Hillary Clinton set to announce presidential candidacy

User45701

http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/?jp=CWSNEYCWIDMH

Well it happened. kinda knew it would the question is how many women will vote for her just because she is a woman and how many people will NOT for for her because she is a woman.

A Female president would have absolutely no respect in any middle eastern country

mike65

Well thats not a reason to not vote for her (there are many others!).

I'm not suprised she's got an ego and proberly reckons she's the best chace the Democrats have got. What chance a Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama ticket? Or would that alienate everyone east of Death Valley and west of Philly!

Mike.

aidan_walsh

Hell, even the Democratic Primary will make for an interesting race this time around, between Hillary and Barack Obama.

JohnK

I'm surprised its taken her this long to announce; I had thought she would be the first. I've no doubt she will have a huge female turnout but that wont be enough to get her elected so her VP choice will be extremely important. To be honest I’ve been under the impression she’d go for Obama as I cant see America electing a black president but the two of them together would have a lot to stand on. Add to that the fact that any negative ad campaign against them could easily be spun as sexist/racist means it will be tough for anyone to badmouth them whereas they will not have such problems.

simu

User45701 wrote:

A Female president would have absolutely no respect in any middle eastern country

I don't think people of such a mindset have a whole lot of repect for Americans in general tbh so it matters not whether the President's a man or a woman.

Also, I don't think women will vote for her just because she's a woman because ideology tends to come before gender in deciding.

User45701

simu wrote:

I don't think people of such a mindset have a whole lot of repect for Americans in general tbh so it matters not whether the President's a man or a woman.

What i was refering to was if there where any negotiations or anything like that in the future they would have less respect dealing with a female

sceptre

User45701 wrote:

What i was refering to was if there where any negotiations or anything like that in the future they would have less respect dealing with a female

It's pretty rare for the president to get involved in direct negotiations with foreign governments so I doubt it would be much of a problem. If she's stuck she could bomb Cambodia or turn a populated desert somewhere into glass.

Kojak

aidan_walsh wrote:

Hell, even the Democratic Primary will make for an interesting race this time around, between Hillary and Barack Obama.

I tend to agree. The way the republicans are going - there seems to be alot of unpopular candidates putting their names forward - it would be hard to see another republican president in the whit house after Bush is finished. Guilani, IMO, would be thier best candiate (if Rice won't go forward) but he will probably loose as he is seen as "too liberal".

Obama is probably too young at the moment but that doesn't mean Clinton is a cert to get in either. if Al Gore was to let his name go forward he could very well win the Democrat nomination.

Judt

Problem for Clinton is that they figure something up to 1/3 of American voters wouldn't consider voting for her under any circumstances whatsoever. However American politics is very varied... anyone else find it strange that we all know more about it than Irish politics?

dave2pvd

Re Hillary and the female vote: She's not competing for all of the female vote, just 1/2 of it. The Blue half.

If she wins the Dem nomination, there will be a Republican president again. I vote Dem, but would never vote for Hillary. There are many Dems that wouldn't cast a vote for her.

If, by some remarkable turn around, she wins the presidency, she better have a majority in both houses or nothing will ever get done.

As for Obama, he's a great prospect, but far too young. Not a hope in he11, alas.

Edwards may float to the top. He can appeal to urban and rural voters. Just not sure about his appeal to black voters.

InFront

User45701 wrote:

A Female president would have absolutely no respect in any middle eastern country

Oh please, one Miss Fatima Jinnah in the 1964 presidential election in Pakistan, backed by Islamists? Ms. Benazir Bhutto's premiership of the same country in the 1980s and 90s accepted by the Islamist parties? Do you know who Begum Khalida Zia is? Or the Nobel prizing winning judge from Iran Shirin Ebadi?

The US really need to catch up. From an early age, I've been hoping they would follow the examples above and finally appoint a woman to their highest office. They don't seem to love our freedom. Welcome to the 21st century, America. I hope that you give her a chance.

dave2pvd

InFront wrote:

The US really need to catch up.

Huh? So when was Ireland's last female Taoiseach? I think the lack of female representation in high office is not just an American problem tbh.

ghostdancer

dave2pvd wrote:

Re Hillary and the female vote: She's not competing for all of the female vote, just 1/2 of it. The Blue half.

If she wins the Dem nomination, there will be a Republican president again. I vote Dem, but would never vote for Hillary. There are many Dems that wouldn't cast a vote for her.

If, by some remarkable turn around, she wins the presidency, she better have a majority in both houses or nothing will ever get done.

As for Obama, he's a great prospect, but far too young. Not a hope in he11, alas.

Edwards may float to the top. He can appeal to urban and rural voters. Just not sure about his appeal to black voters.

well said.
from what i can gather, there seems to be an awful lot of contempt, even within the Democrats, for Hilary Clinton. even people who loved Bill hate her.
Obama doesn't have nearly enough experience to run the country IMO.

Edwards seems to be much closer to a traditional and strong candidate for the party, and while not as high profile as the other 2, wouldn't seem to have as much opposition as they do.

interestingly, were Clinton to win, 2 families will have held the presidency for over 2 decades....

Manic Moran

I like Bill Richardson. I could certainly vote for him in the Primaries.

NTM

crybaby

I think theres a serious danger shes going to chew up Obamba and spit him out already rumours of mud slinging going on there and she has the money and connection to do it

The US really need to catch up. From an early age, I've been hoping they would follow the examples above and finally appoint a woman to their highest office. They don't seem to love our freedom. Welcome to the 21st century, America. I hope that you give her a chance.

should be more concerned with appointing the right person for the job forget about the gender of the person

can I ask you dave2pvd what is it about Hilary Clinton that turns off so many democrats?

jhegarty

Rudolf Giuliani will be next president if she get nominated. He is only Republican who can compely distance himself from the Bush adminstirion but still have the support of Bush followers.

brianthebard

dave2pvd wrote:

Re Hillary and the female vote: She's not competing for all of the female vote, just 1/2 of it. The Blue half.

If she wins the Dem nomination, there will be a Republican president again. I vote Dem, but would never vote for Hillary. There are many Dems that wouldn't cast a vote for her.

If, by some remarkable turn around, she wins the presidency, she better have a majority in both houses or nothing will ever get done.

As for Obama, he's a great prospect, but far too young. Not a hope in he11, alas.

Edwards may float to the top. He can appeal to urban and rural voters. Just not sure about his appeal to black voters.

Wouldn't have thought the black voters would be a swing category, I mean 13% of the American population is black, and an even smaller number would be represented at the voting booths. Also I thought the black population tended to vote democrat anyways, or at least the majority would?

InFront

I get the feeling that not just her candidacy but indeed her victory is completely inevitable because we've been hearing about it since before her husband's first term was even completed. That was over a decade ago.

When you analyze Clinton's political merits, it really isn't outstanding, and you realise that not only is the 'inevitable' label false, the entire victory isn't particularly likely. The only thing that seperates Clinton from other potential candidates in the popular media is hype. In real politics, she isn't tremendously superior. Her positions on social welfare, crime, and foreign policy, among other issues, are very middle of the road. She voted in favour of invading Iraq. She isn't an outstanding politcian, this is a gender issue.

I do think, however, that if she were to be next president of the USA, it would be generally a positive move. America needs to be seen to tone down its testosterone and start acting sensibly and with a bit of intelligence. A female president might be just the remedy for that.

walrusgumble

on a lighter note bill will get familair with the oval office for another 4 years if not 8 (16 years some time, so many happy lays, i mean times)

least this time he can relax,lie down and think of america.lol

maybe al gore might get the democrats nod with his recent new found concern for the environment and him being former vice prez. i here hillary is not overtly popular even within her party

dave2pvd

Re the black vote and Edwards: I was referring to the primaries. He may need the black vote to win the nomination. So in that respect, the black vote could be regarded as a swing vote. (Not that any demographic really votes totally en bloc at the national level...)

Hillary comes across as very opportunist. She jumps on bandwagons that move faster than anything even McCain could catch. Her social policies are far too left for me. She harvests the welfare classes' vote big time. She represents the left of the political spectrum within the democratic party. She lacks conciliatory skills. Although there hasn't been much middle ground to work towards in Washington these days! The single thing I do like about her 'manifesto' is free healthcare for all.

Keep in mind, anyone living on the Atlantic's right coast sees a very different perspective to what us left coasters see. You get your info looking thru a different lens. What I mean by that is that Hillary would be painted in a very different light in The Irish Times than she would be in a US newspaper.

The more I think about Obama, the more I think how daft his candidacy is. Is he in there just to be Hillary fodder? Then again, this is the country that has voted some fairly unlikely leaders in the past, so anything is possible. Jesse Ventura anyone?.....jebus I just need to move to Canada.

There is a great chance the Dems are going to screw up again and forward a weak candidate, just like Gore and Kerry were. Kerry was a huge disappointment to me. It's a shame that the party can't be a more cohesive unit and figure out a presidential strategy that gets beyond the primaries. I suppose to have a good plan, you'd need to be a united party first of all. That, they ain't.

jank

she lacks conciliatory skills.

Not at all. Many a republican in washington have been surprised on how easy she is to work with. This is common knowlege in DC

Its going to be very interesting.
I hope there will be a clinton/barack ticket. It looks a formidable team IMO.

RedPlanet

she won't win.

- she's already a hate figure for the repukes, they'll just dust off the old sound bites and fling them around again.
- she's a "(D) Senator from NY", and dems from the East do not win the presidency.

sceptre

RedPlanet wrote:

- she's a "(D) Senator from NY", and dems from the East do not win the presidency.

Kennedy, Roosevelt, Wilson and Cleveland come to mind instantly as democrats from the east that have. If I went through the list of nominees I suspect I could find a few more. Obviously I'm not including Georgia as "east" and I could add on Van Buren but going back to 1840 might be pushing it.

Gonzo_Reporter

I just want point out first that im a sceptic and i dont care much for the Republician way of doing things.
With that said there are some things that should be pointed out.

Obama lacks experience with foreign policy or has barely any political experience at all.7 years in the Illinois state Senate and nearly 2 as U.S Senate. However he was not in the Senate when it voted for/against the war, all those years ago, which may help him side step some tough questions.
Some see him as a new Bill Clinton because of his natural flare for politics and his gift of the gab.
On a kind of unforunate side note his middle name Hussein. He smokes, many Americans see this as a sign of weakness.

I doubt Obama will get many more 'Black' vote probably as many as Hillary will gain because she is a women.

Clinton does lack warmth and voted for the the war yet has a lot of experience in everything. She also has a political machine that has won two elections (Bill's terms) and the recent Mid Terms the recent.

As the most recent issue of the Economist says "Mr Obama is now standing in one of the most dangerous places on Earth- the road between Mrs Clinton and the White House".

John Edwards is now a veteran of the Presidential process. He too has more experience than Obama. He has spent the last 5 years profecting his image and his message. He voted against the war.

In my opinion America will eventually see that they need a President that has experience and will take them through the troublesom period they have home and abroad, who ever that maybe.
In a even world Democrats could runaway with it if one was to go on the new Red V Blue map of the states.
2004:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2004_US_elections_map_electoral_votes.png
2006 midterms (I cant find a map) BUT:
Nothern states turnned blue while middle America now voted both Dems and Reps. Even Florida has now two colours or colors.

Fact: African/ Native Americans, when they vote, vote Democratic. Both parties know this, yet it is the Republicians that actually do something about it. They made caging lists (lists of people, mainly Black or poor people, that they will try to stop voting) in 2004, which was illegal. And we all know about 2002. Polling stations in disavanaged/democratic areas either dont work because they are too old or are spaced to far apart for people to be bothered to vote. FACT.
http://www.gregpalast.com/

The Republicians could easily pull the wool over the citzens of America for the third time in a row in 2008.
This is why I said i was a sceptic!!!

Manic Moran

dave2pvd wrote:

Then again, this is the country that has voted some fairly unlikely leaders in the past, so anything is possible. Jesse Ventura anyone?.....jebus I just need to move to Canada.

What was wrong with him? My understanding is that the good denizens of the Great State of Minnesota rather liked him. Similarly, Arnold is probably the best thing to happen to California politics in years.

Richardson/McCain would be a fascinating race, if for no other reason that for the first time in memory the NRA would be throwing its not inconsiderable weight behind the Democrat.

NTM

metrovelvet

With Slick Willy back in the White House I,m sure the hiring of female staff will be kept to a minimum, which really only sets back the progress of women in the end, and no doubt the US cant afford the sexual harrassment suits this unlected power would bring with it should there be any women working there.

I hope she wins the primary, if only for the infinite entertainment value it will provide, and Im sure the republicans are praying for her victory, as its the best thing that could happen for them.

Terry

sceptre wrote:

Kennedy, Roosevelt, Wilson and Cleveland come to mind instantly as democrats from the east that have. If I went through the list of nominees I suspect I could find a few more. Obviously I'm not including Georgia as "east" and I could add on Van Buren but going back to 1840 might be pushing it.

also Robert Kennedy, had he not been assassinated, would most likely have been elected.
And Ted, had he not been caught screwing around.

sovtek

Gonzo_Reporter wrote:

Obama lacks experience with foreign policy or has barely any political experience at all.

This is not altogether a bad thing. Neither did Bill when he got in. Obama is an opportunist and has no integrity. He's also not going to end the Iraq war and possibly supports attacking Iran, along with Hillary.
This is why the Democrats may loose in 2008. When the Democrat congress was voted in it was largely because of the Iraq war. If they don't listen to the people that voted for them then they will loose! There only saving grace might be that the Rethugs **** up things worse in the the next two years.

RedPlanet

sceptre wrote:

Kennedy, Roosevelt, Wilson and Cleveland come to mind instantly as democrats from the east that have. If I went through the list of nominees I suspect I could find a few more. Obviously I'm not including Georgia as "east" and I could add on Van Buren but going back to 1840 might be pushing it.

Naw, the political landscape of America has forever changed after the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Before then even states like Texas would vote for the Democrats.
Since then, the only Democrats that can win the presidency are Southern Dems.

Gonzo_Reporter

sovtek wrote:

This is not altogether a bad thing. Neither did Bill when he got in. Obama is an opportunist and has no integrity. He's also not going to end the Iraq war and possibly supports attacking Iran, along with Hillary.
This is why the Democrats may loose in 2008. When the Democrat congress was voted in it was largely because of the Iraq war. If they don't listen to the people that voted for them then they will loose! There only saving grace might be that the Rethugs **** up things worse in the the next two years.

I can see that Obama not have much experience could be seen as a positive and i did say that him and Bill are quite alike. Im just saying that Americans mat actually choose a Leader how knows what they are doing rather than one that can just sweet talk you. Americans arent stupid as we whould like to think thay are just spoon fed wrong/biased information (or no information at all!) by their Govt. and their 'free' press.

As for Iran it is a potential timebomb but thankfully their President is losing support from his parties allies and citizens so he will probably be out by the next election (which are coming soon i think). He may just tone down his Anti West remarks. But their nuclear programme is definately a problem a new President will have to deal with.

Iraq might well be what 2008 is fought on too the Republicians have a lot to do in that regard. Their candidates will have to be 1st bipartisan and 2nd have to step away from the current President which few republicans like doing. But there are a few of these men that are but they will have to kiss a lot of babies. Or just hire Carl Rove.

jank

Like in the mid term elections I think the Republicans will find it hard to win.