling Gallup they would vote against Hillary for sure.

Reporting on the Gallup survey in today's edition, the New York Post notes that women are slightly less repulsed by the notion of Mrs. Clinton running the country, with just 43 percent saying they definitely don't want to see her in the Oval Office.

Even Mrs. Clinton's liberal base isn't solidly behind her, with a full one-third of self described liberals telling Gallup/CNN they have no intention of supporting her in 2008.

---

W00T! Down with the white man! ~D

There's something perverse and hilarious about Hillary Clinton being your Senator, Gawain.

Whoa. She's already got a majority of people against her.

That won't stop her from probably winning the dem nomination ~D

Crazed Rabbit

I'll tell you why people are against her, aside form the fact that she is too much of a politician....its because hillary as president is a package deal, just as bill was a package deal. Catch my drift? Bill and Hilary were in office 8 years, thats enough. Now had she divorced him after the affair I might have a small amount of respect for her, but I guess it depends on which affair and still I would probably still think she sucked. No thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

I'll tell you why people are against her, aside form the fact that she is too much of a politician....its because hillary as president is a package deal, just as bill was a package deal. Catch my drift? Bill and Hilary were in office 8 years, thats enough. Now had she divorced him after the affair I might have a small amount of respect for her, but I guess it depends on which affair and still I would probably still think she sucked. No thanks

---

Funny way of thinking about politics. Let us see what argumentation against Hillary for President we have here.

1. Hillary is a politician.
   I take it Monsieur Dump would prefer to elect a butcher, dentist or Avon consultant who has never seen the inside of a political party or body of elected representatives?
2. Hillary worked with her husband when he was President.
   And a very succesful President to boot: eight years in office, admired for his political sixth sense as well as for having a wife who shared his political agenda and worked for it. The Dumpster would have preferred a politically amorphous blob for a first lady -- the kind that bakes cookies and manipulates her husband in the bedroom only.
3. Hillary has not divorced her husband over his affairs
   The Major is incapable of grasping the concept of marriage which includes the notion that partners commit for life and preferably settle their marital differences by other than legal means unless said life becomes unbearable.

All in all, the Major's choice for President would be a divorced Avon consultant who is good at lighting Christmas trees.
:wall:

Bah. Only crooks and jerks become US prezzies anyway, it's that kind of job. I can't for the life of me comprehend why Hillary would be any worse than the other sorts of creeps you're going to have lining up at the elections.

Hillary Clinton? Why not? Let her run against Dick Cheney and we'll have yet another interesting election :juggle2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Germaanse Strijder

Hillary Clinton? Why not? Let her run against Dick Cheney and we'll have yet another interesting election :juggle2:

---

That would make me regret my move to America. :help:

We are in need of another liberal/populist move ala the New Deal or the Civil Rights movement to stabilize the overgrowth of conservatism. They had their own "resurgent" era in Reagan to balance out the old 60s liberalism already. Hillary, however, isn't a very good choice. She's too jaded a politician, methinks.

And Dick Cheney would've been just another Nixon, except more stupid and less dynamic a crook. We don't need neoconservative crooks in the White House, thank you. The Cold War is over.

I'm not sure though, that I can vote by the time of 2008. It all the depends on the Immigration whatever-office that does my naturalization. That might be good, perhaps, as I am quite in the mood of political apathy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc bean

She doesn't stand a chance and everyone knows it.

---

Of course, but who else would the dems field for the election? It's not like the top of the US political hierarchy carries any outstanding personalities for the public to choose from right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

All in all, the Major's choice for President would be a divorced Avon consultant who is good at lighting Christmas trees.
:wall:

---

Actually, he said "why the people are against her", and they seem like pretty good reasons. The divorce thing seems laughable of course, but now most of the 'liberals' think she just stays with her husband for political reasons and the christian right won,'t vote for her because she has a bad marriage.

She doesn't stand a chance and everyone knows it.

The sad part about the whole fiasco is that the Clintons have enough financial backing to get the nomination, regardless of what the general public thinks. There's a reason she isn't a Senator in Arkansas right now. The even sadder part is it would guarantee a democratic loss in the general election.

And I don't think the divorce scenario is ludicrous at all. It takes guts and integrity to stand up and walk away from something you find truly appalling, and the fact that this stupid woman stood by her man is proof that marriage is as sacred as a turd in a truck stop urinal. Please. Ever consider maybe Al Gore would have won the 2000 election had he resigned as VP when it became evident that the president lied under oath, lied about lying under oath, then played guardhouse lawyer with the definition of the word "is?" Instead Mr Gore stayed on the gravy train, kept his mouth shut and planned his next political move which made it clear he was about as genuine as a japanese cowboy. Just once, I would like someone who doesn't stand by a crony for the sake of free pie, and instead throws their arms up and says "enough." Hell, even if they don't really mean it, humor me, please.

Technicly, Gore could have won in 2000 if he emphasized more on his vice presidency under Clinton. But he was to afraid the public would be held back by their feelings about Clinton, probably wrongly so. Because honestly, Clinton vs Bush? If Clinton could have run for another term he'd have defeated Bush by a large margin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

I'll tell you why people are against her, aside form the fact that she is too much of a politician....its because hillary as president is a package deal, just as bill was a package deal. Catch my drift? Bill and Hilary were in office 8 years, thats enough. Now had she divorced him after the affair I might have a small amount of respect for her, but I guess it depends on which affair and still I would probably still think she sucked. No thanks

---

I liked this bit, but didn't you mean Monica sucked? :laugh4: :inquisitive: :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Hillary Clinton? Why not? Let her run against Dick Cheney and we'll have yet another interesting election :juggle2:

---

More interesting if Condeleeza Rice ran for the Republicans.

Now I'm British so my extent of US politics is five series of the West Wing, the news and not alot else. However this is news to me, I though Hilarly Clinton was a shoe in for the 08 presidency, I thought she's get all the womens vote, apart from the die hard rep women of course.

So yeah, perhaps Bill wont get to be The First (and actually first) Gentlemen in 08, lol.

And yet despite Hillary's lack of popularity I think it's a fairly safe bet that the Democrats will push her to the forefront for their 2008 run at the presidency. Stands to reason since they were boneheaded enough to get behind Kerry for their last run at the White House. About the only thing going for Kerry in the last presidential campaign was that he was the 'anything but another 4 years of Bush' choice for anyone left of center. While G.W. Bush did win handily against Kerry I believe had McCain been the incumbent we would have seen one of the most lopsided electoral & popular vote landslides since Reagan trounced Mondale.

I think the majority of the US male public is misogynist. They'll never vote for a woman president. We've never had one, which puts us in pretty small company among industrialized nations. Among the nations who have elected female heads of state: Britain, Germany, India, Israel, Pakistan, the Philippines, and Nigeria.

We have the anti-Christ as president now, and people make these lame excuses to hate Hillary Clinton. It makes no sense.

I like AdrianII's post. I thought loyalty to one's spouse was a virtue.

I think its a joke that they conciderd her eligable..
I know that ragan's wife did all the work but Isnt this being a bit daft even for america?

any way I dont think it matters.
Bush will win any election aslong as he has relitivs in controll of the votes in florida.

or atleast thats my oppinion.

Man, dat jus be whack if dis skeezin ho be making duh Cracker House her crib again. About de only Demcrat I be consideratin be Ben Nelson. Mutha bumpa be off da hook!!! He gotz de politicizin skillz and the mad flo dat could bring dis country back together again, wit all duh hand holdin, Martin Lutha Kang lovin' old skoolz way. But ain't no way dis tuna eatin Beeatch Hillary gonna getz her handz on muy Benjamins wit socializen health care and all that shiznit. Beeatch better recognize bfor she get dealt, know wut I'm sayin?

What the hell is the matter with you? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zorba

What the hell is the matter with you? :inquisitive:

---

Wut de matta wit you? You best be stickin to de beat on dis thread or you's gonna get dealt wit a quickness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tachikaze

I think the majority of the US male public is misogynist. They'll never vote for a woman president. We've never had one, which puts us in pretty small company among industrialized nations. Among the nations who have elected female heads of state: Britain, Germany, India, Israel, Pakistan, the Philippines, and Nigeria.

We have the anti-Christ as president now, and people make these lame excuses to hate Hillary Clinton. It makes no sense.

I like AdrianII's post. I thought loyalty to one's spouse was a virtue.

---

Wow, so much self-loathing......~:eek:

I'm sorry, but you need your frigging head checked if you think there is any serious misogyny in America. There's a realistic chance we could have two female candidates next time 'round, and there's still ideological psychos out here that won't be happy until every single woman with a brain in America is a doctor or a corporate exec or a lawyer, leaving nothing but the dumbass women at home to raise the next generation.

oh crap. on noes!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Wut de matta wit you? You best be stickin to de beat on dis thread or you's gonna get dealt wit a quickness.

---

Vanilla Ice, is that you?

I Pitty the foo Who cant see its MR-T on crack

Quote:

---

I know that ragan's wife did all the work but Isnt this being a bit daft even for america?

---

Who's this 'ragan' fellow you speak of?

Quote:

---

I Pitty the foo Who cant see its MR-T on crack

---

I think Mr. T would pity your communication skills. But I don't know if even Mr. T has enough pity for that.

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

I'm sorry, but you need your frigging head checked if you think there is any serious misogyny in America. There's a realistic chance we could have two female candidates next time 'round, and there's still ideological psychos out here that won't be happy until every single woman with a brain in America is a doctor or a corporate exec or a lawyer, leaving nothing but the dumbass women at home to raise the next generation.

---

We have some nice statutes to help equalize women in the eyes of the law, some of the best laws in the world. But there's a difference between what appears in our lawbooks and what I see among the general public. I've seen what has happened when women have tried to run for president or as a presidential running mate in the past. I heard the comments people, especially men, made. I heard people say that having a female running mate was politcal suicide. I watched the Hill/Thomas hearings. I've heard men after hours belittle women and slander them. I don't mean just joke or complain (as women do about men), but actually verbally attack them to symbolically subordinate them.

I will recant what I'm saying if Rice and Clinton are chosen to run in opposition as the two candidates of their respective parties.

By the way, the US never passed the Equal Rights Amendment.

That's one of the main reasons I'd be willing to suspend my abject loathing of the Republican party in the context of Rice becoming the prez. If she was running against Hillary I'd be in a bit of a dilemma, because I also think it'd be a damn high time for a black prez too, so Rice'd be a nice two-in-one package, but I dislike the Dems a whole lot less as a party...

Anyway, either would hopefully help the Americans dislodge themselves from leftover Fifties ideas a bit.

In my view they are not going to elect a woman President any time in the forseeable future and I highly doubt there would ever be a woman candidate. Isn't it usually the custom that they just have one "token woman" candidate in the pool before they choose the one actual candidate who will run? :laugh4:

Further to that, Hilary is a loser who stayed with an adulterer. Why would Americans elect a known loser as President. Not very logical.

...
...
*cough*
Bush Jr.
*cough*
Twice.
*cough* *cough*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tachikaze

By the way, the US never passed the Equal Rights Amendment.

---

Because it was stupid. :bow:

Quote:

---

That's one of the main reasons I'd be willing to suspend my abject loathing of the Republican party in the context of Rice becoming the prez. If she was running against Hillary I'd be in a bit of a dilemma, because I also think it'd be a damn high time for a black prez too, so Rice'd be a nice two-in-one package, but I dislike the Dems a whole lot less as a party...

---

That kind of view is amazing to me. You'd be willing to support a party that you apparently hate ideologically just because they run a black female candidate. I honestly don't understand it... :shrug:

I don't care if a candidate is black, white, male, female, or whatever. If they will represent what I believe in I will vote for them. I can't understand what difference their race or sex should make.

What amazes me is that hilary-haters are labeled as mysoginists.

I'll make it blunt for you, Tak: I don't want Bill Clinton in the white house again. We can argue circles all day and night about how good or bad of a president he was, but that doesn't change the fact that he's a package deal, he will be making decisions, and the dems will be subject to cronyism all over again, and there are plenty of democats -- even democrats who supported him and thought he did a decent job -- who simply don't want him in the white house again.

Not just that, but if Hil gets the nomination she will lose. Simple. And it will show the dems that they learned nothing with Kerry. And I don't want the dems to lose so I don't want hilary.

Well, its been no secret that Hilary's negative score was robust. Interestingly, she faced the same hurdle in NY, and got over it with relative ease. She would be divisive and polarizing and would bring out the GOP vote like few Democrats could -- but don't count her out entirely. Regardless of what you thought of them as leaders and policy makers the Clinton political team was brilliantly effective.

What I would like to see is a Democrat party that had something to bring to the table. My own party is suffering for lack of decent competition. The Dems have been unable to articulate a positive message for change and have therefore been unable to wield any effective leverage in elections. Unfortunately, this lets the GOP be sloppy, start to fall in love with the trappings of power, and atenuate their own ability to accomplish anything. This galls me. We need an opposition that forces us to do our work well.

Neither the '00 or the '04 effort by Bush was unbeatable, and the various Congressional elections since '94 have featured their share of Republican mis-cues and yet the Dems, lacking a cohesive central message, haven't been able to apply and meanigful pressure.

To use a football (American) analogy, even a geriatric quarterback can complete the pass if the defense gives him 25 seconds to throw because they can't apply any pressure -- and in a two team game there is no incentive to field better players if the ones you have keep beating the opposition.

Just a thought....

What I would like to know is: what would people think about Laura Bush for president? ~:idea:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

What amazes me is that hilary-haters are labeled as mysoginists.

I'll make it blunt for you, Tak: I don't want Bill Clinton in the white house again. We can argue circles all day and night about how good or bad of a president he was, but that doesn't change the fact that he's a package deal, he will be making decisions, and the dems will be subject to cronyism all over again, and there are plenty of democats -- even democrats who supported him and thought he did a decent job -- who simply don't want him in the white house again.

Not just that, but if Hil gets the nomination she will lose. Simple. And it will show the dems that they learned nothing with Kerry. And I don't want the dems to lose so I don't want hilary.

---

But not everyone who attacks H. Clinton has the same reasons as you. B. Clinton was very popular at his height and even still quite popular after the Republicans did their little political assassination of him.

I stand by what I have said. I think a significant number of US men (enough to decide an election) believe that, in general, a woman doesn't "have what it takes" to be president and, specifically in the case of Clinton, are afraid or distainful of strong women.

This is not to say that Clinton doesn't have faults. I am not enthusiastic about her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kommodus

What I would like to know is: what would people think about Laura Bush for president? ~:idea:

---

Jenna is the zany one.

A real ho by all means. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tachikaze

But not everyone who attacks H. Clinton has the same reasons as you. B. Clinton was very popular at his height and even still quite popular after the Republicans did their little political assassination of him.

I stand by what I have said. I think a significant number of US men (enough to decide an election) believe that, in general, a woman doesn't "have what it takes" to be president and, specifically in the case of Clinton, are afraid or distainful of strong women.

This is not to say that Clinton doesn't have faults. I am not enthusiastic about her.

---

You must really hate yourself, white skin and penis and all.If it makes me a sexist because I don't want to vote for Hillary Clinton because I don't agree with her on any of her social issues or her politics then so be it. You know Tachi, you're no better than David Duke when he says bad things about Blacks in general because at the end of the day you're doing the exact same thing by calling the majority of the male public as misogynist as Duke calling blacks savages. You're a hypocrite of the largest order and its a complete and total shame that you were blessed to be born in this wonderful country only to loath it. I really think that you should leave. Its obviously so horrible for you to be surround by all these horrible people, racists, homophobic, religious, misogynist, ignorant, rich, white, male, conservative, etc... Wait a minute, I'm not exactly sure, but you sure are not very accepting of people. Good luck on finding a better place because Tachi, you will NEVER see the US become anything close to what you think would be a better America because the America you vision is even more narrow minded and bigoted than any Republican could ever dream of and the US is too great for a self loathing, unappreciative, little hypocrite such as yourself could ever change. I wonder how you can watch NASCAR and enjoy it so when there are all those white males driving in circles for hours at a time. How can you, Tachi, support this sport when it has sooo many of these evil flag waving white males that would sooner give Bill Clinton a Lewinsky than vote for his wife. Well thats my monthly Tachi rant, please feel free to respond, its a free misogynist-infested country you know.

The "liberal" media has been pushing Hillary on us for years now. Hollywood has put a TV show with a woman president in it to show us how good it would be... Well America has rejected the Liberal left and the Democrats have no idea of what to do. The message that the Republicans are wrong, only works if you can state why they are wrong and what the right choices are (ahead of time, not using hind sight). America's silent majority has finally awakened and they are people who have had enough of the liberals. We are tired of the liberals telling us that its wrong to punish criminals but okay to kill unborn children. Tired of more concern over a tree or a animal than over the betterment of a people. The Liberals are trying to make a socialist society without calling it that. So far, with very few exceptions that type of government has FAILED!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tachikaze

I stand by what I have said. I think a significant number of US men (enough to decide an election) believe that, in general, a woman doesn't "have what it takes" to be president and, specifically in the case of Clinton, are afraid or distainful of strong women.

---

Her real problem is that showed 'weakness' by staying with Bill after the lewinski affair, this gave her a conflicting image: the strong female politician and the weak wife who gets cheated on and tolerates it. That's what really ruins her chances imo.

Quote:

---

The "liberal" media has been pushing Hillary on us for years now.

---

Reasons and examples please, show me twelve instances of the mainstream media pushing Hillary Clinton as President. If this has been going on for years that shouldn't be too hard.

Quote:

---

Hollywood has put a TV show with a woman president in it to show us how good it would be...

---

Yes Commander In Chief is being aired for that reason. Not because it could make an interesting story(I don't know, never watched it), but the point stands writers sometimes sit around and ask each other "what if?" and write what they think might happen in that situation.

Quote:

---

Tired of more concern over a tree or a animal than over the betterment of a people.

---

Have you considered why conservation and environmentalism are good? Do you know what happens when we cut down too many trees? Oxygen goes away, you and me stop breathing and die. Besides how do 'Liberals' not want to better people?

Quote:

---

The Liberals are trying to make a socialist society without calling it that.

---

By increasing the size of the federal government, increasing federal powers, and helping to centralize economic power?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

You must really hate yourself, white skin and penis and all.If it makes me a sexist because I don't want to vote for Hillary Clinton because I don't agree with her on any of her social issues or her politics then so be it. You know Tachi, you're no better than David Duke when he says bad things about Blacks in general because at the end of the day you're doing the exact same thing by calling the majority of the male public as misogynist as Duke calling blacks savages. You're a hypocrite of the largest order and its a complete and total shame that you were blessed to be born in this wonderful country only to loath it. I really think that you should leave. Its obviously so horrible for you to be surround by all these horrible people, racists, homophobic, religious, misogynist, ignorant, rich, white, male, conservative, etc... Wait a minute, I'm not exactly sure, but you sure are not very accepting of people. Good luck on finding a better place because Tachi, you will NEVER see the US become anything close to what you think would be a better America because the America you vision is even more narrow minded and bigoted than any Republican could ever dream of and the US is too great for a self loathing, unappreciative, little hypocrite such as yourself could ever change. I wonder how you can watch NASCAR and enjoy it so when there are all those white males driving in circles for hours at a time. How can you, Tachi, support this sport when it has sooo many of these evil flag waving white males that would sooner give Bill Clinton a Lewinsky than vote for his wife. Well thats my monthly Tachi rant, please feel free to respond, its a free misogynist-infested country you know.

---

I said a significant number of US men. If you don't want to count yourself among them, don't.

Leaving the US won't make its problems go away. I may be happier in another country, but I won't run away. Perhaps one day the US public will come to its senses and the Republicans will complain and then I will advise them to leave.

I don't support NASCAR. I have not given them a cent since 1988, when I attended a race in Arizona. I would be happier if NASCAR ceased to exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kommodus

What I would like to know is: what would people think about Laura Bush for president? ~:idea:

---

Statistically, she would be leading the third invasion of Iraq. :inquisitive:

And I'm betting it's with the words "third time the charm" :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Romulas

The "liberal" media has been pushing Hillary on us for years now. Hollywood has put a TV show with a woman president in it to show us how good it would be... Well America has rejected the Liberal left and the Democrats have no idea of what to do. The message that the Republicans are wrong, only works if you can state why they are wrong and what the right choices are (ahead of time, not using hind sight). America's silent majority has finally awakened and they are people who have had enough of the liberals. We are tired of the liberals telling us that its wrong to punish criminals but okay to kill unborn children. Tired of more concern over a tree or a animal than over the betterment of a people. The Liberals are trying to make a socialist society without calling it that. So far, with very few exceptions that type of government has FAILED!

---

What sound does a fox make?

Is it like sheep?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Romulas

The Liberals are trying to make a socialist society without calling it that. So far, with very few exceptions that type of government has FAILED!

---

Socialism is not a kind of government.

It doesn't really matter who is president in 2008. You are run by faceless corporations. Give it 20 years and all you septics will get tagged at birth by the corporations. They'll be farming you from cradle to grave but you'll think of yourself as free because you're allowed to shoot each other and pray to Jeebus in public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

It doesn't really matter who is president in 2008. You are run by faceless corporations. Give it 20 years and all you septics will get tagged at birth by the corporations. They'll be farming you from cradle to grave but you'll think of yourself as free because you're allowed to shoot each other and pray to Jeebus in public.

---

Well Idaho Ive realized the whole western world will be. Your corporations will cover the UK in bubble wrap and there will be pc police on every corner and christmass will be cancled. At least we get to shoot minorites:inquisitive: and celebrtate Christmas:inquisitive:

Idaho and Strike are both right (Idaho's slight exaggeration and Strike's attack on pc notwithstanding). Where the US goes, the Western world will follow to various degrees and at various rates. The US, and even Japan, may be too far gone, but hopefully, the rest of the world will have the wisdom to resist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

It doesn't really matter who is president in 2008. You are run by faceless corporations. Give it 20 years and all you septics will get tagged at birth by the corporations. They'll be farming you from cradle to grave but you'll think of yourself as free because you're allowed to shoot each other and pray to Jeebus in public.

---

Well, Idaho, 5 points for honesty, even if you immediately lose them for poor grammar. 'Septic' is an adjective. If you wish to refer to the entire population of the USA as pieces of excrement, might I suggest several words that actually DO qualify as nouns? Here ya go... feces, bowel movements or refuses. Again, full marks for honest expression of your true opinion.

Tachi, it's always easiest to despise the familiar. Certainly, women in the United States do not have it as easy as men in the United States. You'd have to be a fool to claim otherwise. That being said, there are very few places in the world where the disparity between women and men is as slight as here. While you continue to dispense your scorn, derision and venom for America and all things American, might I suggest you reside in foreign lands long enough to understand the nuances of their socities and see if we really and truly are as bad as you make us out to be? Last I checked, female circumcision and gender selective abortions are not allowed within the USA.

Tachi, by what means should the world "resist" the American "Empire"? Just curious to what extent you think resistance should be applied.

Quote:

---

What sound does a fox make?

---

It sounds like the truth. Greeting and Salutations from the Conservative Right!

Hillary Clinton will not and should not be president of the United States of America because she has absolutely "NO" qualifications for the job. Lawyer, First Lady, and (by riding Pres Clinton coat tails) a Senator from New York. (Not her home State) Up to this point the only important decision she has had to make is what side of the hill to leave Vince Foster's body.

And that is who the Dems want to put in office!

There will be women who are qualified and should be elected. And one day that will happen. Until that happens we will still put our views from the left and right head to head, and give every American the right to vote for the person the wish to represent them.

I'm not going to engage in the usual attacks on Hillary. I'm a big opponent of a 1 payer health care system, and I imagine, that would be the substance of her campaign. Therefore, I'm opposed to her on ideological grounds, and I'll leave it at that.

The Democratic Party has no better fundraiser than the Democratic Leadership Council (read Bill & Hillary). Primaries are all about fundraising, not polls. She's far from out of it. To be fair, I do monitor politics on the other side of the street, and if I had to pick the Democratic nominee "I" would be most likely to vote for, I'd select Senator Evan Byah (D, Indiana). A man of some good ideas, though I seriously doubt he'll make it (Midwestern Democrats don't seem to ever be able to close the deal... look at how big a lead Gephardt blew).

If I knew already who the Republican nominee was going to be, and I knew that I wanted to support them, personally I would be thrilled to see Hillary get the nomination. Her fundraising prowess aside, she would be a lightning rod in a general election, and while many on the libertarian would be tempted to stay home otherwise, she would singlehandedly guarantee Republican turnout in record numbers, no matter how much they hated their own nominee. Hell, Newt Gingrich could get elected running against Hillary (please God, not that!) :help:

Newt and Hillary could make EVERYONE stay home!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

It doesn't really matter who is president in 2008. You are run by faceless corporations. Give it 20 years and all you septics will get tagged at birth by the corporations. They'll be farming you from cradle to grave but you'll think of yourself as free because you're allowed to shoot each other and pray to Jeebus in public.

---

:inquisitive:

When you find the time to pull your dilated eyeballs from that infallible crystal ball of yours could you provide us with the names of some of those faceless corporations that will eventually enslave our flesh and control our thoughts and desires? I figure if it's inevitable that 'The Man' is going to stick it to our collective Yankee Doodles I should at least try and profit from the venture by buying some stocks now.

Oh, and my septic can beat up your septic any day of the week...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Tachi, by what means should the world "resist" the American "Empire"? Just curious to what extent you think resistance should be applied.

---

Tachi, please answer my question. thank you...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Well, Idaho, 5 points for honesty, even if you immediately lose them for poor grammar. 'Septic' is an adjective. If you wish to refer to the entire population of the USA as pieces of excrement, might I suggest several words that actually DO qualify as nouns? Here ya go... feces, bowel movements or refuses. Again, full marks for honest expression of your true opinion.

---

Septic tank = yank = american. It's rhyming slang DC!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Romulas

It sounds like the truth. Greeting and Salutations from the Conservative Right!

---

And that, sir, is all I require from you. ~;)

Tachi'


:idea2:
I just realized you're a Freudian thinker...


"America is a mistake, a giant mistake."
--- Sigmund Freud



Please remember that Freud's ideas have been largely superseded.
~:joker: ~:joker:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Romulas

It sounds like the truth. Greeting and Salutations from the Conservative Right!

Hillary Clinton will not and should not be president of the United States of America because she has absolutely "NO" qualifications for the job. Lawyer, First Lady, and (by riding Pres Clinton coat tails) a Senator from New York. (Not her home State) Up to this point the only important decision she has had to make is what side of the hill to leave Vince Foster's body.

And that is who the Dems want to put in office!

There will be women who are qualified and should be elected. And one day that will happen. Until that happens we will still put our views from the left and right head to head, and give every American the right to vote for the person the wish to represent them.

---

So, in the 230-year history of the US there have been qualified women? :inquisitive:

Many past male presidents had no more qualifications than a military record or they served as a senator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Tachi, by what means should the world "resist" the American "Empire"? Just curious to what extent you think resistance should be applied.

---

I'm not referring to the American empire with my statement; I'm referring to corporate oligarchy, the effective rule by the corporate elite. We have put the true political power of the US into the hands of private industry. This is also largely true of Japan.

The rest of the world should not allow the rampant escalation of corporate power to the obscene degree it has here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

Septic tank = yank = american. It's rhyming slang DC!

---

Yes. It is used in many countries as rhyming slang for american.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Yes. It is used in many countries as rhyming slang for american.

---

You guys refer to us as septic tanks and you wonder why we think there's a certain level of anti-Americanism out there. Yeah, must be all in our heads. :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

You guys refer to us as septic tanks and you wonder why we think there's a certain level of anti-Americanism out there. Yeah, must be all in our heads. :dizzy2:

---

Don't worry Don its really only jealous envy of a better nation and a superior culture and society then the one they live in. :inquisitive: :laugh4:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

LOL Idaho took the bait

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tachikaze

I'm not referring to the American empire with my statement; I'm referring to corporate oligarchy, the effective rule by the corporate elite. We have put the true political power of the US into the hands of private industry. This is also largely true of Japan.

The rest of the world should not allow the rampant escalation of corporate power to the obscene degree it has here.

---

That's really looking at it backwards. I think the idea that big evil corporations want to horde all money and resources to themselves is comical. Corporations make their money by providing goods and services to consumers. If their customers have no prosperity, the corporation will not have any either. This is made further absurd by considering that this big evil amorphous corporations are comprised of millions of people that work for them and own shares in the corporation- it's not like they're some alien entity. It's such a simplistic view...

I'd really be amused to hear what people's alternatives are to a free market system. I bet the average person would be far worse off under any of these supposedly superior systems. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tachikaze

So, in the 230-year history of the US there have been qualified women? :inquisitive:

---

This should have read: "So, in the 230-year history of the US there have been no qualified women?" (italics not included)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I'd really be amused to hear what people's alternatives are to a free market system. I bet the average person would be far worse off under any of these supposedly superior systems. :wink:

---

Well unless you are one of those individuals who believes that the government needs to feed you, provide you clothes to wear, house you, and yes even provide you entertainment.

If I wanted to live that way - I would of never left home.. :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

That's really looking at it backwards. I think the idea that big evil corporations want to horde all money and resources to themselves is comical. Corporations make their money by providing goods and services to consumers. If their customers have no prosperity, the corporation will not have any either. This is made further absurd by considering that this big evil amorphous corporations are comprised of millions of people that work for them and own shares in the corporation- it's not like they're some alien entity. It's such a simplistic view...

I'd really be amused to hear what people's alternatives are to a free market system. I bet the average person would be far worse off under any of these supposedly superior systems. :wink:

---

This requires a whole other thread or a big tangent.

One thing that most seem to fail to remember is that our leaders are elected. So all of you who think you are so much better than us. How long did it take you to ELECT a female National leader.

Now there are to my knowledge a small number of these that not only elected a female leader but did so with in a short number of years of the electoral process. So the challenge would be to name the county and how many years before they ELECTED the female ruler.

My point here is to show that one of the primary jobs of leader is as Commander in Chief, and as so the idea that a male/physical leader is not a new one. I believe that its only been in the last 50 years or so that leadership has developed into a more intellectual role to now have a more diverse leadership.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Romulas

One thing that most seem to fail to remember is that our leaders are elected. So all of you who think you are so much better than us. How long did it take you to ELECT a female National leader.

Now there are to my knowledge a small number of these that not only elected a female leader but did so with in a short number of years of the electoral process. So the challenge would be to name the county and how many years before they ELECTED the female ruler.

My point here is to show that one of the primary jobs of leader is as Commander in Chief, and as so the idea that a male/physical leader is not a new one. I believe that its only been in the last 50 years or so that leadership has developed into a more intellectual role to now have a more diverse leadership.

---

Good point. But, we don't elect people from the entire population of the nation. In the US, we elect from a set of candidates fielded by two parties. The parties select the candidate whom they think has the best chance of winning an election. The choices they've made reflects the opinions, acceptance, and tolerance of the US public.

Apparently, those parties agree with my estimation of the chances of a woman winning a presidential election in this country. 50% of our nation's populace have been shutout in our election process based on gender alone. That's not to mention race and religion.

Men: 100%
European-American: 100%
Christian: 100%

Well.....

To date, a majority of the eligible voters have been European-american christians (of various levels of devoutness). Since women's suffrage, women have more or less evened out the sex quotient in voting, but research suggests that they have -- to date -- preferred male candidates for most executive offices. The two parties are simply playing to the audience here. If they thought they could win big with a non-"mainstream" candidate, you can bet your boots they'd run one.

As demographics and mores shift, which they are, so too will our electoral acceptance of women executives.

I used to think that Hillary had a very good shot at it. I no longer think so. Here is why:

She is shrill.



When she speaks, I feel as if nails are being scratched against a chalkboard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Well unless you are one of those individuals who believes that the government needs to feed you, provide you clothes to wear, house you, and yes even provide you entertainment.

If I wanted to live that way - I would of never left home.. :dizzy2:

---

I wonder what rhyming slang for strawman is?

We call Scottish people Sweaty Socks - don't take it personally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

I used to think that Hillary had a very good shot at it. I no longer think so. Here is why:

She is shrill.



When she speaks, I feel as if nails are being scratched against a chalkboard.

---

Never hurt Thatcher. I still give an involuntary cringe when I hear her voice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

I wonder what rhyming slang for strawman is?

We call Scottish people Sweaty Socks - don't take it personally.

---

Don't take it personally Idaho - but I knew you would say something like this if I made a snide comment about jealous envy.

Apparently, those parties agree with my estimation of the chances of a woman winning a presidential election in this country. 50% of our nation's populace have been shutout in our election process based on gender alone. That's not to mention race and religion.

Men: 100%
European-American: 100%
Christian: 100%

Agreed, now lets insert someone into the equation that would change those stats. I would suggest Condi Rice. Only that goes against my previous statement about experience. You would have to be comfortable that a term as Secretary of State would suffice. As for her intelligence I have never heard of anyone willing to question that.

Also if you could show me someone from the past or present of ...lets say Margaret Thatcher ability we would be crazy not to elect her or to have missed that opportunity.

Now as far as European-American/Christian being 100%. Well, they founded this country. They discovered, fought, suffered, and built this country. Not to mention they are the majority. And as we all know in a democracy the majority stands a pretty good chance of winning.

America will elect a female president. The first will need to have the right message, project strength and maybe above all else be a dynamic individual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Romulas

Now as far as European-American/Christian being 100%. Well, they founded this country. They discovered, fought, suffered, and built this country.

---

You had better think about slavery before you say something like this. I would call that "building the country" and suffering.

Also that there were people who discovered this continent thousands of years before the Europeans. You might consider that Jewish Americans, Mexican-Americans, Afro-Americans, etc., were involved in the development of this country and its culture. Maybe they didn't kill as many Indians, though. So, maybe you're right about fighting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tachikaze

In the US, we elect from a set of candidates fielded by two parties. The parties select the candidate whom they think has the best chance of winning an election. The choices they've made reflects the opinions, acceptance, and tolerance of the US public.

---

Are you sure about that? I thought each party selected a candidate chosen by the most vocal, fanatic, and agenda driven members of the party, then present them to the rest of us to make the choice between the two evils. At least that what it has seemed like the last couple of elections. I can't wait to see which polar opposites we get to choose from in 2008. :dizzy2:

It would be my contention that the existence of slavery did not build our country. Anything that causes a civil war does not "build a country". However, it may possible to say the abolishment of slavery and the battle the African-Americans have gone through a major component to building our country. They evolution of this struggle has branched out in so many directions, that while there are vast areas for improvement the acceptance of minorities into leadership positions is becoming less and less of an obstacle. Secretary's of State Rice and Powell with Justice Thomas hopefully has shown America that race should NEVER be an issue.

My point is that for someone to break through the European-American Majority they are going to have to be a truly dynamic individual and have an appeal across the political spectrum. And once the barrier has been broken a new set of never before considered leaders will set forward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Romulas

It would be my contention that the existence of slavery did not build our country. Anything that causes a civil war does not "build a country". However, it may possible to say the abolishment of slavery and the battle the African-Americans have gone through a major component to building our country. They evolution of this struggle has branched out in so many directions, that while there are vast areas for improvement the acceptance of minorities into leadership positions is becoming less and less of an obstacle. Secretary's of State Rice and Powell with Justice Thomas hopefully has shown America that race should NEVER be an issue.

My point is that for someone to break through the European-American Majority they are going to have to be a truly dynamic individual and have an appeal across the political spectrum. And once the barrier has been broken a new set of never before considered leaders will set forward.

---

So, it seems like you're saying this is a white peoples' country. The others are just here to support?

You don't think the growth of the US in the 18th/19th Centuries was not helped, in fact maybe made possible, by free slave labor?

You justify the 100%/100%/100% by saying Euro males are the majority. I believe there are more women in the country that men. Why the 0% in the presidential column?

Are you saying that the president will always be of the "majority"? We won't have a black president until there is a majority of blacks, for instance? If we end up with a majority of Hispanics, will we have 100% Hispanic presidents from then on?

Did all European-Americans contribute equally to the growth and development of this country? It doesn't seem fair that at least two Dutch-Americans have been president. There must be more Mexican-Americans than Dutch-Americans.

Why has there been only one Catholic president? Do you know the proportion of Catholics to Protestants in the US (by some estimations Catholics outnumber Protestants)? Why so few without Anglo names? Are people with Anglo names the majority? (No).

Did you consider that Thomas and Rice (maybe not Powell) might be just PR? Marshall, an Afro-American justice was replaced by Thomas, another Afro-American justice. No more than one at a time? How well-orchestrated PR can be. Rice? She's a Republican stunt to get black votes. I have already explained elsewhere that she makes no real administrative decisions. She does what the Bush Regime tells her to do. A waste of a talented person, I believe. She's much brighter than Bush.

If the US Supreme Court reflected the demographic make-up of the US, then there would be 4 or 5 female justices, not one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

I thought each party selected a candidate chosen by the most vocal, fanatic, and agenda driven members of the party

---

Don't forget richest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tachikaze

So, it seems like you're saying this is a white peoples' country. The others are just here to support?

You don't think the growth of the US in the 18th/19th Centuries was not helped, in fact maybe made possible, by free slave labor?

---

Debatable. Slave labor was certainly a major component of the economy of the old Southeast, but had little impact from Delaware on North. Indentured servitude was an even more broadly relevant category, since it affected virtually all of the colonies. There are also arguments that slavery was an economic liability for the South after 1820, and would have been phased out rapidly had Eli Whitney not given it a new lease on life with the cotton gin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tachikaze

You justify the 100%/100%/100% by saying Euro males are the majority. I believe there are more women in the country that men. Why the 0% in the presidential column?

Are you saying that the president will always be of the "majority"? We won't have a black president until there is a majority of blacks, for instance? If we end up with a majority of Hispanics, will we have 100% Hispanic presidents from then on?

---

It's a possibility. Certainly an effective candidate is likely to be a person with strong appeal for a majority of voters in America -- but who votes and who doesn't plays a key factor in determining eligibility. The amazing power of the 60+ age group stems from this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tachikaze

Did all European-Americans contribute equally to the growth and development of this country? It doesn't seem fair that at least two Dutch-Americans have been president. There must be more Mexican-Americans than Dutch-Americans.

---

Well, a siginifican number of Mexican Americans were not acquired until the 1840s, whereas the Dutch-Americans had been present in New York for 150 years+ by that point, plenty of time to get a good lead on the rungs of the ladder of power. Mexican-americans are only just hitting their stride.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tachikaze

Why has there been only one Catholic president? Do you know the proportion of Catholics to Protestants in the US (by some estimations Catholics outnumber Protestants)? Why so few without Anglo names? Are people with Anglo names the majority? (No).

---

Discrimination. Catholics were somewhat "thin on the ground" in the USA until the advent of the mass migrations of Irish, Italian, and Polish immigrants between 1845 and 1925. Most of the original colonists were Protestants of various stripes, and carried their anti-Catholic prejudices with them to the New World, at least to a limited extent. People really did sloganeer against Al Smith saying he'd "bring the Pope over on a battleship" as late as the 1928 election. Following the Depression and WWII, most of the anti-Catholic sentiment faded. Numerically, roughly 23% of the population is Catholic, the single largest religous group in the USA. Protestants as a class are far more numerous, but are subdivided into many different sets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tachikaze

Did you consider that Thomas and Rice (maybe not Powell) might be just PR? Marshall, an Afro-American justice was replaced by Thomas, another Afro-American justice. No more than one at a time? How well-orchestrated PR can be. Rice? She's a Republican stunt to get black votes. I have already explained elsewhere that she makes no real administrative decisions. She does what the Bush Regime tells her to do. A waste of a talented person, I believe. She's much brighter than Bush.

---

Hard to say how good she'd be for the job. She has significant executive experience now, and certainly plays as much of a role in decision making as has any other NSA or Secstate, but has absolutely zip experience at campaigning. I disagree with labeling it a "stunt." Republican conservatives are pretty happy to support any candidate who'll decrease the role of government domestically while maintaing a strong national defense. I admit many GOP'ers do like tweaking the Dems when we're promoting a candidate who would seem to be a "natural" Dem supporter -- but that has little substance in practice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tachikaze

If the US Supreme Court reflected the demographic make-up of the US, then there would be 4 or 5 female justices, not one.

---

True, but the current percentage of African-Americans would be about right and we'd be over-represented among Jewish-Americans. With only 9 openings, I think its a little hard to expect an accurate "mosaic." I think you'd have a better time arguing the "non-representativeness" point by examining the make up of the Senate -- and 100 members make it easier to seek a "representative" sample without getting silly.


It all boils down to this:

Who will the voters who actually bother to vote actually vote for? That's what drives the parties. And the candidate who prooves that they can garner support in the form of money is demonstrating their appeal.


If you want to make real change, try getting the registrations percentabe up to 95% and the turnout to 80% -- we wouldn't recognize anything and all bets would be off (including the power of incumbency).