Hilary, 08'
Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:48 pm
The Town of Odyssey
Join the citizens of 'The Town of Odyssey'—the world's foremost "Adventures in Odyssey"-centered message boards!
https://www.thetoo.com/
Hilary, 08'
Page 1 of 6
Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 3:53 pm
Very scary.
Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 3:55 pm
She won't make it past the primaries. 
Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 4:55 pm
I think she'll be a fairly strong candidate but don't think she'll get the nomination either. 
I think Barak would be a better candidate for the Dems. I don't like either one though.
I think Barak would be a better candidate for the Dems. I don't like either one though.Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 6:18 pm
I'd take Hillary over Barak. 
Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 6:29 pm
I'm not sure I would take either or... they're both a bit scary...
Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 7:32 pm
At one point I didn't think I'd take Hillary over anyone... but now I agree with Top.The Top Crusader wrote:I'd take Hillary over Barak.
That Obama dude gives me the creeps.
*shudders*Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 7:59 pm
When you hear that even her own people question her elect ability that doesn't generally bode well. A while ago (i can't tell you exactly when), but a poll was done of New Yorkers and they said they would vote for her as Senator, but wouldn't vote for her as President. Now that could have changed, but IMO if people of your own state aren't going to vote for you as President that should be a big clue
Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 9:40 pm
He's the antichrist.Raskolnikov wrote:At one point I didn't think I'd take Hillary over anyone... but now I agree with Top.The Top Crusader wrote:I'd take Hillary over Barak.
That Obama dude gives me the creeps.
Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 9:47 pm
I would like to see Hillary win the Democratic primaries because she would be easier to beat by a conservative candidate. O'Bama has popular appeal, despite the fact he's only been a senator for a year and hasn't built that much of a voting record.
Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 10:20 pm
I don't trust either of them....
Hilary has been running for years now, just not publicly.
-Cowboy
Hilary has been running for years now, just not publicly.
-Cowboy
Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 11:04 pm
Well, I don't know about Obama having popular appeal... checkout this Newsweek Jan 1st 2007 poll:Dr. Watson wrote:I would like to see Hillary win the Democratic primaries because she would be easier to beat by a conservative candidate. O'Bama has popular appeal, despite the fact he's only been a senator for a year and hasn't built that much of a voting record.
Newsweek wrote:Suppose the race for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination in 2008 comes down to a choice between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Who would you most like to see nominated—Clinton or Obama?
---------------Clinton---- Obama-------Neither / Other------Undecided
Current Total----50%------32%---------------2%---------------16%
Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 7:54 am
If they ran together....they would get the democrat white feminists and the black Muslims.
Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 11:45 am
Only feminists (presumably second wave, since the vast majority of Americans are first wave feminists) would vote for Hillary Clinton? You only wish. Secondly, the black Muslim comment is gratuitous and wrong. I can't remember a time since I've been following politics (admittedly not long, and if one goes back to the '30s-'60s, one can find much worse) that a contender for the nomination of a major party has been so repeatedly smeared as Obama.
Several conservative commentators appear to take great joy in pointing out that he has as a middle name one of the world's most common names as if it's something to hold against him. They joke about it, but there's almost a knowing nod in the whole presentation. Disgusting and incredibly immature.
More recently, there's been the "closet Muslim" flap, which is, not surprisingly, a lie. A rag published by the same company that owns The Washington Times recently reported that "people close to Hillary Clinton" had discovered that Obama was "trying to hide his Muslim past." Later reports take this even further, suggesting that he is a Muslim and obscures this fact from the public. (While I wouldn't particularly like the idea of a candidate hiding his religious affiliation from the public, I wouldn't care a bit if he was Muslim.)
The implication is that Hillary's oppo researchers have uncovered something Obama has been trying to hide all of his life. All I can say is that I should get into opposition research, as it's apparently the easiest job in the world. How do you find Sen. Obama's great secret? Oh, I don't know. Maybe... read his bestselling memoirs? His first book, Dreams from my Father, is quite clear on the fact that he spent two years (from five to seven, I think) in a madrassa in Jakarta. After that, he went to a Catholic school. His biological father and his stepfather subscribed to Islam, but he did not, nor did his mother or the grandparents in Hawaii with whom he took up residence around age ten. The whole thing is a rather silly, and offensive, distortion.
Now, a word of caution about polls. The Newsweek poll, like a new Washington Post / ABC News poll that shows Hillary out in front over Obama 41-17%, is of all Democratic voters in all states of the union, which is a very poor way to measure how candidates will do in the primaries. Momentum matters, so whomever wins in states like Iowa, New Hampshire and, this year, Nevada and perhaps (if they succeed in moving their primary up to February) California, will get a huge boost going into the other states. Thus, what Iowa and New Hampshire Democrats think is far more important than who New York or Michigan Democrats favor. Moreover, while presidential primaries get a decent draw, primaries always attract only the more politically interested segment of the population, and those individuals may have opinions very different from those found in, say, Democrats at large.
If we held one big Democratic nominating convention right now, and all registered Democrats participated, it's very likely that Hillary Clinton would prevail. When we get to the Iowa caucus next year, however, that is by no means a sure thing. In fact, recent polls in Iowa have shown Clinton trailing both Obama and Edwards. Whether that will hold is another question entirely, but don't put much stock in national gages of public opinion. They're all but useless.
Finally, while I have no desire to see any Democrat win, I think Hillary would make a far better president than would John Edwards, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, John Kerry or practically anyone else who has expressed interest in the Democratic nomination. If I had to choose a president among interested Democrats only (fortunately not the case), the only currently announced candidate I might prefer over Hillary is Bill Richardson, though I'd probably swing to Mark Warner if he got back into the race.
Several conservative commentators appear to take great joy in pointing out that he has as a middle name one of the world's most common names as if it's something to hold against him. They joke about it, but there's almost a knowing nod in the whole presentation. Disgusting and incredibly immature.
More recently, there's been the "closet Muslim" flap, which is, not surprisingly, a lie. A rag published by the same company that owns The Washington Times recently reported that "people close to Hillary Clinton" had discovered that Obama was "trying to hide his Muslim past." Later reports take this even further, suggesting that he is a Muslim and obscures this fact from the public. (While I wouldn't particularly like the idea of a candidate hiding his religious affiliation from the public, I wouldn't care a bit if he was Muslim.)
The implication is that Hillary's oppo researchers have uncovered something Obama has been trying to hide all of his life. All I can say is that I should get into opposition research, as it's apparently the easiest job in the world. How do you find Sen. Obama's great secret? Oh, I don't know. Maybe... read his bestselling memoirs? His first book, Dreams from my Father, is quite clear on the fact that he spent two years (from five to seven, I think) in a madrassa in Jakarta. After that, he went to a Catholic school. His biological father and his stepfather subscribed to Islam, but he did not, nor did his mother or the grandparents in Hawaii with whom he took up residence around age ten. The whole thing is a rather silly, and offensive, distortion.
Now, a word of caution about polls. The Newsweek poll, like a new Washington Post / ABC News poll that shows Hillary out in front over Obama 41-17%, is of all Democratic voters in all states of the union, which is a very poor way to measure how candidates will do in the primaries. Momentum matters, so whomever wins in states like Iowa, New Hampshire and, this year, Nevada and perhaps (if they succeed in moving their primary up to February) California, will get a huge boost going into the other states. Thus, what Iowa and New Hampshire Democrats think is far more important than who New York or Michigan Democrats favor. Moreover, while presidential primaries get a decent draw, primaries always attract only the more politically interested segment of the population, and those individuals may have opinions very different from those found in, say, Democrats at large.
If we held one big Democratic nominating convention right now, and all registered Democrats participated, it's very likely that Hillary Clinton would prevail. When we get to the Iowa caucus next year, however, that is by no means a sure thing. In fact, recent polls in Iowa have shown Clinton trailing both Obama and Edwards. Whether that will hold is another question entirely, but don't put much stock in national gages of public opinion. They're all but useless.
Finally, while I have no desire to see any Democrat win, I think Hillary would make a far better president than would John Edwards, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, John Kerry or practically anyone else who has expressed interest in the Democratic nomination. If I had to choose a president among interested Democrats only (fortunately not the case), the only currently announced candidate I might prefer over Hillary is Bill Richardson, though I'd probably swing to Mark Warner if he got back into the race.
Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 12:45 pm
So who would you perfer on the Republican side?
Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 1:06 pm
They need to ammend the constitution so Arnold can run!!
Arnold/Hogan 2008!
Arnold/Hogan 2008!
Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 1:31 pm
Of the three top-tier candidates (McCain, Romney and Giuliani), I reluctantly favor the latter. However, I'd prefer someone like Tommy Thompson, if he can manage to build up support. I've actually joked a few times lately that I'd like to see a Thompson-Thompson (Tommy and Fred) ticket, and while, if nothing else, the surnames would make it unlikely, it would certainly be a solid ticket I could easily get behind.
(Useless trivia: Fred Thompson, a figure in the Watergate investigation, a former US Senator from Tennessee, columnist, radio commentator, member of a number of important government committees and actor, appeared as an admiral in the film version of The Hunt for Red October alongside a character -- I think a captain -- named Tommy Thompson.)
(Useless trivia: Fred Thompson, a figure in the Watergate investigation, a former US Senator from Tennessee, columnist, radio commentator, member of a number of important government committees and actor, appeared as an admiral in the film version of The Hunt for Red October alongside a character -- I think a captain -- named Tommy Thompson.)
Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 1:33 pm
Ha, ha, Top. 
Anyway, I do not, I repeat do not, want Hilary in the Oval Office. I don't even want her Congress, but I don't really have a choice since I don't live New York. Sen. Sam Brownback seems very good, although he doesn't want to send more troops to Iraq. But he is very conservative.
Anyway, I do not, I repeat do not, want Hilary in the Oval Office. I don't even want her Congress, but I don't really have a choice since I don't live New York.
Sen. Sam Brownback seems very good, although he doesn't want to send more troops to Iraq. But he is very conservative.Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 3:56 pm
i think a lot of people wont vote for her because she is a woman and there are a lot of people out there who dont want a women for president
Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 3:59 pm
I suspect that those who wouldn't vote for a woman are a small and diminishing lot, and I doubt that very many of them are in reach of any Democratic candidate anyway. As a general rule of thumb, if more than half of an idea's adherents are probably part of house churches, Democrats aren't going to make much headway there in the first place.