Hillary Clinton set to announce presidential candidacy

Unpossible

RedPlanet wrote:

Naw, the political landscape of America has forever changed after the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Could you explain?

I'm asking out of ignorance, not trying to be funny.

sceptre

Unpossible wrote:

Could you explain?

I'm asking out of ignorance, not trying to be funny.

Put simply, pretty much all the former confederate states had voted Democrat in every election since 1876 but never voted for the Democrats in any election after 1964 except when Carter won in 1976. Before 1964, memories were still strong that it was a Republican president that beat them in the civil war and freed the slaves. After then they punished what they saw as the greater crime of taking steps to attempt to actually ensure that all citizens were equal before the law. No Democrat from outside the southern states has won an election since (Clinton's home state of Kentucky wasn't part of the confederacy but would generally be taken to be part of the group of southern states). George Wallace, running as an independent, even took five and a bit states in the 1968 election because of people who had always voted Democrat, didn't want to vote for Johnson's VP, Hubert Humphrey, and couldn't bring themselves to vote for Nixon.

Personally I wouldn't agree with the view a dem can't win the presidency without the deep south (and hence wouldn't agree with the view that only a southern dem can win), it's just been a little more difficult recently. After all, the Republicans won plenty of elections between 1876 and 1956 despite getting hammered in the former confederate states every time.

Victor

jhegarty wrote:

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.

Giuliani doesn't have the state / national / military experience every other president has had.

crybaby wrote:

I think theres a serious danger shes going to chew up Obamba and spit him out already rumours of mud slinging ....

"Mud"?... ah you've started it yourself.

User45701 wrote:

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

Ehem.

purple'n'gold

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

The only Middle Eastern country that has any respect for George Bush is Israel. Some of the other countries out there fear him but they don’t respect him. Actually I don’t think she will be president. The republicans will dig up sp much dirt on her it will bury her chances.

Unpossible

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

I remember a few months back some of these countries claimed we (the west) were not truly tolerent, this would fire the ball back in their court.

jhegarty

Victor wrote:

Giuliani doesn't have the state / national / military experience every other president has had

In this race (the made up one in my head) you could say no other president was a woman...

storka

purplengold wrote:

The only Middle Eastern country that has any respect for George Bush is Israel. Some of the other countries out there fear him but they don’t respect him.

If anything i'd say the Middle East is praying she doesn't win because unlike dumbass Bush she wont just walk away and not deal witht them she'll be much tougher.

purplengold wrote:

Actually I don’t think she will be president. The republicans will dig up sp much dirt on her it will bury her chances.

If anything this is an advantage to her because they have already dug up everything they can, including making up lie afer lie to crush her and Bill. She's a pro at dealing with the Anti-Hillary Campaign where as Obama has never had it and will fade with it.

Guys its Hillary 08 for the dem nomination, look at the latest poles beating nearest rival by over 20%!

MorriganGael

Ireland has had lots of Irish Women War Queens, Maeve for one.

If Hillary Clinton gives 5 billion USD to our Ireland a year, instead of to Israel, then she's okay with me.

If Hillary Clinton gives Ireland F-16 jet fighters and helicopter gunships and money to buy German destroyers and submarines and a few nuclear cruise missiles, then I vote for Hillary.

If Hillary diverts all the Billions of dollars now going to Israel and sends them to Ireland, telling Israel they must accept all the Lebanese and Syrian immigrants and multiculturalize that apartheid in Israel, or no more US democracy money.

Israel needs to open up her borders to the Syrians and Egyptians in order to qualify for any more US funding. Israel is a racist apartheid state, Ireland is not.

Hillary should put Ireland ahead of Israel on the F-16 fighter jets aid subject.

Does Israel ever figure out that if they opened their borders and had a loving multicultural state, that they would even need the F-16 fighter jets?

U2 needs to make a concert for Palestine, like George Harrison's "Concert for Bangaldesh."

Hillary has to get wiser to international politics before the Americans should vote for her.

User45701

i don't like the idea of us getting weapons the way you said.everyone will know!
i mean if the us gives us weapons the whole world will know like the way we know they give Israel weapons but as it is now noone knows about all the secret underground and underwater WMD faculties Ireland has. When we finally finish building our naval armada and court massive air force in secret Ireland will finally be able to take over the world...

Well anyway on a different note would Hillery not have a interest in the north? Clinton did and i think she did/does as well.
The question is would us intervention be good or bad then things start to heat up up the north?

MorriganGael

Bill Clinton, her former husband, and president, was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University, England. Thus Bill Clinton had English and Loyalist sentiments.

User45701 wrote:

Well anyway on a different note would Hillery not have a interest in the north? Clinton did and i think she did/does as well.
The question is would us intervention be good or bad then things start to heat up up the north?

Hillary had a very bad last few years of marriage with Bill Clinton. Furthermore she has no long standing ties to England.

There is no evidence that Hillary is more fond of Northern Ireland than the Republic of Ireland. In fact because of her acrimonious relationship with Bill, she would very likely be even pro-Republic, but her advisors would be telling her what to do in any event.

purple'n'gold

I read on a yahoo news report that Hilary is being compared to Mrs Thatcher. Seeing how that horrible excuse for a human being is so reviled by Irish people everywhere, she (Hilary) would be advised to shy away from comparisons to her. She cleaned up the Irish vote in New York in both of her senate elections. She will want to keep it that way.

sceptre

MorriganGael wrote:

Bill Clinton, her former husband, and president, was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University, England. Thus Bill Clinton had English and Loyalist sentiments.

Er, please let me be the first to say you're taking the piss. Even assuming you're not trolling, which frankly you are, that would mean that others with "English and Loyalist sentiments" include Boisfeuillet Jones, Bill Fletcher, Terry Malick, Gen . Wes Clark, Lester Thurow, Kris Kristofferson (no, I'm not kidding), Joe Nye, Edward de Bono, John Searle, Robert van de Graaff (obviously now dead), Bill Bradley and Stansfield Turner. Which is rather laughable.

MorriganGael

I recall reading something, a statement, Bill Clinton once made about Northern Ireland, it was pretty mild and it looked he was being pushed a bit to comment on the issue.

We also have to remember that not every Rhodes Scholar goes into politics, or cares about politics, as Bill Clinton did.

I should clarify that the Bill Clinton "sentiments" that I had read of were mild and probably some political favor. I don't think Bill Clinton had any very strong sentiments regarding Ireland. I'm sure Kennedy did.

One thing about Bill and Hillary is they are tenacious survivors, and while they may hold popular, common, democratic and not elitist political ideals, their will to survive in US politics has caused both of them to form some very unusual alliances. They are a force and unpredictable.


I do see Hillary reacting to some of her husbands policies, as Hillary did change over time, though they both did share a common political life in their beliefs. One of the reasons Hillary and Bill bonded together early on were shared political beliefs and that people should take notes on.

Most likely Hillary will concede to a Vice President position after a very tough campaign. That alone will achieve what she wants to.

kevmy

I reckon that Hilary will win the Primary pretty easily. Obama doesn't really expect to win it I'd say. She's in it to win he's not. He'll settle for a VP slot with Hilary. His anti-war stance, leftist image and common touch will soften Hillarys cold image (along with Bill of course).
Edwards couldn't beat Kerry, he won't beat Hillary anyway he looks to sleazy to win a national election.

As for the race for the White House the above ticket might pull it off. They should win Illionois, California and New York. Three huge states, add in most of New England probably Kentucky and Arkansas as well and they'd nearly be there before any work is done.Also don't underestimate the Bill factor, if he can bring in some of his swing voters with Hillary they'll win it. While a lot of people don't like Hillary most of them wouldn't vote for the Dems anyway.

Her gender will bring in as much as it will lose so she'll be ok in that respect. As for the Middle East not respecting a woman then why make Condi Secetary of State.

RedPlanet

You usually get these unheard-of candidates winning Primaries.
Like Clinton, govenor of Missouri, nobody had heard of him until the primaries.
Same with John Kerry last time.
Id say it'll be the same round, these big named canidates like Hillary may take an early thumping then pull out.
My only hope is that she doesn't spoil the pot, for the rest of the dems.

oscarBravo

Conspiracy stuff moved to here.

User45701

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070128/ap_on_el_pr/clinton2008_13

She now says its bush's responsibility to withdraw all us troops before he leaves office and passes his problems to the next commander and chief

purple'n'gold

Her gender will bring in as much as it will lose so she'll be ok in that respect. As for the Middle East not respecting a woman then why make Condi Secetary of State.

She is just a token black in Bush’s administration. Albeit intelligent and clever, but any one of hundreds would do her job as well as she does it. It really makes no difference that she is a woman (to the Middle Eastern leaders) they know that she has no real authority. That lies firmly with the president.

MorriganGael

oscarBravo wrote:

Conspiracy stuff moved to here.

Sorry, yes we should try to stick to political facts.

She did look worried to me in that American satellite broadcast. It could have been just that she's always been a single subject press conference shooter, that is prepared for handling a certain issue a certain way, and when faced with the reality of 40 major news agencies with prepared questions which are worded to represent vested, monied, interests, that she looked a bit out of her depth.

To win the American people she will have to talk troop withdrawl, to win the rich bankers who want cheaper oil for industry, she will have to be pro-war behind the scenes.

Her ability to play both games and smile convincingly in the TV cameras while doing that, will determine if the poor and the rich will both support her.