How much of a chance does Hillary really have?

[imported_Shivetya]

WOW, even here supposedly base thinks she is corrupt! so perhaps this is why Obama is getting such a grand reception even though his qualifications are seriously lacking. They //democrat voters// want a Democrat President but don't trust Hillary to do it right.

what is more important than that are these two

More than three in four (78%) agree that bigger government leads to more corruption.

69% strongly agree with the statement that ?corruption is a significant problem in Washington.? An additional 24% ?somewhat agree? with the statement.


Yet what do we do about it? Nothing, the Federal Government runs roughshod over the 10th Amendment nearly every day and people seem to cheer it on.

 

[umbrella39]

Thank you Capt. Obvious for another brilliant OP. Politicians are corrupt. Who'd have thunk and sweet that you would put Hillary right in the topic title. Hope you get paid for this shillery.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
WOW, even here supposedly base thinks she is corrupt! so perhaps this is why Obama is getting such a grand reception even though his qualifications are seriously lacking. They //democrat voters// want a Democrat President but don't trust Hillary to do it right.

what is more important than that are these two

More than three in four (78%) agree that bigger government leads to more corruption.

69% strongly agree with the statement that ?corruption is a significant problem in Washington.? An additional 24% ?somewhat agree? with the statement.

You say Obama`s qualifications are lacking......compared to whom?
Hillary---now thats a joke.......
Hillary if on the 2008 ticket will single handedly give the Republicans the White House for 4 more years!!

I have never read anywhere in any published official documents anything about a set of qualifications for being President...please elaborate with links.

Thank You
Yet what do we do about it? Nothing, the Federal Government runs roughshod over the 10th Amendment nearly every day and people seem to cheer it on.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Shivetya
More than three in four (78%) agree that bigger government leads to more corruption.
69% strongly agree with the statement that ?corruption is a significant problem in Washington.? An additional 24% ?somewhat agree? with the statement.

Yet 78% are still going to vote either Democrat, who campaigns on bigger government, or Republican who campaigns on smaller and hands you bigger. Net result, those 78% are helping us make the problem worse. :frown:

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Shivetya
More than three in four (78%) agree that bigger government leads to more corruption.
69% strongly agree with the statement that ?corruption is a significant problem in Washington.? An additional 24% ?somewhat agree? with the statement.

Yet 78% are still going to vote either Democrat, who campaigns on bigger government, or Republican who campaigns on smaller and hands you bigger. Net result, those 78% are helping us make the problem worse. :frown:

Both options will be crap once again, just like the last election.

 

[Lemon law]

Yet 78% are still going to vote either Democrat, who campaigns on bigger government, or Republican who campaigns on smaller and hands you bigger. Net result, those 78% are helping us make the problem worse.

Where or where did this democrats campaign on bigger government come from?

Democrats may be united in a belief that government is needed to prevent certain abuses and to raise public monies to do smart things---the counter idea is anarchy----our problem now is that we have a bigger and dumber government as a result of current republican rule---and what we need is smarter government. But our current republican government left over from the rubber stamp congress does nothing to validate or invalidate the past historical ideological split between dems and repubs---which really lies in the repubs being the party of business and the dems have always sought to use government to regulate the abuses of unfettered business interests---which is really a never ending battle----we see huge corruption result when the repubs get too strong---we get too many foolish government programs when the dems get too strong----and we need a more even keel.

As for Hillary-----on the vision thing----she voted for the war swept up on a tide of hysteria---and now lacks the courage or insight to admit she was wrong-----she flunked her vision test----she passed her pandering test--need I say any more.

But in a world of you vote for the lesser evil-----I have some confidence that the repubs can come up with someone even more repulsive and clueless than Hillary.---and their current crop is living proof.

Call it pessimism if you want----I am quite ready to be pleasantly surprised by either party---or even a third party.

 

[daniel49]

although obama is the MSM poster child, I think the democratic nod will go to the clinton machine in the end. And if Obama can still stomach Hillary by that time , may take the nod for vp on the ticket.

 

[crownjules]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Yet 78% are still going to vote either Democrat, who campaigns on bigger government, or Republican who campaigns on smaller and hands you bigger. Net result, those 78% are helping us make the problem worse. :frown:

What choice do they have when faced with a two party system? Sure, you can argue that there are other parties on the ballots to vote for, but the fact of the matter is that those parties aren't given the ability to compete at the same level as the Democratic and Republican nominees. They rarely get to attend the debates, aren't able to campaign as fiercly due to a misbalance of campaigning funds (which sort of ties in to corruption), etc.

What would help stabilize our current system would be the introduction of at least one more major party. But good luck getting the Democrats and Republicans to cede power to another party.

 

[Moonbeam]

None, I hope. Go Obama!

 

[Harvey]

What would be better than having a Nobel Peace Prize nominee as a candidate for President?

Having a Nobel Peace Prize laureate as President and an intelligent, articulate and generally appealing break through minority representive as Vice President.

GORE - OBAMA in 2008! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Harvey
GORE - OBAMA in 2008! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

I think I'm having a nightmare

I disagree completely with Obama on politics, but at least the guy has ran a clean campaign. That's the polar opposite of Clinton.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Harvey
GORE - OBAMA in 2008! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

I think I'm having a nightmare

[/quote]
That's an encouraging sign. :laugh:

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Harvey
What would be better than having a Nobel Peace Prize nominee as a candidate for President?

Having a Nobel Peace Prize laureate as President and an intelligent, articulate and generally appealing break through minority representive as Vice President.

GORE - OBAMA in 2008! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

GWB was nominated too, I don't think that really says much about their qualities as a Presidential candidate, I'm sure thats something that you and I can agree on. :laugh:

 

[theeedude]

I'll vote for her over any Republican.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: JD50
GWB was nominated too, I don't think that really says much about their qualities as a Presidential candidate, I'm sure thats something that you and I can agree on. :laugh:

Gore's been working continuously to raise American and world awareness of the immediatcy of the problem of global warming, and the "real" news about the problem, itself, has been kept his profile high and shining on the U.S. and world stage.

His candidacy for the Nobel Peace Prize is very real.

Gore wins praise from head of Nobel committee
Thu Mar 29, 2007 6:27PM EDT

By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent

OSLO (Reuters) - Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore won praise on Thursday from a man with the power to change lives -- the head of the Nobel Peace Prize committee -- after a speech urging more action to fight global warming.

"A very important message", Ole Danbolt Mjoes told Reuters after hearing Gore, a nominee for the prestigious award, say the planet was under threat from a build-up of greenhouse gases caused mainly by burning fossil fuels.

Mjoes, who joined in a minute-long standing ovation for Gore, said he was attending as a private citizen and not sizing up a candidate on behalf of the secretive five-member committee. He sat near the back in an audience of about 400.

Some experts tip Gore as among the favorites to win what many view as the world's top accolade. His successes this year include a double Oscar for his documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" about global warming.

"I have Gore as a clear favorite," said Stein Toennesson, head of the International Peace Research Institute in Oslo. "I think the committee will be unable to resist the temptation to add their voice" to concerns about global warming, he said.
.
.
(story continues)

I think that, along with his obvious experience, speaks well for his qualifications to be President.

OTOH, Bushwhacko's nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize was a joke from day one. The only constant image the world has of him is as a bumbling fool whose best trick is stepping on his own dick with whichever foot isn't in his mouth at the time. :thumbsdown: :frown: :thumbsdown:

 

[Moonbeam]

Lets not forget that Gore was already elected President.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: senseamp
I'll vote for her over any Republican.

She's not my first choice, but she would probably be better choice then whoever the GOP nominates this year.

I still think she would be a great addition to the Dem ticket as the VP canidate.

 

[tomywishbone]

bush won re-election, ergo; Hillary has a chance.

 

[Mxylplyx]

The biggest favor democrats could do for Republicans is to nominate Hillary in the primaries. I think the democratic insiders will make sure that doesnt happen, just like they did with Howard Dean.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Lets not forget that Gore was already elected President.

*sigh*

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Harvey
What would be better than having a Nobel Peace Prize nominee as a candidate for President?

Having a Nobel Peace Prize laureate as President and an intelligent, articulate and generally appealing break through minority representive as Vice President.

GORE - OBAMA in 2008! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

You forgot "clean!" :laugh:

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
WOW, even here supposedly base thinks she is corrupt! so perhaps this is why Obama is getting such a grand reception even though his qualifications are seriously lacking. They //democrat voters// want a Democrat President but don't trust Hillary to do it right.

what is more important than that are these two

More than three in four (78%) agree that bigger government leads to more corruption.

69% strongly agree with the statement that ?corruption is a significant problem in Washington.? An additional 24% ?somewhat agree? with the statement.


Yet what do we do about it? Nothing, the Federal Government runs roughshod over the 10th Amendment nearly every day and people seem to cheer it on.

It's a push poll by a very unreliable pollster (at least since he changed his methodology) for a partisan organization. To take anything from this other than that the far right is still obsessed with Bill Clinton is insane.

Milbank
Pollster.com

 

[Balt]

I think she stands a good chance of winning the Dem nomination. All she has to do is get women to vote for her and expect that the male candidates will split the rest of the votes.

I think she has a very poor chance of winning the general election. Conservative women (and there are plenty of them) will not vote for Hillary just because she is a woman. She doesn't bring any new demographic or state to the Democratic Party. The people who would be willing to vote for Hillary were already going to vote Democrat regardless. I honestly don't believe she will get much of the middle, even despite the horrendous performance of the current administration.

 

[Theb]

I'm sure Hillary will get the nomination. Her fundraising power is staggering and I think she'll run a nasty campaign. As much as people claim to hate attack ads they are extremely effective.

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: Theb
I'm sure Hillary will get the nomination. Her fundraising power is staggering and I think she'll run a nasty campaign. As much as people claim to hate attack ads they are extremely effective.

Her fundraising power isn't as staggering as everyone thought. She raised less than Obama and had to depend more on big money donors who are now maxed out for the primary season. The same thing happened to Edwards a few years ago where he had a huge first quarter number but couldn't match it later on because he didn't have enough small donors to go back to. Clinton could face that same problem this time.