Ya, Okay, Hillary can win...Not!
|
Posted By: Average American Posted on: Nov. 3, 2007 at 11:54 PM |
1.7 / 5
Based on 3 ratings.
|
Many believe that name recognition alone is going to do the trick. Yet others believe it is her bed fellow (at least some nights) that is going to be her ticket in, yet others are counting on some phantom womens movement where by all the women in America will snap up this chance to place a woman, any woman into the White House.
You might want to stop believing your own hype. This crazy woman can not win election on a national scale mostly because unlike New York, most people don't like her. The woman has a better than 50% disapproval rating and she isn't making things any better for herself with lack luster debate performances like the one the other night when she got slammed by her own adherents for committing the mother of all flip-flops.
The woman has name recognition, I'll give her that. but even with the likability that her husband had with those on the left, her husband still could never muster 50% of the vote and neither will his wife. Former President Clinton had likability that Hillary does not have, even scandal plagued as he was. He also had some political savvy which his wife lacks.
Then there is the so called experience she has. Doing what exactly, sitting in the Senate, big damn deal. Ted Kennedy has been there for more than 44 years and he could never make a serious run at the Presidency because people think of Congressmen and Senators as do nothing people.
Between her lack of warmth and her husbands over use of his personal warmth most Americans are ready for someone other than another Clinton in the office.
Then there are those who believe that Hillary can win because the GOP may well fracture over their choice of non-conservative options in Nov. '08. This would be a possibility with Obama or Edwards because most don't think they can win anyway. But a non-conservative GOP nominee vs. Hillary will be a big enough driving force to keep the GOP from fracturing into two parties. Evangelicals will do just about anything to keep this chick out of the White House.
And where oh where are these women they keep talking about. A bit insulting if you ask me to think that women would just vote based on her status as a woman than about the issues. Makes women seem a bit dim witted, like maybe they shouldn't be voting at all.
her issues are also off the beaten track. Socialized medicine is falling apart in England and she wants to introduce it here, in a country where 70% of those with health insurance like both their carrier and the service they provide. We already have a socialized system for people who lack coverage. Medicare is their so called crowning achievement.
Her attitude, that she is somehow in line and has paid her dues is a bit offensive to Democrats also.
In the end Hillary will most likely cause a GOP win in the White House but it won't be much of one because most of the leaders in the field are damn near as liberal as she is and none of then are conservative. Be real, Obama or Edwards would more likely cause a rift in the GOP because many think they are less of a threat and many within the GOP would be willing to risk a split to gain a true conservative in office.
And as I mentioned above, scandals and Clinton go together. There was Bill's dealing with the Chinese and now there is the growing Hillary scandal with the Chinese and money. Her support of illegal's drivers licenses in New York will back fire soon too.
All in all, she's a loser in this race despite what the GOP does.
But what would I know; I'm just an Average American.
Comments:
|
Nov. 4, 2007 at 09:59:26 AM
|
||
| Republican presidential candidate Fred D. Thompson has been crisscrossing the country since early this summer on a private jet lent to him by a businessman and close adviser who has a criminal record for drug dealing. Martin entered a plea of guilty to the sale of 11 pounds of marijuana in 1979; the court withheld judgment pending completion of his probation. He was charged in 1983 with violating his probation and with multiple counts of felony bookmaking, cocaine trafficking and conspiracy. He pleaded no contest to the cocaine-trafficking and conspiracy charges, which stemmed from a plan to sell $30,000 worth of the drug, and was continued on probation. Washington Post Nov 4, 2007 So, AA, I assume that you have ruled out Thompson because that is just plain scandalous! This Martin guys record was public and Thompson still showed an appalling lack of judgement by using his private jet. Rudy is hardly scandal free himself. If the Republicans are going to get their panties in a wad over Bills affair with Monica, surely they should reject Guilani for being a serial adulterer. (right?...otherwise that would be hypocritical). Well, that and the fact the 9-11 firefighters hate his guts. Why would that be? Seems to me that if he was America's mayor, the firefighters of NYC would love the guy. Something stinks. Mitt Romney. The 2004 Bush campaign and Repubs made a living (and took an election) by using the slogan "Flip-flopper" against John Kerry. Romney makes Kerry look like a saint! So, AA I throw your opening statement back to you in the form of a question: Who is the candidate that the Republicans can get behind? It looks like you have become something of a Ron Paul fan. Is that fair to say? If so, how do you reconcile his vehement opposition to the Iraq war, and his plan to get out immediately with your position on the war. |
||
|
Nov. 4, 2007 at 10:00:49 AM
|
Rating for this article
|
|
| Yeah, And who would have ever believed that cocaine-damaged, alcoholic, awol, silver spooned, blue blood from New Haven, Connecticut could convince the American public that he was a down home Texas countryboy would get elected by the Supreme Court and later date an internet male hooker at the White House... go figure.... |
||
|
Nov. 4, 2007 at 10:53:19 AM
|
||
| What I am noticing about AA's article is that he offers no alternative to Senator Clinton. All I see is the same rhetoric and propaganda notible of the pundits and Neocons. All name calling, degrading, demeaning, and charactor distruction, but no substance and no meaningful discussion. AA is doing exactly what the GOP wants his kind to do. The Plan B if you will. Have we really reached the linear thinking that is like the mindset of sheep? AA makes a point, and a damned good one too. He also makes my point in this responce. Perhaps Senator Clinton is the GOP preferance to win the nomination for the Democratic party. If they can't get thier man in, why not a trojan horse. Why not a person who will not dismantle what they have built, but give it a rest for a while until it is forgotten. I propose that behind the rhetoric and propaganda that seemingly degrades her, there is a cheering on, putting her name out in the weak as water excuse we have as news in this country like those rich stupid girls that can't seem to keep ther drug habits under control. I noted that the GOP debates questioners mention Senator Clinton more times than they ask honest, butter and gun questions, just as AA in his article mentions her. And of course, she plays along, stinging us along like the sheep we have become. In reality, she is just different enough to make us think we are voting for a change. However, as we can see as we ride the express to war with Iran with no brakes, the Democrats we have in office, and the selection of those we have a choice from that have any chance, there is no change. No damned difference what to ever. The money comes from the same interests, the foriegn policy made by the same interests, and we so foolishly stand around and bay, and villify those who really express a dynamic change of structure. Where is the change of structure? Where is the ripping apart of the power stucture that the Neocons have built up to literally make us slaves to thier interests. We are literally one step away from becoming a police state. Look at what is happening in Pakistan RIGHT NOW, and see the future that may not be far from us. All we need is a crisis, engineered or unintended to have our whole way of life change for the worst. Where the hell is the beef !! I cry my plea from every hill, every tower, and every mountian...and you make me the villian. However, I see your future, because it is my past being repeated.
|
||
|
Nov. 4, 2007 at 01:23:27 PM
|
||
| We're screwed no matter which current candidate gets into office (Democrat OR Republican). The 2 party system is a bunch of bulls*** and gets people voting for the wrong people based on popularity and party. So thanks to the media and the common man's stupidity, we end up with "the biggest loser" in office. I honestly don't know who I'll vote for because they're all a bunch of... well politicians. |
||
|
Nov. 4, 2007 at 11:25:43 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
|
| Indie, As I have said before, none of them are Conservatives so I don't like any of them. Ron Paul is the only one who comes close to conservative beliefs. But his stance on pulling out of the war with no regard to the aftermath of such a decision is the only thing that keeps me from fully committing to him, that an his utter un-electiblity. As Pinball Wizard so aptly pointed out, it's a popularity contest not a contest of actual policy statements, otherwise Kasinich (I don't care how you spell his name) would be the Democratic front runner and not one of the GOP hopefuls would be in this race. My speaking of Hillary is selfish I will admit. Is she the front runner, absolutely, should she be from the modern popularity contest form of election, absolutely. She has name recognition and that's all it take today. But I also believe she is the most beatable when placed up against the pathetic list of names the GOP is touting. Look, after this next election I could easily see a third party springing up, but not a middle of the road third party. We already have one of those, they are called Republicans. This party would be Conservative, not Neo/Con, not Evangelical but truly conservative. It would be a party based strictly on the Constitution with the Press being required to do its job as the forth leg, gun rights fully enforced, immigration law (and this I believe would be the catalyst if it comes to pass not really the others listed both before and after) fully enforced and made stronger, right down the line the Bill of rights would be the basis for such a party. But above all would be the 10th Amendment. The federal government simply would no longer engage in areas where it was not granted such rights to be involved. This mean Gay marriage, flag burning, education, abortion and the whole list of things it now delves into that it has no business and more importantly, no right to be involved with. So to answer your question as directly as I can Indie, I don't like any of them at the moment and probably won't right up to the election. But if I were to like one it would be Paul, I just wish he would be more realistic about Iraq. I have to give Hillary a little credit there, she isn't getting trapped (at least not during the debates, she has said it on the campaign trail) into stating the her first order of business would be the complete and total pull out of US Troops. She at least understands that it is a bigger problem than it appears to be from the comfort of home. You question is actually different upon re-reading it. You are asking, if I understand it correctly, who is the candidate the GOP can get behind, perhaps leaving the door open for a yet to be announced candidate. In that case the list is still very small. Gingrich has a history of affairs- could out him with the evangelicals. et his stances on a much larger percentage of conservative issues is strong. Forgive and forget, maybe, but I doubt it. I think the announcement earlier int he year about the affair was a trail balloon that burst on him. Maybe in four years depending on who gets in this time. Some of the others I might have mentioned have already shot themselves in this cycles. But in the future a new crop might pop up. Who knows. Huckabee (sp) has some good ideas and is a good man from all accounts. Arnold is out for obvious reasons, besides not being conservative enough for the masses. We just don't have another Reagan, like you lack another Kennedy or FDR. Perhaps in the future the end of the 20th century and the first 25 years of the 21st will be written about as the lost years in America politics, when neither major party had what they wanted and a bunch of nose holding was done at the poles. I recall the Bull Moose party getting a handle on it for some time early in the 20th century. Perhaps that is what we face in the next 4-8 years. Screw it, here's what you really want to hear... Goldwater-Miller '08. At least they have a sense of humor about themselves. They might not get anything done, but after the last 20 years I don't see how they could do much worse. |
||
|
Nov. 5, 2007 at 08:07:19 AM
|
Rating for this article
|
|
| hypocrite says: But his stance on pulling out of the war with no regard to the aftermath of such a decision LIAR, "In response to a question about Iraq and troops, Paul reiterated that we needed to pull the troops home, period. He has consistently said that we need to address the entire foreign policy and start protecting our own borders and our own country. In response to the false notion that there would be a “bloodbath” if we just pulled out, Paul quickly reminded everyone that the same people speculating that there would be a bloodbath are the same people who said Iraq would be a “cakewalk” and a “slam dunk.” He then correctly pointed out the faulty logic that says we need to stay for stability when it is widely reported that our presence on the Arabian Peninsula is what prompted the attacks of 911.
He wants us out of an EVIL error, not continuing the EVIL that YOU originally and still support..... Don't you do ANY research, 'yur lil buok' had better be a novel and its pages should double thickness and coated in aloe to be soothing to the backside...... |
||
|
Nov. 5, 2007 at 11:16:45 AM
|
||
| |
||
|
Nov. 5, 2007 at 11:51:48 AM
|
||
| |
||
|
Nov. 5, 2007 at 12:29:30 PM
|
||
| |
||







del.icio.us
Digg It!


There was that diasterous prediction about Tony Snow becoming the WH press secretary.
That could not have been more wrong.
Then there was this gem from your 8 Ball article:
Join us next week when we will have our roundtable of Proud Liberal, Indie, MIC, Phaedrus and myself back to discuss the Democrats failure to gain so much as one seat in the upcoming November election. Ooops, 8 Ball, I think I gave away that little bit of info you gave me off the record.
Not one seat? Geez, both Houses feel to the dems.
I am not a Hillary fan. But when I look at the GOP contenders I almost feel sorry for repubs. What a pathetic bunch. When Fred Thompson was supposed to be the savior of the GOP White House hopes, one can only wonder "What were they thinking!" Even Barry Young, of the top rated FYI 550 AM drive time radio show won't even mention Thompson's name anymore. Young fashioned himself as the "unofficial Fred Thompson for President" campaign headquarters before Thompson announced his candidacy and proved himself to be a dork.
I think this article is more of the "reverse pyschology" that the Repubs are trying to employ. Hillary can't win, so don't even put her in the position to be the dem candidate.
Regarding the debate. Seems that polls show that her debate performance did not hurt her at all.
[link:www.newsweek.com]
Report Abuse