-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
President Hillary?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
(a) Perhaps as high as 4 in 10. (b) Relatively good.Sunstone said:
CaptainXeroid
Following Christ
I don't think she has a chance of winning in 2008. There are too many people nationwide who wouldn't vote for a woman for President. Given the American public's conservative leanings these days, the Republicans would paint Hillary as a 'Northeast liberal', and that would cost her more votes. Finally, there are a lot of people who don't like Bill and would vote again Hillary because she is married to him. If she were elected, I think the Republican Congress would stymie her agenda and not much meaningful legislation would get passed and signed.
From what I've read, she has a record of working well with other Senators and earning the trust of her constituents, even those who didn't vote for her. I think given those qualities, she would make a pretty good President.
From what I've read, she has a record of working well with other Senators and earning the trust of her constituents, even those who didn't vote for her. I think given those qualities, she would make a pretty good President.
Draka
Wonder Woman
This could be wishful thinking on my part but I think she has a pretty good chance of becoming president if she does run. I think she would make an excellent president. As for the idea of having a woman as president being disturbing to some...well, the over 200 years we have had men running the country haven't improved it that much...so why not let a woman take a try at it?
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
Hopefully Katzpur,
you can look past your stomach and wiegh to see who is running. What sin has Hillary actually committed? What decision can you point to that makes you feel so bad about her? Most who say such thing are staunch Republicans who simply parrot the failed party line.
you can look past your stomach and wiegh to see who is running. What sin has Hillary actually committed? What decision can you point to that makes you feel so bad about her? Most who say such thing are staunch Republicans who simply parrot the failed party line.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Hillary Clinton has a -10 out of 10 chances of winning, just because she is a woman. I doubt the electorial college will vote for her. I think she would do a good job, since Bill Clinton did, but I do not think she stands a chance of wining. I think the third party candidates stand a better chance. And then the Democrat (assuming thats what shell run as) party has to nominate her for candidate. I think a black male has a better chance.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
I'll admit that I'm pretty "apolitical" (if there is such a word) and I wish that weren't the case. I just don't seem to be able to get all that worked up over political issues. Furthermore, I never said that Hillary has commited any specific "sin." She just rubs me the wrong way -- big time. I can't even say why. But believe me, I am as independent in my voting as a person can possibly be. I have never voted a straight ticket or even close to it in my entire life.NetDoc said:
I can understand that, Katzpur. I have a visceral negative reaction to President Bush that I haven't experienced with any other president. And I split my ticket too. But I can't explain why I have such a negative reaction to Bush. I experienced it almost from the first time I heard him speak.
CaptainXeroid
Following Christ
Actually, I've heard independents and staunch Democrats who have NOTHING to do with the Republican party line say this about Hillary. She just 'rubs' a lot of people the wrong way, and others aren't fond of her politics. I'm not sure who the pollsters are asking, but this far away from the 2008 election, I'd bet name recognition is a big factor in the early polls.NetDoc said:
In 2004 the Republicans held the White House, picked up seats in Congress, and state government seats, so calling it a 'failed party line' can be described as wishful thinking at best. That could change in 2006, but for now the results don't support that statement.
tkdrocks
Mellowing with Age
My biggest issue with Hillary is that it seems she seems to be seeking power at just about any cost. Perhaps, this is just my impression. I seem to remember shortly after Bill was elected that she said something about "Now that WE are the President ..."
I feel very uncomfortable with people that have such a desire for ultimate power. I have to wonder what they would do with that kind of power.
2008 might be one of the best opportunities for her to run, however. I do not see a prominent Republican in the mix. A strong 3rd party showing might even seal the deal (as did Ross Perot for Bill).
I feel very uncomfortable with people that have such a desire for ultimate power. I have to wonder what they would do with that kind of power.
2008 might be one of the best opportunities for her to run, however. I do not see a prominent Republican in the mix. A strong 3rd party showing might even seal the deal (as did Ross Perot for Bill).
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
The Rush factor at work...
Those of you who have no real reason to dislike Hillary except that she "rubs" you the wrong way have fallen prey to Rush tactics of character assassination.
tkdrocks,
what cost has she paid? No more than your average senator.
A man with ambitions is tolerated. But let a woman aspire to anything more than being a house wife and she is a biatch throwing all caution to the wind and is seeking power at just about any cost.
Excuse me while I puke. Bigotry against women is just as bad as against any race or religion.
Now get this... if McCain runs he is getting my vote. But it's not because of any misconcieved notions about Hillary based on right wing phobias about a woman having some legitimate power.
Those of you who have no real reason to dislike Hillary except that she "rubs" you the wrong way have fallen prey to Rush tactics of character assassination.
tkdrocks,
what cost has she paid? No more than your average senator.
A man with ambitions is tolerated. But let a woman aspire to anything more than being a house wife and she is a biatch throwing all caution to the wind and is seeking power at just about any cost.
Excuse me while I puke. Bigotry against women is just as bad as against any race or religion.
Now get this... if McCain runs he is getting my vote. But it's not because of any misconcieved notions about Hillary based on right wing phobias about a woman having some legitimate power.
I have no bigotry against women, but out of conscience I could never vote for her.
One simple reason, I will never endorse a candadite who supports abortion.
One simple reason, I will never endorse a candadite who supports abortion.
Yes, a lot would depend on who she runs against. :biglaugh:Sunstone said:
I thought you guys might like to know the views from this side of the pond.......
Hillary speaks[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]
[/font][font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Leader
[/font][font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Monday July 19, 2004
[/font][font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Guardian
[/font][font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Hillary Rodham Clinton is a good deal smarter than most American politicians (not least than her husband) and in recent days she has again played it successfully cool. When top Democrats failed to give her a speaking role at the forthcoming party convention, she professed to be entirely unconcerned.
There had been many opportunities in the past, she said, and she was certainly not disappointed to be left off the list this time. Senator Clinton's supporters were less restrained, and more vocal: one leading New York woman Democrat said she would urge her colleagues to boycott the convention - but she quickly received a telephone call from the Senator's office telling her to drop the idea.
It took less than a day for senior Democrats to realise that they were making a huge mistake: no one wanted the big story in Boston when the convention opens on July 26 to be about Hillary Clinton being gagged. A compromise was reached: she will now make a brief prime-time address before introducing Bill Clinton. Delegates and press will doubtless pay as much attention to her as to him, and perhaps more. Whatever happens in November's election, millions of Democrat supporters will look forward to what may happen in four or eight years' time - when the US may, if it is fortunate, have a realistic chance to elect its first woman president.
So far the junior senator from New York has played her game immaculately, concentrating mainly on domestic issues and taking care not to sound off too freely. What she has said on the Iraq war has been little but politically canny. In October 2002, Senator Clinton publicly backed the resolution to authorise the use - if diplomatic efforts failed - of US armed forces by President Bush. However, she stressed the need for serious negotiating efforts and warned that this was "not a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption". In February this year, she said that the "go-it-alone instinct of this administration has now demonstrably failed". Let us hope Senator Clinton will have more to say in the future, and from a higher platform.[/font] [font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005[/font]http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4973592-112564,00.html
Hillary speaks[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]
[/font][font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Leader
[/font][font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Monday July 19, 2004
[/font][font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Guardian
[/font][font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Hillary Rodham Clinton is a good deal smarter than most American politicians (not least than her husband) and in recent days she has again played it successfully cool. When top Democrats failed to give her a speaking role at the forthcoming party convention, she professed to be entirely unconcerned.
There had been many opportunities in the past, she said, and she was certainly not disappointed to be left off the list this time. Senator Clinton's supporters were less restrained, and more vocal: one leading New York woman Democrat said she would urge her colleagues to boycott the convention - but she quickly received a telephone call from the Senator's office telling her to drop the idea.
It took less than a day for senior Democrats to realise that they were making a huge mistake: no one wanted the big story in Boston when the convention opens on July 26 to be about Hillary Clinton being gagged. A compromise was reached: she will now make a brief prime-time address before introducing Bill Clinton. Delegates and press will doubtless pay as much attention to her as to him, and perhaps more. Whatever happens in November's election, millions of Democrat supporters will look forward to what may happen in four or eight years' time - when the US may, if it is fortunate, have a realistic chance to elect its first woman president.
So far the junior senator from New York has played her game immaculately, concentrating mainly on domestic issues and taking care not to sound off too freely. What she has said on the Iraq war has been little but politically canny. In October 2002, Senator Clinton publicly backed the resolution to authorise the use - if diplomatic efforts failed - of US armed forces by President Bush. However, she stressed the need for serious negotiating efforts and warned that this was "not a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption". In February this year, she said that the "go-it-alone instinct of this administration has now demonstrably failed". Let us hope Senator Clinton will have more to say in the future, and from a higher platform.[/font] [font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005[/font]http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4973592-112564,00.html
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
So I guess you didn't vote for Bush, Mr Emu???
17, couldn't vote.
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
Well,
he has vacillated on the the issue, or as the Repubs would accuse others of; he has "flip-flopped".
he has vacillated on the the issue, or as the Repubs would accuse others of; he has "flip-flopped".
Dr. Nosophoros
Active Member
Unfortunately, the back lash from this current adminstration may be strong enough to turn "god fearing" Americans to the "true" cause of Democrats- but we all lose after all. I think the strange but familiar voice in the darkness of Libertarianism calls many but will be unheeded by many because the string pullers have not commisioned them to manipulate through media the masses to the "greater good", Libertarians are largely ignored but I see them as the only hope this nation really has.