As we learned last year, where Hillary Clinton is concerned you are completely unable to tell the difference between hatred and an evenhanded critique. I’ve said plenty of complimentary things about her over the years.
And you’d be the last to understand. 
I probably would have voted for HIllary had she been up for office. I say this despite being a conservative and nominally a Republican.
There are several reasons for this. First, I think Hillary is deeply flawed: Over-ambitious, greedy, extremely corrupt and power-hungry. Despite this, I also think she’s a very effective political operator and retains a certain cold honesty about herself and her plans. She’s shrewd, calculating, and capable of making decisions in a way Obama is not and probably never will. She wants the actual power of the office, whereas Obama wants the prestige, publci spotlight, and adulation. I think she has the greater cahnce of becoming a disaster, but also the greater odds of really succeeding. She has a thicker skin and her cronies would have been corrupt but just as cunning as she would have been.
She basically woudl have been a second Nixon, but let’s not forget Nixon was pretty darn effective on the international stage. Since her opponent was McCain, I’d have voted for her. Partly, that’s a judgement of McCain - I don’t consider his age a huge hugely relevant, but he was not someone I really wanted running the executive.
And Sam claims to have said nonadoring things about Bush once in a while, too. :rolleyes:
Thanks for confirming your level, at least.
She made some big errors - the caucus one being the largest - but I think also it shows her advantages were not as big as people assumed. Obama was not an unknown in 2008. He didn’t have much name recognition, but he didn’t have her negatives, and he was able to present himself as a fresh face when that was what people were looking for. And he managed his organization very well, capitalized on enthusiasm, and used the internet more successfully than anybody else in politics had. Her mistakes didn’t make that happen.
Show me anything “hateful” I’ve said in this thread.
Do you really think Iraq is stable? There are still car bombings and suicide bombings taking place, and sadly will probably continue. Bush the elder didn’t go into Baghdad for the very reason of stirring up the fanatics as is still happening in Iraq; just as with the Israeli and Palistine problems that have gone on since 1947 the fanatics will never concede one side to the other. The majority may want peace but a few radicals do not, they just want their own way.
What is “stable?” Is the absence of violence necessary for stability? I’d contend that Iraq is at the point where the government – for as many problems as it has – is no longer at the point where it is dependent on a huge foreign occupation. But that’s all really beside the point, as I was showing how Sam Stone had made an exceedingly vapid point wrapped up in the guise of thoughtful reflection on history. He deserved to be called on it.
While the senate has been waffling over health care reform, more Americans have died from lack of insurance than have died in Afghanistan and Iraq combined.
All the American and allied soldiers lost in Afghanistan to date can be balanced by about a month’s worth of American citizens that died due to lack of health insurance. If he doesn’t get HCR passed, Americans will continue to suffer a whole war’s worth of deaths every month for the foreseeable future. The only way to achieve this is to use political capital to manipulate the senate.
OTOH, Obama can add more troops, or cut and run from Afghanistan with the stroke of a pen and a few months to put a plan into action.
Stable to me, means all people accept the present government and are not killing a lot of innocent people to get their own form of government. Being able to go where ever one wishes with out the fear of being car bombed. As long as it is necassary to have no troops out side it’s own army. If we leave it will be just as it was when England left and Saddam took over, the Sunnies,Shias, and Kurds are not yet tested.
What? The British mandate in Iraq ended in 1932. Certainly British influence on Iraq persisted for many years but this had dissolved long before Saddam came to power in 1979.
Nah, she would’ve been a third Cleveland.
That conclusion requires some amazing conflations. Postwar France is quite belligerent & self-interested. The anti-Semitic regime that welcomed the Germans in to rid them of their Jews was perhaps also belligerent & self-interested, but thought the sausage-eaters would be useful stalking horses.
I feel compelled to point out that Hillary Clinton will be 68 when the 2016 primaries start. Though above average, this wouldn’t make her the oldest candidate or nominee, and her father lived to be 82 and her mother is still alive at 90, so she has a decent chance of still being in good health.
In other words, there’s a non-zero chance we’ll see her in the Presidency eventually.
Well, it’s slim. She said she doesn’t wanna run again.
Is Hillary tainted by Her hubbies blind faith in Rubin, Summers and Greenspan. The beginnings of the meltdown were on his watch. He signed the Modernization Act that broke down the barriers that served us well. Gramm did however foster it.
Gore Vidal was once a brilliant man, but, God bless him, his opinions can no longer be trusted. I read an interview recently (it may have been the one linked to) in which he asserts that Timothy McVeigh was basically a great guy.
I haven’t read all the responses to the thread, but I’d have to say…6 one, half a dozen the other. Hillary would be having the same problems Obama has had with Congress. I think she has the edge in political experience, and I think she would have been in compromise mode from the get go on health care (having been beat up on this before), but over all I don’t see how she could have done a lot differently than Obama has. Certainly on issues like Afghanistan I don’t see her doing anything substantially different…heck, she was probably MORE ‘conservative’ on this issue than Obama, and would probably be looking at the same exact options.
As for the right wing hate…it’s hard to say. Certainly before the election Hillary was the big bugaboo, and I think she certainly would have drawn the same kinds of fire that Obama has. Deep down though I think Hillary is more like her husband, and while Bubba drew a lot of heat he also appealed to the center a lot because of his more centrist leanings, mostly due to his excellent sense of political compromise. I think Hillary, once elected, would have dashed post haste to the center, and from there she might have been less of a target. Probably not, though, so I think it would be very similar.
She probably wouldn’t have put her foot in it over the whole Fox News thingy though. She is too much of an experienced politician to have made THAT mistake…
-XT
The “landed under fire” debacle suggests otherwise…