president hillary clinton?

Discussion in 'Community' started by jefhatfield, Dec 22, 2002.

  1. jefhatfield Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #1
    a cnn/time poll put her at the top of the race for the dems at 30 percent...senators kerry and lieberman but got 13 percent each

    could that be?

    the next two years will be key for bush and people will be looking at the economy the most and ask the question, "are you better off in 2004 than you were in 2000?"

    that will either save george w bush or doom him

    if clinton does win the white house in 2004, it will be confusing for schoolkids memorizing the presients

    president g "hw" bush...1988
    president b. clinton...1992
    president g "w" bush...2000
    president h. clinton...2004

    throw jeb bush in there for 2008 and then you have something akin to political incest going on there:p
     
  2. Mr. Anderson Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #2
    I don't think the US is ready for a woman president yet. I'm not saying that a woman president is a bad thing - I'm not sexist - being more of a realist here. In the position of power that the US holds or is trying to maintain, some other countries would try and take advantage of the situation.

    And the thing with Bush will be if he can handle the Iraq issue - more so than the economy I think. I'm just hoping he isn't trying for a grand gesture for political reasons in dealing with Sadam.

    D
     
  3. Geetar macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2002
    Location:
    USA
    #3
    I wonder how people perceive Hilary's ability to stand eyeball-to-eyeball with the leaders of the main Islamic nations (Saudi, Egypt etc) and tell them to get their houses in order ? Could she do it...and would they listen if she did?

    I have no clear answer for myself on this. What do you think?
     
  4. D0ct0rteeth macrumors 65816

    D0ct0rteeth

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Location:
    Franklin, TN
    #4
    The domocrats will not put Clinton up in 2004. 2008 probably.. but not 2004. Bush is going to run again and Hillary will want a head to head fight... not an incumbant to run against.

    My bet is John Kerry from Mass will be the democratic nomination... they will sacrifice him in the name of being able to attack Bush' politics and will accept the rupublican victory in 2004 in order to let the economy get worse, get involved in more wars, sour the publics perception of republicans, and set the stage for Hillary in 2008.

    Hillary will run in 2008 and like bush will bring in a lot of her husbands old team and run on the campaign of "My husband fixed the economy and i will too"

    Ahh.. how scary... If only there was someone i would vote for with either party.

    -Doc
     
  5. 3777 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2002
    #5
    Just shows how completely out of touch those commies are:eek:


    Do they really think that wench will ever win anywhere buy New York:D
     
  6. bobindashadows macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2002
    #7
    Well, I live in New York, no the city but upstate, and all I can say is that she has done nothing, I repeat nothing for us. I want to pull up her voting record and post again, but alas I am incredible lazy. Can someone else do it? I don't know if she voted for the tax reduction or not, if she didn't then she has not done a single thing that has benefitted us upstate. In fact, I don't even think she's done anything that hurt us upstate.
     
  7. Juventuz macrumors 6502a

    Juventuz

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2002
    Location:
    Binghamton
    #8
    I'm going to have to agree with bobindashadows, I also live in upstate NY and can wholeheartedly say she's done nothing for NY. Especially upstate.

    The only time Clinton has been here in Binghamton was for three fundraisers, well she was here for a "town meeting" at Binghamton University but she did go to a fundraiser after that as well.

    Damn those downstaters for voting her in office. :)
     
  8. superkatalog macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    switzerland
    #9
    i think it's kind of weird that the us have now the son of bush sen. as president. how many people live in the US? not enough to have a president from another family? have you no problem with that??
     
  9. idkew macrumors 68020

    idkew

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2001
    Location:
    where the concrete to dirt ratio is better
  10. dreamlance macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2002
    Location:
    wouldn't you like to know?
    #11
    Didn't Hillary already say she wasn't going to run in 2004? I don't think the US is ready for a woman president right now, not with things heating up with Iraq and other countries.
     
  11. Les Kern macrumors 68040

    Les Kern

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2002
    Location:
    Alabama
    #12
    Actually, I think we are overdue for one. I'm rather tired of our policies being fueled by testosterone.
     
  12. MacRumorSkeptic macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2002
    Location:
    Southern California
    #13
    It would be a sad day in U.S. history if hilary clinton won election as president. hilary is an absolute socialist and I think it would be the beggining of the end of our nation.
     
  13. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #14
    It took somebody from outside the country to put their finger on the real issue, and it isn't whether Hillary Clinton could win the White House or if she'd make a good president.

    National politics in the US is becoming all about connections and entitlements. In 2000 the Republican National Committee anointed George W. Bush before the primaries even started because he was well-connected (the son of a president with lots of close big corporation buddies), and could be marketed effectively as a "moderate." Gore was anointed by the DNC because as an incumbent VP, the "rules" say was entitled to a shot at the top job. Both of these men are mediocre, at best.

    Hillary Clinton was run for the senate in New York because, as the wife of a sitting president, she could be marketed by the party. If she ran for president, it would be for the same reason. Connections are the only qualification that really matter anymore.

    American politics are turning into a private club, an oligarchy. Only the rich, powerful and well-connected are even allowed into the system, and only the most well-connected are allowed to occupy center stage.

    National politics is now run entirely by a handful of people from both parties for their own benefit. How tragic for us.
     
  14. MacBandit macrumors 604

    MacBandit

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    Location:
    Springfield, OR (Home of the Simpsons)
    #15

    Oh good so we will have our policies controlled by a woman. That's great what are we going to do at the irritable time of the month?
     
  15. RogueLdr macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2002
    Location:
    People's Republic of Ann Arbor
    #16
    Given the average age of our presidents, the odds are that any woman that was elected would have already gone through menopause...

    RL
     
  16. wdlove macrumors P6

    wdlove

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    #17
    Hillary has a 50% chance in '08, she's running. She has a real tightrope to walk during '04 election, will have to show at least tacid support for the nominee. When she runs, her preference is for it to be an open seat. Her agenda will be socialist bigger government, higher taxes, and less freedom.

    I think our 1st female president will be a Republican, party has alot of 1st's.
    http://www.cfrw.org/messages/heather.php
     
  17. Macette macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2002
    Location:
    Melbourne
    #18
    You people are a pack of pathetic, sexist geeks.

    Middle-eastern Arab countries, even some of those with predominantly Muslim populations, are well ahead of America and most of the rest of us so-called 'civilised' and 'liberal' and 'progressive' western nations in terms of woman leaders. Think Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Burma, Bangladesh... Dukestreet, it's YOU who's not ready for a woman president. It's absolutely bloody irrelevant to the rest of the world whether it's a man or a woman exercising the kind of extreme, aggressive, imperialist power that you people carry on with. (I include myself in 'You People', since my Prime Minister, without my vote, throws his puny and insignificant small-minded racism behind you, and I'm not going to fall into the trap of thinking that all Americans share your views.. just enough of them to have elected the blood-thirsty George W).

    If you want to discuss whether Hillary would make a good president, discuss it on the basis of her policies (and it doesn't count to say she's done 'nothing', because if you can't name any of the things she 'hasn't' done, or things that she has - then you're obviously not paying enough attention to pull your weight in this kind of debate.

    I know I'm going to be flamed for this - Cleo, where are ya? I need a feminist ally here! - but sometimes these forums need a bit of a shake-up. Sheesh.
     
  18. D0ct0rteeth macrumors 65816

    D0ct0rteeth

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Location:
    Franklin, TN
    #19
    I actually completely agree. (checking) yep. ***** is still there. :)

    Actually C. Rice would probably be a decent VP in 2004 if Cheney would just die already. :)

    -Doc
     
  19. Macette macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2002
    Location:
    Melbourne
    #20
    Yep, she would better than Dick 'Dead Man Walking' Cheney. But Condoleeza, like Thatcher and Megawati and many of the world's other female leaders (past and present) is a rapid right-winger. It's weird - in Australia, the Federal Liberal party (who are not 'liberal' in any sense of the word) have a much better track record with promoting women to positions of relative power within the party that their so-called 'left-wing' counterparts.
     
  20. alex_ant macrumors 68020

    alex_ant

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2002
    Location:
    All up in your bidness
    #21
    I really couldn't have said it better than Macette.

    If you don't like Hilary Clinton because of her politics, then that's fine and dandy - I can't say I'm very keen on her politics either. But if you're going to say you don't like her because she's a she, or "the nation might not be ready for her," or that she would do a relatively poor job because of her menstrual cycle, then you're honestly not worth the air you breathe, and I hope any significant female other you have breaks up with you after kicking you extremely forcefully in the genitals.
     
  21. hotFusion macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2002
    #22
    The only Democrat that has any chance of defeating Bush in 2004 was Gore. Without Gore, Bush has little to fear in 2004 (If he feared Gore either?)
     
  22. NatronB macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2002
    #23
    Christ, I'm glad somebody regulated here.

    Everyone who cited 'monthly' issues knows extremely little about women or politics. Hillary Clinton is a very, very bright woman who has a very firm grasp on public policy. To say that she couldn't "stand up to Arab nations" is silliness.

    While I would love to see Clinton in 2004, I don't believe it will happen. Hillary has said a number of times that she would not be running. Furthermore, I believe the first female president will be a conservative.

    But you right-wing weenies bring up an interesting point. In these conservative times sexism and bigotry become commonplace (see Trent Lott) while words like 'liberal' and 'feminist' become blasphemy. Many of our idealogical and political allies practice socialism, take siestas, work a 35 hour week and enjoy universal health care. Now that's not the American way, but is it worth demonizing?!

    -Nate
     
  23. wdlove macrumors P6

    wdlove

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    #24
    Yes, I agree our 1st female president will be a Republican. The majority of voters are way to the right of Hillary, not ready for socialism! There is no doubt that a female can do the job, think Lady Thatcher. It would be good if Condaleeza Rice would be Sec. Of State 1st, provide more exposure.
     
  24. Macette macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2002
    Location:
    Melbourne
    #25
    Thank you NatronB and alex_ant. I was beginning to think my dream of a left-wing, mac-using nation was just that... a dream. but i remain hopeful.
     

Share This Page