I am curious to know what anti-Hillary Clinton arguers specifically mean when they say things like this:
I hope that we can keep this from becoming a debate. So Hillary-supporters, please back off and let people just answer the question. You can start your own thread about why Hillary would kick ass. Pretty please?
So, what would Hillary specifically do that would send us into this “national nightmare”?
Sorry, can’t be answered without moving this to GD or the Pit.
Regards,
Shodan
So what you’re saying is that nobody has anything that’s actually truthful or well thought out to say. If you can’t say what specifically you think Hillary Clinton would do that would be so terrible, then just admit that.
This isn’t a question for great debates. I’m asking for people’s opinions on what she would do (for example actual actions she might take) that could be so horrible or so dangerous to us all. I don’t want to question people’s opinions, I just want to know what they are.
Eight years of peace and prosperity (again)?
Why is it so hard for some people to follow simple instructions? :dubious:
Did you ever see that episode of Sliders where Hillary was the President? It’d be just like that.
It’s funny… No one questions criticism of GWB, yet people are befuddled when someone criticizes HRC.
If you’re a conservative or libertarian, then there’s a lot not to like about HRC. So why be surprised when someone criticizes her? 
No one said she’s not due for criticism; I think there would be plenty of liberal criticism, as well. The OP asked specifically about the outlandish “long national nightmare” scenario.
So why not actually answer the OP’s query?
I hope I can stay “on track” with regard to the actual question in the OP.
In terms of “reality”, I have yet to hear of a single thing that Hillary is at all likely to do that would be at all worse from any recent President. A lot of false charges of course, but all of them quite laughable.
The conservative-Republican types do have Hillary nightmares though. And have had them for many years. But they are not about anything bad she’d do. It has to do with changing people’s perceptions.
Bill Clinton is slightly left of center. That’s why he won two terms, unseating a sitting President (not easy) and then re-election in a cakewalk. He got a really big chunk of the moderates and the left by default.
Hillary Clinton is slightly right of center. She’s was a big Iraq warhawk and so on. The conservatives have known this from day one. Their counter-strategy has therefore, also from day one, has been to invent a million insults, do the “she’s a liberal!” Big Lie and all that.
If Hillary were to win in 2008 (which would mean that the majority of voters figured out the Big Lie), then the conservatives will be in even bigger trouble for a long, long while. A lot of voters will start to realize that some Dems are not liberals, that voting against Republicans is not a vote for the terrorists, etc. And that, my friend, is what keeps O’Riley &Co. awake at night.
Well, for one, because Bush is currently a second-term president, whereas Clinton is a senator who may or may not consider running for president sometime in the future?
Oddly enough both Hillary and GWB are similar (IMO) in giving off a strong “I know what’s right and everyone else can fuck off” vibe. I’ve about had enough of “strong” leaders who are convinced of their moral superiority and rule through equal measures of cunning and clueless certitude. Hillary may be a bit smarter than GWB, but I doubt she’s any wiser or less arrogant.
I think I might give Gore a shot if he runs again.