hillary?

[stubeeef]

So did hillary and bill sneak into a closet and hug, kiss, and giggle, cause now she can run in '08?

[Backtothemac]

So did hillary and bill sneak into a closet and hug, kiss, and giggle, cause now she can run in '08?


She can run, but she will not win. I would bet a year's salary on that.

[emw]

So did hillary and bill sneak into a closet and hug, kiss, and giggle, cause now she can run in '08?

Hillary tried, but Bill was already in there with somebody else...

[x86isslow]

already people are whispering obama+clinton or mccain+clinton or mccain+dean.

none of which are winning tickets

[emw]

already people are whispering obama+clinton or mccain+clinton or mccain+dean.

none of which are winning tickets

Obama will (and should) run, but not in 2008, it's too soon - not enough national experience. Perhaps 2012/16 after he's had a run in the Senate.

[zelmo]

So did hillary and bill sneak into a closet and hug, kiss, and giggle, cause now she can run in '08?

I know a lot of people who aren't pro-Bush, but voted for him anyway mainly because Kerry was equally far away from the type of person they could get behind.

Ever since Kerry was nominated, a small, cynical part of me has been wondering if the Democrats were purposely putting out a candidate who could give W a run without winning, figuring that this would create the perfect atmosphere for Hillary to sweep into office in 2008.
Kerry just didn't seem to inspire enough in the middle-of-the-road Republicans to be a truly viable option for those in the party who were open to a change in leadership. A lot of people think the country is polarized now, but it isn't. That 50/50 split is more like the vocal 10% radical Right and the vocal 10% radical Left duking it out, with the rest of the country somewhere in the middle, just trying to figure out who leaves them least queasy. Now, either Bush will find a way to do what is best for America, at home and abroad, or he will REALLY polarize the country, paving the way for a complete Democratic trouncing in two years, and again, big-time, in '08.

[yg17]

Obama will (and should) run, but not in 2008, it's too soon - not enough national experience. Perhaps 2012/16 after he's had a run in the Senate.

I agree. Being from St. Louis, the TV channels here still have quite a bit of coverage on Obama since it's so close to Illinois, and from what I've seen, it seems he will make a great senator and would also probably make a wonderful president.

The only thing he has against him is that he's black. IMO, there are too many crazy radicals that would kill a black, jewish or woman presidental canidate before letting them run the country. Its really sad, but unfortunatley, true. I could care less, if the canidate would be a great leader, I don't care about their color or gender, hell, if there was a purple shemale running that would be a great president, they'd have my vote.

But if Hilary or Obama ever won for president, that would be great. America needs to get some diversity the list of presidents. Plus Hilary can get her revenge at Bill by doing it with a male intern.....or even a female intern :D

[dsharits]

Don't you mean Osama+Clinton, because that seems to be who the Democrats support.:D Sorry to disappoint, but Osama was not born in the U.S., so he can't run.:p

Daniel

[emw]

Don't you mean Osama+Clinton, because that seems to be who the Democrats support.:D

I'm sorry, who trimmed back the search for bin Laden to go after Saddam? Oh, yeah, Bush.

[pseudobrit]

Don't you mean Osama+Clinton, because that seems to be who the Democrats support.:D Sorry to disappoint, but Osama was not born in the U.S., so he can't run.:p

Daniel

You're such a troll.

[jsw]

Don't you mean Osama+Clinton, because that seems to be who the Democrats support.
Who instigated a war in Irag, increasing Al Queda recruiting and activity as well? Oh yeah... Bush.

Who looked for Osama for three years without being able to find him? Bush.

[takao]

Plus Hilary can get her revenge at Bill by doing it with a male intern.....or even a female intern :D

and having a 'first gentleman' who was president before would be to much irony to take ..
that alone would be enough for me ;)

[Mav451]

I know a lot of people who aren't pro-Bush, but voted for him anyway mainly because Kerry was equally far away from the type of person they could get behind.

Ever since Kerry was nominated, a small, cynical part of me has been wondering if the Democrats were purposely putting out a candidate who could give W a run without winning, figuring that this would create the perfect atmosphere for Hillary to sweep into office in 2008.
Kerry just didn't seem to inspire enough in the middle-of-the-road Republicans to be a truly viable option for those in the party who were open to a change in leadership. A lot of people think the country is polarized now, but it isn't. That 50/50 split is more like the vocal 10% radical Right and the vocal 10% radical Left duking it out, with the rest of the country somewhere in the middle, just trying to figure out who leaves them least queasy. Now, either Bush will find a way to do what is best for America, at home and abroad, or he will REALLY polarize the country, paving the way for a complete Democratic trouncing in two years, and again, big-time, in '08.


Alot of my "moderate" friends believe that here at the University...I wonder

(haha, I mentioned this theory to a Republican--he said he would "move out of the US to Canada" if this happened").

[the future]

Hillary 2008. Count me in.

[dsharits]

I'm sorry, who trimmed back the search for bin Laden to go after Saddam? Oh, yeah, Bush

I'm sorry, who was offered Bin Laden's head on a silver platter several times BEFORE the 9-11 attacks and BEFORE he mercilessly slaughtered thousands of Americans? Oh yeah, Clinton.

Daniel

[Thomas Veil]

No offense, but how is a country that is too chicken**** to elect Kerry going to vote for a black liberal or a woman despised by every conservative alive?


I'm sorry, who was offered Bin Laden's head on a silver platter several times BEFORE the 9-11 attacks and BEFORE he mercilessly slaughtered thousands of Americans? Oh yeah, Clinton.

Daniel
If you're going to tell a story, tell it all.


WASHINGTON The government of Sudan, using a back channel direct from its president to the Central Intelligence Agency in the United States, offered in the early spring of 1996 to arrest Osama bin Laden and place him in custody in Saudi Arabia, according to officials and former officials in all three countries.

The Clinton administration struggled to find a way to accept the offer in secret contacts that stretched from a meeting at hotel in Arlington, Virginia, on March 3, 1996, to a fax that closed the door on the effort 10 weeks later.

Unable to persuade the Saudis to accept Mr. bin Laden, and lacking a case to indict him in U.S. courts, the Clinton administration finally gave up on the capture.

Link (http://propagandamatrix.com/sudan_offered_to_arrest_bin_laden.html)

[dsharits]

I'm sorry but can you honestly tell me that it was the right thing to give up on something like that, looking at the results of Clinton not going further. I don't think that thousands of American lives being at stake is worth the saved effort. If Clinton had really wanted him and placed a good price on his head, he would have gotten him. Unfortunately, he didn't, and America is suffering for it.

Daniel

[Thomas Veil]

Place it in context. Clinton was trying to work within the law, and it didn't work out. So he did the next best thing he could...warned his successor about bin Laden. Bush, however, didn't seem to have any interest in bin Laden until Sept. 11, 2001.

[dsharits]

Bush had pretty much just walked in the door when Sept. 11 happened. The problem was that Clinton was too preoccupied with his own "affairs" (no pun intended) to give a crap about America. He was more worried about saving his own butt and clearing his name during his whole second term than he was about protecting the American people and actually using his authority to do his job. There is no way in the world that you can say that he could have done nothing more than warn Bush about Bin Laden, when he was offered his head. Circumstances or not, he was offered, and Clinton did nothing.

Daniel

[yg17]

Bush had pretty much just walked in the door when Sept. 11 happened.

Bush was in there 9 months already....the lazy bum spent around 40% of those first 9 months on vacation not doing anything. I think 9 months is plenty of time to beef up security on planes and at our borders.

[MacNut]

Bush was in there 9 months already....the lazy bum spent around 40% of those first 9 months on vacation not doing anything. I think 9 months is plenty of time to beef up security on planes and at our borders.

Why weren't they beefed up before Clinton left?

[solvs]

Why weren't they beefed up before Clinton left?
Bush had pretty much just walked in the door when Sept. 11 happened. The problem was that Clinton was too preoccupied with his own "affairs" (no pun intended) to give a crap about America.
Um, Sept. 11th is quite awhile after Jan. 2nd. Not even considering the report he received on his month long vacation titled Bin Laden Determined To Strike US. And apparently Clinton's regime was very focused on terrorism, while Bush's was not. Bush just recently said he did not know where Bin Laden was, nor was he very concerned. It's hard to blame this all on Clinton when he did more to stop Al Qaeda before 9/11 than Bush has after. But hey, look at what a mess Iraq is. I sure feel safer! :rolleyes:

For the record, I don't know anyone saying Hillary in 2008 would be a good idea, except for Conservatives. Because they know she'll lose. If they are smart, they will bring in someone to sway Independants. If things keep going they way they seem to be, there may be a backlash against Republicans and a moderate Dem could easily take the WH.

Liberals and Bible-thumpers need not apply.

[blackfox]

Bush had pretty much just walked into a door when Sept. 11 happened. The problem was that Clinton-era Republicans were too preoccupied with his "affairs" (no pun intended) to give a crap about America. They were more worried about nailing his butt and ruining his name during his whole second term than they were about protecting the American people and actually using their authority to do their job and to allow him to do his. There is no way in the world that you can say that they would have let him do anything more than warn Bush about Bin Laden, after the disaster in Somalia and mixed feelings about Bosnia. Circumstances are important, Bin Laden was offered, and Clinton did what any President would've done at the time. Obeyed the law.

Daniel
oh, I agree. well said.

[LethalWolfe]

And apparently Clinton's regime was very focused on terrorism, while Bush's was not.


Focused on observing it or focused on stopping it? First WTC attack, a couple embassies here, some barracks there, a boat in Yemen, the planning of 9/11... Since OKC was "home grown" I'm not going to include it in the list. Lob a few cruise missles at most likely vacant terrorist training camps and that's all she wrote. Some troops get killed in Somalia and public opinion starts to waiver, so let's pull'em out ASAP (no way in heck our enemies will take this as a sign of weakness). As long as we don't do anything rash to provoke the terrorists they'll leave us well enough alone, right? The tech bubble hadn't burst, people were happy, why rock the boat, right?

IMO Clinton did to little and Bush did too much. Guess that means we'll hit the money in '08, right? ;)


Lethal

[x86isslow]

Focused on observing it or focused on stopping it? First WTC attack, a couple embassies here, some barracks there, a boat in Yemen, the planning of 9/11... Since OKC was "home grown" I'm not going to include it in the list. Lob a few cruise missles at most likely vacant terrorist training camps and that's all she wrote. Some troops get killed in Somalia and public opinion starts to waiver, so let's pull'em out ASAP (no way in heck our enemies will take this as a sign of weakness). As long as we don't do anything rash to provoke the terrorists they'll leave us well enough alone, right? The tech bubble hadn't burst, people were happy, why rock the boat, right?

IMO Clinton did to little and Bush did too much. Guess that means we'll hit the money in '08, right? ;)


Lethal

i was in 3rd grade or so at the time, but didn't newt gingrich try to take over the country right around the time somalia was happening? Republican Congress was Clinton's biggest obstacle.

Clinton begins an attack on Afghanistan- GOP Congress: stop, you're distracting our media circus from the more important issue of putting your sex life in front of America.

Clinton was working with one arm behind his back, while Bush had GOP Congress on his side, not to mention that since it was the start of his first term, people still cut him some slack (honeymoon period, i think its called).

Clinton did all he could, Bush failed to do all he could.