Enlighten me, because I do not think Hillary would be the best candidate for the job of Commander/Chief. I do not know much about her aside from what I learned from her webcast a couple days ago, she seemed genuine but there was an air about her that did not project the utmost confidence and resolve that she would serve the country the best. I’m looking at all the Dem hopefuls right now and trying to learn as much about them as possible, but there is something about Hillary that strikes me as as unfit-for-presidential-office.
I have no problem putting a female president in office, or a black pres for that matter. I just do not think Hillary has what it takes to clean up the mess in Iraq, nor the foreign acumen to deal with maintaining a relative peace with N.Korea and Iran.
Presidential candidates can only be judged relatively, so the question becomes “Better than what/whom?”
If Clinton is the Democratic nominee, and the Republicans put up a pro-choice candidate (I think only Giuliani is pro-choice), then I would probably vote for the Republican.
If she’s the Dem nom and the Republicans put up a pro-life candidate (much more likely), then I would vote for Clinton.
It’s not a matter of thinking she’s the “best.” It’s a matter of not having many options.
Hillary isn’t really running…thats just a Republican Meme.
She will be fit-for-presidential-office if she wins her parties nomination and goes on to win the general election. Just like anyone else who runs and wins. IOW, she will be no less fit than any other first term President who has to learn the ropes of his (or her) new job…and I’d have to say she will probably be more fit than some first term Presidents (I could name a few :)).
What kind of President would she make? Hard to say. My GUESS is she will be a lot like her hubby was…without the screwing around on the side thing. That will be both good and bad IMHO and Billy boy had both good qualities as Prez and bad ones. I’m guessing she will run to the middle like Bill did if she is elected and her Presidency will neither be the disaster some on the right think nor the American utopia some on the left fantasize about.
I can think of lots of people who would make a better president than HRC. Thing is, most of them aren’t running. You have to go to the general election with the candidates you have, not the candidates you wish you had. Of the Democrats in right now, I think Hillary is probably the best, all round. That not only means she’s the candidate with the best policies, but that she’s the candidate who can most successfully beat whomever the Republicans nominate. If Biden jumps in, that may change.
I really don’t understand this type of thinking. Presidents have almost nothing to do with the abortion issue a this point. Sure, they get to nominate Supreme Court Justices, but the SCotUS is not going to overturn Roe v Wade. And if, by some odd circumstance they do, that will sweep the Democrats into power in such overwhelming numbers it’ll make your head spin. Most Americans, by a good margin, do not want Roe v Wade overturned.
Making your decision about the president on a single issue is pretty shortsighted-- especially when (s)he has virtually no influence over the law pertaining to that issue. We’ve had at least 3 pro-life presidents since that SCotUS decision over 30 years ago, and it still stands.
Wait. Is this the same guy who bizarrely broke into a rendition of “Sixteen Tons” (to show his soulfulness??) at a speech to Jesse Jackson’s Wall Street Project? Come on, BG!
As to Hillary Clinton, I have every confidence that she would be an excellent chief executive. She has eight years of experience inside the White House, and now years of experience in the legislative branch. Who knows better how the system works? No learning curve there.
My only reservations about Hillary have to do with her electability, not her ability.
It still stands, but there is a pernicious cultural influence at work and I despise it. “Pro-life” is a good stand in for a set of beliefs that I will not vote for. Ever.
Votes are symbolic things. Just as I wouldn’t vote for a KKK member even if he couldn’t get his racist views enacted and he agreed with me on every other issue. I will not vote for an anti-abortion rights candidate.
One of the assets Hillary would have going for her is that she would have access to her husband’s brains, experience and instincts. That can (and will) get played by the opposition in the most negative way possible but in practical terms (f not necessarily political), I see it as nothing but a positive. There are a hell of a lot worse people you could turn to at 4 AM for political advice than Bill Clinton.
Hillary’s pretty smart, she’s a policy wonk who does her homework (and we’ve seen the results of a prez who doesn’t want to read all the boring text), she does have something akin to White House experience. She’s distressingly “flexible” ideologically, but you almost have to be to get elected as a Democrat. She’s been training for this her whole life. I don’t think she’d be in over her head as an executive and I think she’d be competent (sweet, sweet competence). She does not have the political gifts or the charisma of her husband but even average skills in that regard would still be an improvement over what we have now. The bar has been lowered considerably for public speaking. If she can correctly read and pronounce the right words, in the right order from the teleprompter and understand their definitions, she will be an improvement over her predecessor.
I think the country could do worse (and IS doing worse) than Hillary. She deserves her chance in the primaries and is a perfectly sane and rational choice for a nomination. Whether she can overcome her she-devil image among hardcore conservatives is doubtful She’ll have to win every blue state and at least a couple of purple ones. She has no margin for error. She’ll have to run a near perfect campaign, avoid the inevitible trumped up 'scandals" (fortunately she may have a built in immunity in that regard. She’s been accused of so many things that one more accusation here or there won’t matter) as well as the contrived attempts to pounce on any gaffe or “Dean moment” or non-existent “insult” to the troops, etc.
I would love to see her win just to see the anyeurisms it would cause on the right. That would be God’s own justice.
You may be on to something there. I need a refresher. What political offices has Ms. Clinton held other than senator and First Lady? I’m sure I used to know them, but I’ve forgotten them, probably because I was hoping she wouldn’t run.
From what I know of the current batch, Bill Richardson looks like the best bet to me. He has foreign policy experience and a pretty good record under Bill Clinton.
EditThat first remark was in response to Thudlow Boink :o
There are lots of pro-life Democrats, btw. Do they all buy into that same “set of beliefs”? I doubt it.
There are bad analogies, and then there is that one. To compare a pro-life person with a member of the KKK, even as an analogy, is mind-blowing.
Feel free to have the last word if you’d like, as I won’t respond further-- it’s probably not a good idea to hijack this thread on that highly tangential subject.
I can not get over her being a closet conservative. She was a Goldwater Repub before she met Bill. I do not feel safe about her. I prefer Edwards and Gore.
If she gets the nomination, she’ll be the best of the two remaining candidates.
But I would be very disappointed if she were the Dem standardbearer next year. I think she’s too cautious, to centrist, to unwilling to lead in anything but the smallest of ways. Someone needs to tell her it’s January 2007, not January 1995: it appears that she learned the lessons of the 1994 debacle a bit too well, and I’m not sure she’ll ever unlearn them.
I expect Hillary to fight hard for things like reducing the number of Americans without health insurance by 5-10 million, but I don’t expect her to suggest (as she did in 1994, and as her main rivals do now) that everyone be insured. I expect her to similarly play smallball on other big issues, like Iraq and global warming. And I expect her to take stronger stands on smaller, more symbolic issues, like the goddamned violent video games.
I don’t think that’s exactly going to set voter’s imaginations on fire. She may win, but if she does, I can only hope that once she’s in office, her party is bolder than she will be.
She campaigned for Goldwater when she was 16?! It seems bizzare to judge someones by political beliefs they held when they were a teenager, especially after a 35 years of working for the opposite party (according to wiki, Hillary began working for Dem sentors in the early 70’s).
