Is Hillary Clinton a closet Republican?

Mr.Micro

Hillary Clinton is looking for the republican vote as far as I can see . She looks like a woman and talks like a man .She appears to be all gung ho when it comes to dealing with foes of the US ,its like listening to Bush .She voted for the Iraq invasion .If she gets elected as Democratic candidate for the US presidency we will have 2 Republican candidates one called Hillary.

mike65

Well of cousre she is looking for the Republican vote she won't get every democrat cos they're crazy buggers who might vote for a flake like Perot or a green. She needs raw-meat eaters too.

Mike.

Mr.Micro

mike65 wrote: »

Well of cousre she is looking for the Republican vote she won't get every democrat cos they're crazy buggers who might vote for a flake like Perot or a green. She needs raw-meat eaters too.

Mike.

Well the way she is going she will appeal to their "little ole hearts" . get the bible out next and she is home free .darn it.

mike65

Every would-be US president has to invoke God at regular intervals.

Mike.

Mr.Micro

Yes the one and only American God .I am not sure she is right for the US but hell she has to be better than Dubba .She comes across as shallow and fickle.

purple'n'gold

(If she gets the nomination) she will of course look for the republican vote, the democrat vote and every other sort of vote she can get.

Sleepy

Well, her husband was the one to declare the era of big government was over so you could hardly consider him to have been out on the left-most wings of the Democratic Party either...

Mr.Micro

Will she alienate Democrats with her Republican overtones as she has yet to be nominated as the Presidential candidate .She reminds me of Blair, leader of a socialist party but somewhere to the right of Thatcher .The Party is just a vehicle.

sovtek

Hillary is the worst candidate the DNC could ever have decided to field. She is well hated in America and is an obvious corporate shill. I think it's sad that people over here seem to think that somehow life will be ok as long as a Demo gets back in the White House.

Mr.Micro

sovtek wrote: »

Hillary is the worst candidate the DNC could ever have decided to field. She is well hated in America and is an obvious corporate shill. I think it's sad that people over here seem to think that somehow life will be ok as long as a Demo gets back in the White House.

I agree with you that she is not a good candidate .There was much damage and corporate corruption under Clinton but the perception ,(wrong in my opinion) that a Democrat is less likely to be a warmonger or extreme .

Tricity Bendix

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Will she alienate Democrats with her Republican overtones as she has yet to be nominated as the Presidential candidate .She reminds me of Blair, leader of a socialist party but somewhere to the right of Thatcher .The Party is just a vehicle.

*splutters*

The Democrats? A socialist party? What planet are you from? Just because the Democrats are to the left of the Republicans on some issues does NOT mean they are socialists. Hillary and pretty much every other Democrat would still be to the right of Europe's centre-right parties.



Oh, and no, she is not a closet Republican. Rebublicans hate Clinton.

Yes, she voted for the war. But so did pretty much everybody else. We were all duped by WMDs. Politicians obviously weren't immune.

Yes, she doesn't want an immediate withdrawl. But she does want to see a timely withdrawl.

And yes, she has a very strong faith.

Mr.Micro

b.ie polar wrote: »

*splutters


Oh, and no, she is not a closet Republican. Rebublicans hate Clinton.

Yes, she voted for the war. But so did pretty much everybody else. We were all duped by WMDs. Politicians obviously weren't immune.Quote



Keep your hair on. You miss my point completely. She is on the Democratic ticket but Republican values.Faith really, in what?

sovtek

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I agree with you that she is not a good candidate .There was much damage and corporate corruption under Clinton but the perception ,(wrong in my opinion) that a Democrat is less likely to be a warmonger or extreme .

Hillary, Obama both have not ever promised to end the war in Iraq and are actually not even refusing to back a war against Iran. The only difference in the mainstream Democratic candidates is that they will be somewhat more competent warmongers. I think that's even more dangerous.

sovtek

Mr.Micro wrote: »

b.ie polar wrote: »

*splutters


Oh, and no, she is not a closet Republican. Rebublicans hate Clinton.

She is trying to placate the redneck rubes in this instant. It's a tactic that always fails though. They are never going to accept her and she will loose any appearance of credibility.

Yes, she voted for the war. But so did pretty much everybody else. We were all duped by WMDs. Politicians obviously weren't immune.Quote

If the average European knew that there were no WMD's then how come Hillary and Kerry didn't seem to know either. It's a dubious excuse for being ignorant. Kerry was head of a Senate committee that had access to classified information re Iraq. He very well should have known better.

Mr.Micro

sovtek wrote: »

Hillary, Obama both have not ever promised to end the war in Iraq and are actually not even refusing to back a war against Iran. The only difference in the mainstream Democratic candidates is that they will be somewhat more competent warmongers. I think that's even more dangerous.

No they wont rule out war in Iran or Iraq as they saw how it helped Bush enormously in the last election .Nothing better than patriotism to get the Americans going.

flogen

sovtek wrote: »

Hillary is the worst candidate the DNC could ever have decided to field. She is well hated in America and is an obvious corporate shill. I think it's sad that people over here seem to think that somehow life will be ok as long as a Demo gets back in the White House.

Eh... the DNC haven't decided to field her - she decided to run for their nomination.

She actually isn't as hated in America as I thought she was before - just look at the polls. If she gets the Dem nomination I think she has a very good chance of winning it and she's courting the Republican voter so much she obviously thinks she has the Dem vote already wrapped up.

I'll be interesting to see what actually happens as the odds are that one of the two favourites (her and Guliani) will get knocked back at some point in some way - indeed Guiliani's former stance on gun control and abortion will probably come back to bite him in the ass if he gets the Rep nomination and his constant evoking of 11th September will wear thin by election time - it is ages away after all.

By the way, the only candidate that I don't think could be described as a corporate shill is Ron Paul and he has about as much chance of election as I do.

Tricity Bendix

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Keep your hair on. You miss my point completely. She is on the Democratic ticket but Republican values.Faith really, in what?

Faith in God. She often references her faith in speeches.

Could you explain to me how she has Republican values?

sovtek wrote:

She is trying to placate the redneck rubes in this instant. It's a tactic that always fails though. They are never going to accept her and she will loose any appearance of credibility.

In what instant? In not pulling out of Iraq immediately? I think that would put her in line with main-stream American thinking. For not saying she won't invade Iran? Why would any candidate restrict themselves like that? There could be any number of events that could lead to an invasion of Iran being entirely justified. It would be madness to say there is no way its going to happen over the four years she will be in power.

If the average European knew that there were no WMD's then how come Hillary and Kerry didn't seem to know either. It's a dubious excuse for being ignorant. Kerry was head of a Senate committee that had access to classified information re Iraq. He very well should have known better.

Did the average European know that? I certainly didn't! I can tell you that pretty much every intelligence agency and government in Europe thought Iraq had WMDs. The argument at the time was that having these weapons was not enough in and of itself to warrant going to war.

Mr.Micro

She ,as you would expect ,is getting huge support from women, which might account for her campaign success so far .

sovtek

flogen wrote: »

Eh... the DNC haven't decided to field her - she decided to run for their nomination.

The DNC very much decide who is and is not a candidate. Look what they do to people like Kucinich.

By the way, the only candidate that I don't think could be described as a corporate shill is Ron Paul and he has about as much chance of election as I do.

Kucinich isn't! According to the media maybe, Ron doesn't have a chance. However his integrity and consistancy is a matter of record. I saw him on a late night talk show recently (forget which one) where his antiwar stance got huge applause. I may actually vote for him if Nader doesn't run again.

Mr.Micro

In reply to B.IE.POLAR her whole rhetoric and stance comes across as Republican and what they stand for. SHE IS PRO WAR IT APPEARS.She is saying what the republicans want to hear as she knows the Democrats would never vote Republican

Hans Blix said there was no WMD to the whole world . We all saw it on TV , the papers . Only Bush and Blair and allies did not ,including the likes of Hillary . If Saddam had WMD do you not think he would have used them in the invasion ,was that not a clue?

moe_sizlak

on many issues there is not really that much difference between republicans and democrats , untill the year 2000 , that was

this republican administration has taken a large step to the right and as a result the democrats by american standards appear left wing to the american people , this is ludicrious of course as the democrats as someone already said would be to the right of centre right partys in europe
very few democrats will come out completeley in favour of universal health care for instance , something that the conservative party in the uk take as a given , americans are fine with a trillion dollars being spent on wars in iraq and afghanistan but the rapture would surely return if a fifth of that money were to be spent on health care for all , americans and as anyone who watches fox news can concur, especially republicans have a very peculiar notion of what values are

i think hillary will definatley get the nomination but if rudi guilianni gets the republican nomination , i think he could beat her , he wont have the all important christian right vote as hes an italian american catholic but he will have the vote of big business and hes as hawkish as bush is so he is assured of the security moms vote
fox news have already chosen ruddi as there canditate so he has many things going for him ,

forkassed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xeu1FLulWCo

Mr.Micro

forkassed wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xeu1FLulWCo

Saw that .I rest my case.

Dr_Teeth

Republican/Democrat distinctions seem pretty vague to me these days.. most of the candidates on both sides are Corporatists first and foremost. They differ only in which particular special interest groups they want to shovel the taxpayer's money into.

sovtek

b.ie polar wrote: »

In what instant? In not pulling out of Iraq immediately? I think that would put her in line with main-stream American thinking.

The majority of Americans want out of Iraq.

For not saying she won't invade Iran? Why would any candidate restrict themselves like that? There could be any number of events that could lead to an invasion of Iran being entirely justified. It would be madness to say there is no way its going to happen over the four years she will be in power.

Actually it's madness to even contemplate war with Iran considering the Iranians haven't attacked anyone in hundreds of years.

Did the average European know that? I certainly didn't! I can tell you that pretty much every intelligence agency and government in Europe thought Iraq had WMDs.

That isn't the average European though.

moe_sizlak

most goverments believed sadamm had WMD,s , the thing is , apart from the usa and the uk , they wanted to let hans blix continue his work in finding them