Cycling and bicycle racing discussion forums.   View New Forum Topics
Today's Forum Topics

Set as homepage


Go Back   Cycling Forums > Other Stuff > Your Bloody Soap Box
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Welcome to CyclingForums.com

You are currently viewing our website as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions. You will have to register before you can post to this thread.

By joining our free online community you will have access to post new topics, communicate privately with other cyclingforums.com members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos and access other special features like product reviews and classifieds.


Hilary Clinton

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 24-01.-2007, 10:58 AM   #16
limerickman
Community Team
 
limerickman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: at the bar
Posts: 12,133
Default Re: Hilary Clinton

So who will get the Republican nomination ?
John McCain, perhaps ?
__________________
.."But finally the last thing I’ll say to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics and the sceptics. I'm sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can’t dream big. [I]I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles. You should believe in these athletes, and you should believe in these people. I'll be a fan of the Tour de France for as long as I live. And there are no secrets" - this is a hard sporting event and hard work wins it - Armstrong 2005 TDF
morelike hypocrisy.
limerickman is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 24-01.-2007, 11:07 AM   #17
wolfix
Registered User
 
wolfix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: "Still in 1975"
Posts: 2,611
Send a message via AIM to wolfix
Default Re: Hilary Clinton

Quote:
Originally Posted by limerickman
That was the old way of spelling the name, Hilary.
And I believe the correct way
__________________
"Ethics are so annoying. I avoid them on principle."
Darby Conley
wolfix is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 24-01.-2007, 11:55 AM   #18
Bikelyst
Registered User
 
Bikelyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 307
Default Re: Hilary Clinton

Quote:
Originally Posted by therapyLane6346
I would not vote for her, because even though I always support the Democratic party (I'm generally a left-leaning libertarian), she is an authoritarian Democrat which is the wrong type (you know, like a PETA liberal). She wants to create a politically correct society by censoring and banning things, which just means creating more restrictions which is something the U.S. does NOT need.

i 2nd that.
__________________
This message sent on 100% recyclable electrons.
Bikelyst is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 24-01.-2007, 11:55 AM   #19
Bikelyst
Registered User
 
Bikelyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 307
Default Re: Hilary Clinton

Quote:
Originally Posted by therapyLane6346
I would not vote for her, because even though I always support the Democratic party (I'm generally a left-leaning libertarian), she is an authoritarian Democrat which is the wrong type (you know, like a PETA liberal). She wants to create a politically correct society by censoring and banning things, which just means creating more restrictions which is something the U.S. does NOT need.

I second that.
__________________
This message sent on 100% recyclable electrons.
Bikelyst is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 24-01.-2007, 12:11 PM   #20
jl_longstaff
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 10
Default Re: Hilary Clinton

As a lawyer she represented the Black Panthers!! Gore was a Dem and was caught taking money from the Chinese....the hillbill is a Dem......



Quote:
Originally Posted by limerickman
I spelt her name with one "L".

That was the old way of spelling the name, Hilary.
jl_longstaff is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 24-01.-2007, 12:13 PM   #21
DiabloScott
Registered User
 
DiabloScott's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Mt. Diablo, California
Posts: 2,248
Default Re: Hilary Clinton

Quote:
Originally Posted by limerickman
I spelt her name with one "L".

That was the old way of spelling the name, Hilary.


Must be the old way of spelling "spelled" too.

I'd vote for her if she got the nomination, but I won't vote for her in the primary unless she already has it wrapped up by then.

Now if all the JimBob chicken diddlers would start saying they'll leave the country if she gets elected, that might get me on her campaign financing list.
__________________


http://diabloscott.blogspot.com
DiabloScott is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 24-01.-2007, 12:27 PM   #22
wolfix
Registered User
 
wolfix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: "Still in 1975"
Posts: 2,611
Send a message via AIM to wolfix
Default Re: Hilary Clinton

Quote:
Originally Posted by limerickman
So who will get the Republican nomination ?
John McCain, perhaps ?
Today...... Probably. But we are just starting out. The US Presidential campaign is similar to the TDF. We have the potentials, but we have a long way to go. Today , we just had the intial TT, meaningless to the podium contenders, but good press fodder for the fans.

Americans will identify McCain with the war. But he was a war hero..... That will be attractive to the voting base of the Democratic Party labor workers. McCain will be representive of the kind of man blue collor workers want to represent America with his POW attachment.

If McCain can bring some common sense to the Iraqi war to the American people, he will run away with the nomination. [The election will not be close] He is popular with conservative Republicans and he is popular with labor party workers. Both groups are the biggest voting blocks in America in the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.

I expect very little out of McCain until later in the campaign. Money will not be an issue. His warchest is full and he will have the support of the conservatives.

If McCain runs, Edwars run, I expect voters over 35 to be pro-McCain no matter what their political affliation is. He will be able to handle the Consevavtive Christians, business leaders, and the working man. The farmers like him, and he will swing many votes from the western states.
Edwards against McCain will get the students vote[ doesn't matter], the gays[doesn't matter], and part of the minority vote[may or may not matter]. The hard line liberals willl vote for Edwards.

Personally , I hope Edwards waits. I think he will make a fine President some day. but a loss in the next election and he will be washed up. And that would be a waste.
__________________
"Ethics are so annoying. I avoid them on principle."
Darby Conley
wolfix is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 24-01.-2007, 07:28 PM   #23
Bro Deal
Registered User
 
Bro Deal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Resting by the Tumtum tree
Posts: 5,434
Default Re: Hilary Clinton

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfix
Now...... The real issue is "How will the Democrats screw up 2008?" They were handed the election in 2004 and lost. They have to put together a Clinton-Edwards united front to win.

If they nominate Hillary that will be their screwup.

There are fundamental features on the American poltical landscape. The first is that the most charismatic candidate always wins. Voters tell newspapermen and pollsters they care about the issues, but the fact is that it has been more than 30 years since someone lacking in the charisma/looks department has won the presidency. Americans vote for presidents the same way they vote for candidates on reality TV. And on this point Hillary fails miserably. She has zero charisma. She comes across as pedantic and condescending. Her political message seems like it is written by Bill Clinton's old staff, but she does not have the personality to carry it off. She just is not a likable person, and her phoniness makes delivering political points like swimming up river.

A second feature is that people with records have an extremely difficult time winning the nomination. George H. Bush is the only non-governer to win the presidency in the last 30+ years, and Bush did not have much of a record. He was ostracized by the Reagan White House and had spent his previous years in bureaucratic jobs, like director of the CIA. He did not have much of a record to attack. Again Hillary fails miserably. She will have to deal with all the baggage of the Clinton presidency, her miraculous transition from left wing extremist to middle of the roader, and a long history of scandal. People start out with political capital and it dissipates with each scandal and bad decision. Hillary does have much, if any, to start out with.

The only thing she really has going for her is money. That is a third feature of the American presidential system. Whoever has the most money has a huge advantage in the primaries. Whether this will outweigh the other two features is hard to say.

One spectre that will always haunt Hillary's primary campaign is the question of whether she is electable. We saw in the last election how Dean's candidacy fell apart when the Dems became convinced he could not win. The wheels just fell off the wagon and Kerry vaulted into the lead, almost by default.

Another ghost that will trail her run is the battle for independent voters. The hardcore Dems would elect her in a second, but the race is won by carrying the middle one third of the electorate. It was this middle third that rejected Gore, in large part because the Clinton presidency was like an albatross around his neck, and elected a moron like Dubya. Dubya ran as an anti-Clinton and it worked wonders. That did not work out as expected but I think it is a bit much to expect the same voters to zig zag right back into the arms of what they ran away from eight years ago.

If the Democrats nominate Hillary then they will be throwing away a huge opportunity. Ever since the Great Society, the Republicans have painted the Democrats as tax and spenders. Dubya's gross fiscal irresponsibility rips the heart out of that argument. They need to take advantage that, and you don't do that by nominating someone who still thinks like Ted Kennedy. Dubya has also marginalized a several of the traditional bases of the Republican party. He is a religious zealot, and it has just plain creeped a lot of people out. His assault on civil rights has pissed off the libertarian wing of the party. His budget excesses have pissed of the fiscal conservatives. When the scope of the fraud that has gone on in the housing bubble becomes apparent, there goes the law and order crowd. The politcal landscape is ripe for a large scale tilt that could last for a couple of decades, but Hillary is definitely not the person to lead the revolution.

The Democrats need to nominate someone who is charismatic, articulate, decent looking, and solidly in the political center. Hillary fails on all counts. An Edwards/Obama ticket would be formidable.

Wolfix, if you thnk Hillary is going to pull some voters away from the right, you are crazy.
__________________
"I'm completely fu**ed up. Even the speed of the bus was almost too fast for me." -- Gert Steegmans
Bro Deal is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 24-01.-2007, 07:54 PM   #24
Bro Deal
Registered User
 
Bro Deal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Resting by the Tumtum tree
Posts: 5,434
Default Re: Hilary Clinton

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfix
Americans will identify McCain with the war. But he was a war hero..... That will be attractive to the voting base of the Democratic Party labor workers. McCain will be representive of the kind of man blue collor workers want to represent America with his POW attachment.

If McCain can bring some common sense to the Iraqi war to the American people, he will run away with the nomination. [The election will not be close] He is popular with conservative Republicans and he is popular with labor party workers. Both groups are the biggest voting blocks in America in the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.

I disagree. McCain is dead in the water. Aside from Bush and Cheney themselves, McCain is the biggest proponent of a war that continues to get more and more unpopular. While Bush wants to send 20,000 troops, McCain has long supported sending many times more. He has been in Lyndon Johnson mode for at least a year now. If McCain were in control we would have seen the same sort of escalation that destroyed the Johnson presidency and sucked the country further into Vietnam.

McCain's attractiveness to the voters was his independence. That is gone. He is now one of the major buttresses that is holding up the Bush regime. Meanwhile all his colleagues with further political aspirations are running away from Bush as fast as they can go. They refer to the Iraq war as the Bush war. The war is a disaster, and it is just going to get worse and worse. By the end of this year I expect it will be difficult to find a major Republican that will admit to supporting the war. It's like the saying, "Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan." Unfortunately for McCain the war won't quite be an orphan; he will be the crazy uncle that is giving support to his nephew born into the Bush administration.

As it stands now, I think Chuck Hagel would thump McCain. He has positioned himself on the right side of the war.
__________________
"I'm completely fu**ed up. Even the speed of the bus was almost too fast for me." -- Gert Steegmans
Bro Deal is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 24-01.-2007, 11:57 PM   #25
jhuskey
Registered User
 
jhuskey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Great Smoky Mountains, TN USA
Posts: 5,915
Default Re: Hilary Clinton

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bro Deal
If they nominate Hillary that will be their screwup.

There are fundamental features on the American poltical landscape. The first is that the most charismatic candidate always wins. Voters tell newspapermen and pollsters they care about the issues, but the fact is that it has been more than 30 years since someone lacking in the charisma/looks department has won the presidency. Americans vote for presidents the same way they vote for candidates on reality TV. And on this point Hillary fails miserably. She has zero charisma. She comes across as pedantic and condescending. Her political message seems like it is written by Bill Clinton's old staff, but she does not have the personality to carry it off. She just is not a likable person, and her phoniness makes delivering political points like swimming up river.

A second feature is that people with records have an extremely difficult time winning the nomination. George H. Bush is the only non-governer to win the presidency in the last 30+ years, and Bush did not have much of a record. He was ostracized by the Reagan White House and had spent his previous years in bureaucratic jobs, like director of the CIA. He did not have much of a record to attack. Again Hillary fails miserably. She will have to deal with all the baggage of the Clinton presidency, her miraculous transition from left wing extremist to middle of the roader, and a long history of scandal. People start out with political capital and it dissipates with each scandal and bad decision. Hillary does have much, if any, to start out with.

The only thing she really has going for her is money. That is a third feature of the American presidential system. Whoever has the most money has a huge advantage in the primaries. Whether this will outweigh the other two features is hard to say.

One spectre that will always haunt Hillary's primary campaign is the question of whether she is electable. We saw in the last election how Dean's candidacy fell apart when the Dems became convinced he could not win. The wheels just fell off the wagon and Kerry vaulted into the lead, almost by default.

Another ghost that will trail her run is the battle for independent voters. The hardcore Dems would elect her in a second, but the race is won by carrying the middle one third of the electorate. It was this middle third that rejected Gore, in large part because the Clinton presidency was like an albatross around his neck, and elected a moron like Dubya. Dubya ran as an anti-Clinton and it worked wonders. That did not work out as expected but I think it is a bit much to expect the same voters to zig zag right back into the arms of what they ran away from eight years ago.

If the Democrats nominate Hillary then they will be throwing away a huge opportunity. Ever since the Great Society, the Republicans have painted the Democrats as tax and spenders. Dubya's gross fiscal irresponsibility rips the heart out of that argument. They need to take advantage that, and you don't do that by nominating someone who still thinks like Ted Kennedy. Dubya has also marginalized a several of the traditional bases of the Republican party. He is a religious zealot, and it has just plain creeped a lot of people out. His assault on civil rights has pissed off the libertarian wing of the party. His budget excesses have pissed of the fiscal conservatives. When the scope of the fraud that has gone on in the housing bubble becomes apparent, there goes the law and order crowd. The politcal landscape is ripe for a large scale tilt that could last for a couple of decades, but Hillary is definitely not the person to lead the revolution.

The Democrats need to nominate someone who is charismatic, articulate, decent looking, and solidly in the political center. Hillary fails on all counts. An Edwards/Obama ticket would be formidable.

Wolfix, if you thnk Hillary is going to pull some voters away from the right, you are crazy.



I tend to agree with you on this analogy with one exception that she has a couple of things going for her and one is recognition.
Candidates like Obama are unknown but she does not have the camera appeal the Bill did.
As far as DS's comment about some leaving the country,that is more the comment style of extreme liberals like Rosie O'Donnel and a few others that failed to follow through and leave when Bush was elected,too bad. I hate celebrities involved in politics.
All the hopefuls should look at mistakes made in the past like Kerry who peaked too soon.
He should have maintained a low profile a while longer and kept his wife at home.
Hillary "Rodam",yeah that bugs too, will pull a lot of minority votes if nominated and I am not including females. I don't believe they are ready for a sex change in the White House as yet.
Hmmmh, I bet that thier are a bunch of writers just slobbering to use that phrase if she were elected.
"Sex change in the White House". Remember you heard it here first.
My guess is that Her and Obama are tactics being used by the Dem's to scare conservatives into voting for whoever they are really gromming for the job, maybe Edwards.
__________________
Over 6 million squirrels attempt suicide each day.
jhuskey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 25-01.-2007, 02:09 AM   #26
wolfix
Registered User
 
wolfix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: "Still in 1975"
Posts: 2,611
Send a message via AIM to wolfix
Default Re: Hilary Clinton

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bro Deal
An Edwards/Obama ticket would be formidable.

Wolfix, if you thnk Hillary is going to pull some voters away from the right, you are crazy.
Obama...... I don't think he even going to be considered..

I never said that Hillary would get Republican votes..... A Republican would never vote Democratic. Elections are won when the Republicans pull votes from the Democrats......
And ..... After that interview of her the other day after my 1st post, I don't see her winning any election with Health Care Reform."

Edwards is electable..... But never with Obama,. There is nothing that appeals to the blue collar worker about Obama. And they are the Democratic voters that matter. Right now he is in the news because he is an oddity......
__________________
"Ethics are so annoying. I avoid them on principle."
Darby Conley
wolfix is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 25-01.-2007, 02:42 AM   #27
Bro Deal
Registered User
 
Bro Deal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Resting by the Tumtum tree
Posts: 5,434
Default Re: Hilary Clinton

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfix
Edwards is electable..... But never with Obama,. There is nothing that appeals to the blue collar worker about Obama. And they are the Democratic voters that matter. Right now he is in the news because he is an oddity......

Perhaps, but he is much more charismatic than Hillary could ever hope to be. It will be interesting to see how the whole race issue plays out. My gut thought is that a large part of the country is more open to a black president than a woman president--at least with someone like Hillary who snaked her way into her position--but you never know. People say one thing but that does not mean they will actually act that way in the privacy of the voting booth.

If Edwards were to bolster his position with someone like Webb, who just earned big points with his rebuttal to the State of Denial, he might do nicely. But do you really want two Southerners on the ticket. It worked for Clinton/Gore, but Gore was a fake Southerner.

The Republicans are the ones that need to worry. Anyone who is remotely identified with Bush is going to get clobbered. There are lots of Republican governers to choose from, though.
__________________
"I'm completely fu**ed up. Even the speed of the bus was almost too fast for me." -- Gert Steegmans
Bro Deal is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 25-01.-2007, 02:55 AM   #28
Bro Deal
Registered User
 
Bro Deal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Resting by the Tumtum tree
Posts: 5,434
Default Re: Hilary Clinton

Quote:
Originally Posted by jhuskey
I tend to agree with you on this analogy with one exception that she has a couple of things going for her and one is recognition.

That is true, but it cuts both ways. If what you are known for is not palatable to the voters then it's a big downside. Nominating Hillary would take ammunition away from the Democrats. The Republicans only took 12 years to turn the Hill into a morass of corruption. I think that gives the Dems a good issue to hammer the Repubs with, but Hillary would eliminate the possibility of using that tactic. As soon as she brought anything up, the Repubs will throw it back in her face. How will she attack the Repubs' ethics when they can bring up her $100K bribe from Tyson chicken that was disguised as profits from futures trading, the last minute pardons of criminals on the run, and the shopping list she and Bill passed around when they needed to furnish their place in New York?
__________________
"I'm completely fu**ed up. Even the speed of the bus was almost too fast for me." -- Gert Steegmans
Bro Deal is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 25-01.-2007, 05:03 AM   #29
wolfix
Registered User
 
wolfix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: "Still in 1975"
Posts: 2,611
Send a message via AIM to wolfix
Default Re: Hilary Clinton

I think the Clinton years showed us that Americans expect corruption out of the officials. Hillary will weather any of that storm..... Plus, the Democratic machine owes her.

An interesting point..... there was a poll back aways, that might not be relevant now....that states women were the ones who had a problem with Hillary. Many women were upset she didn't kick Bill out...... Men didn't object to her.......

A black president won't fly ...... No matter how talented he is..... And Obama has nothing to brag about as far as talent goes. The only ones who are interested in Obama at this point is the liberal Democrats. Right now the country is just sitting back and watching the show. The thing Obama did do was to make Hillary announce her intentions far earlier then she wanted to......

After Hillary's talk of "health care" the other day, I fully expect Edwards to be nominated...... But the Democrats nominated Kerry, so who knows. That is what I have always said about the past 5-7 elections..The Democratic committee have no idea who they represent. They have allowed the fringe groups { Abortion rights, anti-gun lobby & gays] to push their agenda on the front burner when it is the Democratic blue collar worker who makes up the majority of Democratic voters. The average blue collar worker does not consider abortion to be a major issue. They do not want to be associated with "gay pride." And most of them enjoy owning a gun......
The Democrats have to get back to economic issues....... They need to discuss "China." They need to discuss "minimum wage," [which they are]..... They need to attack Bush on the illegal immigration issue....
They simply need to become the people's party...... Not the "special needs party."
And ...they are walking a fine line attacking the war...... The politicians have to be careful not to let the voters think they are "against the troops."' It is the average Democrat driving around with those yellow ribbons on their car that states " I support the troops."
The Democrats need to bring the election back to domestic problems.
__________________
"Ethics are so annoying. I avoid them on principle."
Darby Conley
wolfix is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 25-01.-2007, 05:08 AM   #30
wolfix
Registered User
 
wolfix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: "Still in 1975"
Posts: 2,611
Send a message via AIM to wolfix
Talking Re: Hilary Clinton

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bro Deal
That is true, but it cuts both ways. If what you are known for is not palatable to the voters then it's a big downside. Nominating Hillary would take ammunition away from the Democrats. The Republicans only took 12 years to turn the Hill into a morass of corruption. I think that gives the Dems a good issue to hammer the Repubs with, but Hillary would eliminate the possibility of using that tactic. As soon as she brought anything up, the Repubs will throw it back in her face. How will she attack the Repubs' ethics when they can bring up her $100K bribe from Tyson chicken that was disguised as profits from futures trading, the last minute pardons of criminals on the run, and the shopping list she and Bill passed around when they needed to furnish their place in New York?
But she will appeal to the "anti-drug" faction in America...... because we all know "Bill did not inhale."
__________________
"Ethics are so annoying. I avoid them on principle."
Darby Conley
wolfix is offline  
Reply With Quote

Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT +10. The time now is 12:22 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Copyright © 2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2001 - 2006 cyclingforums.com

Links to websites we like:
Pezcyclingnews | Cyclingnews.com | Wine Zone | iinet