Are you guys READY for a female US President?

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: delas52
These so called "scandals" should have NO EFFECT on anything. Only an idiot can base their vote for president on someones personal life, but unfortunatley we have plenty of idiots...

But I don't like Hillary's "Bush-like" approach to Iraq and needing to stay their and not "sway from our path." I hope she doesn't run...

You're right... they SHOULD have no effect. But you know as well as I that they will.

It would be nice to see a run for prez that involved things like... issues... for once. But I don't see that happening.

 

[judasmachine]

I hope the sexists get the shock of their lives. Although the pickens are slim, Hillary could definately win the left's vote, but would illicite a HUGE attack from the right. Rice, would have trouble winning her own party, and the left would lauch a massive attack on her too.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
I don't think Hillary will win... for a number of reasons.

First, she is an amazingly polarizing figure. Love her or hate her... there isn't much middle ground. Of all the candidates expected to run on either side (with the possible exception of Newt Gingrich) she enters with the greatest percentage of voters already saying yes/no. She will have a hard time changing any opinions of herself and has a huge uphill battle to swing any voters to her side that aren't already there.

Second, she has a lot of skeletons in her closet from her "husband's" term in office. If you thought the Swift Boat Vets were digging up some questionable stuff on Kerry, wait till you see what comes out when Hill decides to run for prez. The right will have had 8 years to fully flesh out the scandals she and Bill managed to side-step when he was in office. (And yes, his actions will reflect on her) She'll be more prepared for it than Kerry was but it will be every bit as damaging if not more.

Third, have you ever heard her give a speech? She gives a droning monotone that escalates in volume until it's so shrill it hurts. At that point it doesn't matter what she's saying, nobody wants to hear it. Sad to say it but the race for prez is as much a popularity contest as anything... and she doesn't have what Bill had. There is nothing particularly endearing about her.

Fourth, it would be a mistake to think that anyone is just going to hand the nomination to her. The Dems made that mistake with Kerry last time around. They might be a little skittish about doing it this time around. There is a whole cast of characters in the Democratic party who will be formidable opponents. They have more experience, less controversy and are just plain more likeable than Hill.

The few things she does have going for her are substantial though. Let's face it... there are a lot of women who will vote for her JUST because she's a woman. It may sound superficial to say it but you're kidding yourself if you discount that fact. Combine that with the narrow margin between left/right in this country and there is more than just a little bit of potential for her to pull it off. Another thing she has is the ability to raise money by the truckload. Her candidacy will not be hurting for millionaire donors.

Ultimately it will come down to who the Republican candidate is. Rudy could beat her. The big question with him is if the Republicans will vote for a pro-choice guy. There are a couple of other possibilities out there as well.

Either way, I predict that this will be the NASTIEST presidential campaign we've seen in our lifetimes. Don't forget your helmet.

I actually agree with you on essentially all points. That being said, there is NO WAY IN HELL the Republican party will nominate Rudy G, who has way too many strikes against him with the religious right (pro-choice; known philanderer; Catholic; Yankee). At this point it's just a question of which evangelical Christian candidate the Repubs go for. Actually there are a number of Republicans I'd favor over Hilary, but the Republican party wouldn't go for them.

 

[rickn]

yup, bring it on. although I think we will see a female vice president before we see one as president

 

[CSMR]

I hope Rice has a shot at it.

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: CSMR
I hope Rice has a shot at it.

I think she has a snowballs chance in hell. she wouldn't even make it past the primaries

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: CSMR
I hope Rice has a shot at it.

US is not readly for a black, gay (lesbian) & female President, sorry

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: CSMR
I hope Rice has a shot at it.

I think she has a snowballs chance in hell. she wouldn't even make it past the primaries

It would certainly make for an interesting race. Frankly, and I don't mean this in any derogatory way, she appears to be a lesbian, to the extent she's a sexual person at all, and she's obviously both black and female. None of those are characteristics that are likely to endear her to a lot of the Republican base.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: DonVito
to the extent she's a sexual person at all

it's interesting, she really appears to be quite asexual.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: DonVito
to the extent she's a sexual person at all

it's interesting, she really appears to be quite asexual.

Yeah, I really don't see her as a person who's particularly interested in love or sex, but to the extent she is, she certainly appears to be a lesbian.

Actually I am willing to give President Bush some credit: he and his party have been much more successful at putting people of color, women, and homosexuals into positions of prominence than the "enlightened" Democrats. I personally find Condi pretty loathsome, but she's undeniably very bright, and her appointment a credit to President Bush.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: DonVito
to the extent she's a sexual person at all

it's interesting, she really appears to be quite asexual.

Could be possible. She could have Turner's syndrome.. One of my distant cousins has that disorder.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: CSMR
I hope Rice has a shot at it.

US is not readly for a black, gay (lesbian) & female President, sorry

I think some of us could handle it, but most people from her party? No way.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: CSMR
I hope Rice has a shot at it.

I think she has a snowballs chance in hell. she wouldn't even make it past the primaries

It would certainly make for an interesting race. Frankly, and I don't mean this in any derogatory way, she appears to be a lesbian, to the extent she's a sexual person at all, and she's obviously both black and female. None of those are characteristics that are likely to alienate a lot of the Republican base.

I agree think being black and female won't hurt her chances with republicans at all. I don't know what you are on about with this lesbian stuff. That seems like a completely unsubstantiated slur. And aidanjm makes the claim she is an asexual lesbian. What that is I have no idea.

I don't think she's very likely. There are quite a few potential candidates and she may not run for it. Betfair has her between 1 in 10 and 1 in 25 to be the republican candidate.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: CSMR
I don't know what you are on about with this lesbian stuff. That seems like a completely unsubstantiated slur.

How is acknowledging her inner, sexual orientation a "slur"..?

Originally posted by: CSMR
And aidanjm makes the claim she is an asexual lesbian. What that is I have no idea.

It would be incorrect to assume that people who experience asexualism do not have a sexual orientation.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: CSMR

I agree think being black and female won't hurt her chances with republicans at all. I don't know what you are on about with this lesbian stuff. That seems like a completely unsubstantiated slur. And aidanjm makes the claim she is an asexual lesbian. What that is I have no idea.

I don't think she's very likely. There are quite a few potential candidates and she may not run for it. Betfair has her between 1 in 10 and 1 in 25 to be the republican candidate.

I guess I don't understand your first sentence at all - it seems to contradict itself. Are you saying Republicans would or would not support her?

I don't mean anything negative when I infer that she's a lesbian. It's just that when a person makes it to age 52 without ever having had a romantic relationship with the opposite sex, one does start to wonder. I honestly don't see it as a downside, but the 2004 election demonstrated that the current Republican base feels strongly about limiting gay rights, and I can't imagine the evangelicals who helped re-elect President Bush coming out in favor of a black female, asexual-to-gay candidate.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: DonVito
I guess I don't understand your first sentence at all - it seems to contradict itself. Are you saying Republicans would or would not support her?

I think republicans would support her just as well for being black and female. I don't think I contradicted that did I? I don't know for sure if they would support her; there are many things we don't know about her because she doesn't go round giving her views on every issue. But I doubt that being black and female would be to her disadvantage.
Take Maggie Thatcher; I think republicans tend to hold very high opinions of her (where they exist of course). I don't think that being a woman has lowered the perceptions of her; if anything the opposite is true.
As for race, I expect that a black person who speaks in the same was as a white person with the same opinions and rhetoric will do at least as well if not better, because many people want to be perceived as accepting of black people, and that outweighs I think the the people who are prejudiced against black people.

I don't mean anything negative when I infer that she's a lesbian. It's just that when a person makes it to age 52 without ever having had a romantic relationship with the opposite sex, one does start to wonder. I honestly don't see it as a downside, but the 2004 election demonstrated that the current Republican base feels strongly about limiting gay rights, and I can't imagine the evangelicals who helped re-elect President Bush coming out in favor of a black female, asexual-to-gay candidate.

Many republicans feel strongly about expressing public approval of homosexual activity (e.g. in Gay marriage); many also feel strongly about limiting the rights of people who are "actively homosexual"; almost none I would suggest want to restrict the rights of people who have homosexual inclinations or of people who do not marry or have heterosexual relationships.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: DonVito
I guess I don't understand your first sentence at all - it seems to contradict itself. Are you saying Republicans would or would not support her?

I think republicans would support her just as well for being black and female. I don't think I contradicted that did I? I don't know for sure if they would support her; there are many things we don't know about her because she doesn't go round giving her views on every issue. But I doubt that being black and female would be to her disadvantage.
Take Maggie Thatcher; I think republicans tend to hold very high opinions of her (where they exist of course). I don't think that being a woman has lowered the perceptions of her; if anything the opposite is true.
As for race, I expect that a black person who speaks in the same was as a white person with the same opinions and rhetoric will do at least as well if not better, because many people want to be perceived as accepting of black people, and that outweighs I think the the people who are prejudiced against black people.

I don't mean anything negative when I infer that she's a lesbian. It's just that when a person makes it to age 52 without ever having had a romantic relationship with the opposite sex, one does start to wonder. I honestly don't see it as a downside, but the 2004 election demonstrated that the current Republican base feels strongly about limiting gay rights, and I can't imagine the evangelicals who helped re-elect President Bush coming out in favor of a black female, asexual-to-gay candidate.

Many republicans feel strongly about expressing public approval of homosexual activity (e.g. in Gay marriage); many also feel strongly about limiting the rights of people who are "actively homosexual"; almost none I would suggest want to restrict the rights of people who have homosexual inclinations or of people who do not marry or have heterosexual relationships.

Republicans don't have a problem with homosexuals having heterosexual relations? How odd indeed. I guess it would be ok then for heterosexuals to have gay relations then too, right?

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: CSMR

I agree think being black and female won't hurt her chances with republicans at all. I don't know what you are on about with this lesbian stuff. That seems like a completely unsubstantiated slur. And aidanjm makes the claim she is an asexual lesbian. What that is I have no idea.

I don't think she's very likely. There are quite a few potential candidates and she may not run for it. Betfair has her between 1 in 10 and 1 in 25 to be the republican candidate.

I guess I don't understand your first sentence at all - it seems to contradict itself. Are you saying Republicans would or would not support her?

I don't mean anything negative when I infer that she's a lesbian. It's just that when a person makes it to age 52 without ever having had a romantic relationship with the opposite sex, one does start to wonder. I honestly don't see it as a downside, but the 2004 election demonstrated that the current Republican base feels strongly about limiting gay rights, and I can't imagine the evangelicals who helped re-elect President Bush coming out in favor of a black female, asexual-to-gay candidate.

She's never had a romantic relationship? Can you show some proof of that? (I'd be surprised.)

Perhaps they just aren't public

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: DonVito
I guess I don't understand your first sentence at all - it seems to contradict itself. Are you saying Republicans would or would not support her?

I think republicans would support her just as well for being black and female. I don't think I contradicted that did I? I don't know for sure if they would support her; there are many things we don't know about her because she doesn't go round giving her views on every issue. But I doubt that being black and female would be to her disadvantage.
Take Maggie Thatcher; I think republicans tend to hold very high opinions of her (where they exist of course). I don't think that being a woman has lowered the perceptions of her; if anything the opposite is true.
As for race, I expect that a black person who speaks in the same was as a white person with the same opinions and rhetoric will do at least as well if not better, because many people want to be perceived as accepting of black people, and that outweighs I think the the people who are prejudiced against black people.

I don't mean anything negative when I infer that she's a lesbian. It's just that when a person makes it to age 52 without ever having had a romantic relationship with the opposite sex, one does start to wonder. I honestly don't see it as a downside, but the 2004 election demonstrated that the current Republican base feels strongly about limiting gay rights, and I can't imagine the evangelicals who helped re-elect President Bush coming out in favor of a black female, asexual-to-gay candidate.

Many republicans feel strongly about expressing public approval of homosexual activity (e.g. in Gay marriage); many also feel strongly about limiting the rights of people who are "actively homosexual"; almost none I would suggest want to restrict the rights of people who have homosexual inclinations or of people who do not marry or have heterosexual relationships.

Republicans don't have a problem with homosexuals having heterosexual relations? How odd indeed. I guess it would be ok then for heterosexuals to have gay relations then too, right?

I think the idea is that it's OK to be a homosexual in the privacy of your own head/ brain, but not to be a homosexual in public. therefore you have to marry a partner of the opposite sex, or at least remain single, never talk about your homosexual inclinations, etc.

 

[Zebo]

Dream on. I hope's it's Chuck Hagel but any republican even Pat Buchanan could beat Hillary.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Dream on. I hope's it's Chuck Hagel but any republican even Pat Buchanan could beat Hillary.

Hillary has greater name recognition than any of the other likely candidates. Normal people - as opposed to politics fanboys like the people frequenting this forum - like and respect her. Hillar is polarizing the way Dumbya is polarizing - i.e., politics junkies/ fan boys love/ hate her, while she charms and comforts the middle majority.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: ntdz

She's far from centrist...she just acts like it in the Senate b/c she wants to run for Prez in 08.

Actually I think she is - she's remarkably hawkish, actually. Even my diehard GWB-loving neoconservative bosses, who are the current and past heads of AIPAC in Minnesota and major Bush supporters, are fans of hers.

She's another bought and paid for member of the war party. A "neo-con" - Thier not stupid they cover all thier bases.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Dream on. I hope's it's Chuck Hagel but any republican even Pat Buchanan could beat Hillary.

From what I've seen of him, Chuck Hegel appears to be missing a chromosome. He speaks like a high-functioning mentally-retarded person. I guess in that sense he'd make for a seamless transition.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Republicans don't have a problem with homosexuals having heterosexual relations? How odd indeed. I guess it would be ok then for heterosexuals to have gay relations then too, right?

You don't make sense at all.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: CSMR

You don't make sense at all.

And you do?