If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Hilary Clinton - US President
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
So she has officially entered the race.
Hilary CLinton enters U.S. Presidential race
I think a democrat will win this time round, and if she does beat Obama to be the Democratic candidate, we might well see her in the White House.
Worse things have happened.
What do you guys think?
Hilary CLinton enters U.S. Presidential race
I think a democrat will win this time round, and if she does beat Obama to be the Democratic candidate, we might well see her in the White House.
Worse things have happened.
What do you guys think?
0
Comments
I'm holding out for Obama *fingers crossed*
I think she will indeed win the Democratic nomination for the Race reason. And then i think she will kick Republican ass, because the Republicans are heading for a kicking as bad as when Nixon and then Ford governed!
But you are wrong.
I don't know if she would win if selected as candidate, but any republican chosen is going to have to go a long way to repair the damage done by Bush. Bush got the radical Christians to vote through lies and deceit, and it will be a long long time before they forget that and return to the ballot to vote Republican.
The Republicans have run their course in this era. They will return to power of course, but their time for now is over. It's rather like the Tories in 1997. You knew that it was time for a change and that the old Tories were due a beating they would never forget.
America and the world are sick- nearly to death, literally- of the Republican Party and the Bush legacy. Time for change.
You might hope that will be the case but I wouldn't be so sure. And anyway, it didn't take the Republicans long to recover that time...Ronald Reagan made sure Carter only got one term.
The American public is sick. Sick of lies. Sick of wars. Sick of corruption. Sick of incompetence. The Republicans were very lucky to win in 2004, and only with the help of religious fundamentalists and rather dodgy voting machine practices. Practically everyone who is a swing voter is bound to vote Democrat. How could it be otherwise?
Can you actually name a single good thing the Republican government has done in the last 6 and a half years?
America and indeed the world need a break from what can only be described as the most dangerous and destructive US government in living memory.
Carter was only really elected as a protest over Gerald Ford pardoning Nixon and he was always a poor candidate and president. It was easy for Reagan to beat him.
The lead that the Republicans have over the Democrats amongst the voting public is very small - and Bush has done enough damage to ensure that even a small swing is all that is required for a Democrat win. It would have to be someone quite incredible in the Republican party to stand and convince people that they ought to keep a Republican president at the next election.
And foreign policy and the war isn't the only thing. Many Americans are worried by the economy and extreme Christianity, but aren't convinced by a total move leftwards or by taking religion totally out of politics.
Bush wouldn't win again (if they allowed third stands), but the Republicans could, depending on who the Democrats put up. It may be a repeat of the UK in 1996, but it may also be a repeat of the UK in 1991.
Within the Republican Party there are plenty of libertarians and paleoconservatives who are anti-war.
But, anyway if you think the candidate does not matter you do not understand American politics. The candidate does matter in US politics. The reason that the Democrats did well in November was because they recognised this; in Virginia, Montana and Pennsylvania the Democrats won Senate seats from the Republicans. In all three states 'typical' Democrats were not elected.
The Democrat and Republican parties are 'big tents' - there's enormous range of opinion within the parties and regional differences. (e.g. A Californian Republican such as Schwarzenegger is more liberal than some conservative Democrats such as Jim Webb).
Fundamentally any failures of President Bush are failures of his administration and won't hugely affect the chances of someone like John McCain.
John Kerry lost in '04. Bush received a very clear endorsement in '04 from the American people.
But, the Republicans can usually get more of their supporters out. And anyway, John McCain and Giuliani appeal to swing voters.
Anyway '08 is far too early to call when neither party has a nominee.
Well, that was because Carter was a travesty of a Democratic candidate. Clinton is a real political figure like her Husband before her.
The current government has failed as a team. They really haven't got one thing right, not only on foreign policy but domestically. If McCain parts with the past, stops lying about climate change, takes the troops out of Iraq, closes Guantanamo and starts making amends with the international community, he'll have a chance of winning some swing voters.
If he continues the ultra-right wing, warmongering, polluting, neo-con policies of the current government, he hasn't got much of a chance.
I wouldn't call winning by the skin of your teeth thanks only to your competitor being hugely unpopular and the religious fundamentalists coming out to vote in force in exchange for influence an 'endorsement' to be quite honest.
It will never be a one-horse race, but the republicans only got in originally through electoral fraud, and I doubt that even they would manage to pull the same stunt twice.
You think?
Have to say I agree with Dis here, I can't see a Democrat in the House at the moment. The republicans will use the fear/religion cards again because they work.
Fingers crossed indeed.
Opponents of the Clintons have a tendancy to be accident prone.
Have you watched http://funhouse.bubble.ro/352/Why_People_Believe_Americans_Are_Stupid/ ?
Some might not vote Republican, but they certainly are not going to vote Democrat, they cant because of the abortion issue.
Frankly, whether its Republican or Democrat I dont think is the most important issue, there needs to be a candidate which people on both sides can like. That's why it cant be Clinton, she is too devisive, she will split the country like Bush.
Some of the new Democrats in Congress who won seats in November oppose abortion. (And at least one of the moderate Republicans who lost in Nov was pro-choice, Lincoln Chafee). Despite that you're right as it would seem unlikely that the Democrats would nominate somebody against abortion - but the Republicans nominating a pro-choice and pro gay rights candidate is a possibility (Giuliani).
True - a lot of Dixie Democrats are less pro-choice than your average East Coast Republican.
And in real terms, both parties are pro-choice, the Republicans might talk about restricting abortions and in some states this has happened (largely because of state action not national), but the general picture isnt very different.
I think to be honest whoever it is will be better than him, and I just hope it's someone with a bit of fucking sense. For gods sake.:banghead:
Thanks to Karl Rove putting antigay issues front and centre on pretty much every piece of state legislation that was to be voted on in 2004.
This brought all of the religious people to vote, therefore because most of them were republican gw bush won. If they had stayed at home, kerry would likely have won.
When elections happen in america they Vote for everything from the president to the dog catcher all at once. You put something on a state voting (local) board and get your people to vote, you win the bigger (national) prizes.
Obama having described his politics as "purple" (by which he meant a combination of red and blue but lets face it, that's gonna be misconstrued). There is enough covert racism in the US that a black man isn't going to be elected any time soon.
And Hillary, who has been demonized by the media ever since Clinton became president.
The truth is that while both of their candidacies are great gestures and (hopefully) a demonstration of the direction our country is going, the Dems are going to find someone more suitable to run for the position.
I think you're probably right...Like Mark Warner? But he's ruled himself out...for now. And I'm not sure John Edwards could win it. But there's still Al Gore.
And there's still speculation about John Kerry. (Whilst Reagan and Nixon won the presidency after a defeat I can't see it happening with Kerry...I think the Dems would be making a big mistake to nominate him again).
If the Democrats want to win Gore or Warner would seem wiser choices than Clinton or Obama. It's Gore/Warner who the Republicans fear.
but more interesting is the Republican nomination which is completely open, the only two people have officially added there name to the nomination and both are relatively unknown; Sam Brownback and John Cox
but there is also the possible nominees, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Newt Gingrich
but thankfully Jeb Bush declined to be become an entrant, i dont think anyone could put up with another Bush