I continue to be amused by the right wing’s paranoia fantasies about President Hillary Clinton using her unchecked Executive powers to destroy the nation while ignoring what’s happening in the White House right this minute…
(Mouth-foaming zombies – check!)
How? And why is yours better?
Not really. Bush won solidly (three million vote margin). And if he hadn’t pissed off so many people by invading Iraq, the election would have been an absolute rout; Kerry would have been a “sacrificial lamb” like Bob Dole in 1996.
Be that as it may, it is a politically unpopular idea. Mostly because no one wants to have to pay for it.
No. Like Starving Artist said, the male equivalent of a bitch is a jerk or an asshole.
Remember, in politics Perception = Reality. If Hillary is perceived by the public as being a socialist bitch, then it almost doesn’t matter whether she really is or not. It’s not fair, but that’s politics for you.
Why? Conservatives have been talking about Hillary’s “negatives” ever since 1992 and I’ve never yet been able to figure out what they mean. What the fuck is objectionable about a bland, milktoast, moderate-liberal politician like Hillary Clinton?
“Travelgate” was bullshit, “Hillarycare” was a good idea at the time and no less so now, and what the fuck is objectionable about “It takes a village”?
You mean a three million “vote” margin, don’t you?
Yes, rfgdxm, I understand we have a Congress. We also have voters and special interest groups which keep politicians in check as well. I was speaking of her philosophical mindset. Clearly she won’t have free “rein” (I misspelled the word in my previous post), but to the degree she can get her way, I believe she will tilt toward socialist remedies (if they can accurately be called that) to solve the country’s problems.
I don’t believe Hillary would attempt to dismantle the U.S.’ free enterprise system either, and for the same reasons, but it wouldn’t surprise me one bit to learn that she would, in what she would perceive as an ideal world, wholeheartedly embrace Communism as the ideal form of government. This is generally accepted as true by most people, but most people also recognize that human nature is the fly in the ointment that keeps Communism from working and I think this knowledge is lost on Hillary Clinton. She thinks she knows the best way to take care of the masses, and that is government. I oppose the idea that it’s government’s role to take care of us and I don’t believe that we get anywhere near our money’s worth when it tries, not to mention the fact that we lose a hell of a lot of control over our lives and well-being to to faceless and unaccountable government bureaucrats.
I don’t believe that for a moment, but if it’s true, so much the better! 
Well, a big part of the problem is that she wasn’t the…you know…PRESIDENT! Many of us felt she had no damn right whatsoever to closet herself with a bunch of her cronies and secretly cook up socialist schemes to “care” for us when no one had voted for her in the first place.
We felt a “co-President” was being inflicted upon us that we weren’t told about beforehand (and a very smug, superior and condescending one at that) and we resented it. You can argue that Bill Clinton had every right to let her be co-President, and in keeping with his apparent philosophy that if something isn’t specifically prohibited he’ll do it, he did just that. But it was a mistake, and one that she’s been rightly paying for ever since.
Only if, like me, you’re a Republican and want an easy victory in 2008.
And therein lies the crux of much of the difference between the right and the left.
Never mind me. But how do people like you (and Hillary), in your absolutely smug condesencion, think you know what’s best for everybody else?
Because their socialist ideas go against the very foundation of economic theory?
My “socialist” ideas are of the sort that I consider Sweden to be the best country in the world to live in. Last I checked Sweden wasn’t an economically impoverished land. The quality of health care in Sweden sure blows away the US.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html
Heck, even Jordan has a better life expectency than the US. Although, the US is still beating Cuba in this stat (although barely.)
Hillary would have destroyed GWB in the debates. She is unbelievably ariticulate. Unlike Kerry, she has a consistent record on the war and would not have had to do all the “on the one hand” nonsense.
Nancy Reagan was way more involved than Hillary. Nancy even used her Astrologer to influence the scheduling of summit meetings!!
The irony of course is that the U.S. is the wealthiest country in the world, with the highest BNP. But considering the poverty rates, which are embarassing, they seem to be making that money over the backs of parts of its own population and its environment, like in many other countries that have a similar gap between rich and poor (say, India, many Arab states, etc).
If we look at history, the U.S. is showing all the signs of a world-power past its peak. What the U.S. needs is a leader who sees this (easy), and has the capacity to wake up the nation to this reality (hard).
Is Hillary that leader? I don’t know, as I really don’t know enough about her yet, but by the mere fact of looking at her competition, I think she has a good chance of running in 2008. She’ll have a decent chance of winning the presidency too if she does, because she’ll be facing a fresh opponent.
Now here’s something to mull over - Clinton vs Rice. That’s a classic, historical, epic proportions kind of election that could give the U.S.’ the kick in the butt it needs, lest it remains stuck in a mid-20th century mentality forever.
And what ‘signs’ would those be? :rolleyes:
But let this Repubican voice hissupport for Hilary on the '08 Demmie ballot. Oh yes. Please yes. Hell, we could run the corpse of Chester A. Arthur against her and win.
But alas, it’s not going to happen. Senators don’t win Presidential elections. Neither do Northeasternites. Governors do, especially Southern governors, and presuming the demmies get competent party leadership before '08, they are going to run Richardson or Easley. It’s going to be a damned long time before a Northeasterite or Senator is going to get the nod. Again, assuming the demmies get competent leadership between now and then, and that is no sure thing.
Your answer, for one.
This is kind of a nitpick - and I’m kind of surprised you said it (considering the gist of your posts) - but most Americans do favour universal health care. At least according to most polls taken over the last few years. I’ll provide cites if you insist, but a quick google will settle it.
However, I do agree that Hillary is polarising. I love the idea of a female POTUS, but I don’t think it’s gonna be Hillary. The reasons are more complex than the health care issue.