Can She Win?

Quote:

---

CNN/WASHINGTON, With Al Gore now out of the race, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton would be the top choice of Democrats for the 2004 presidential nomination if she chooses to run, according to a new CNN/Time magazine poll.

---

___________________________________________________________________________

I think Hiliary should really consider running, she is a good lady, and i am dying to see the day America will have a women President. I think she will have a chance if not win the election if she is to run. What do you guys think?

It would definitely be a change in the Election and would be interesting to see her views on the World's Issue's, how she would handle them, her plans for the country, etc etc. I'm not to sure on counting on her to be president, based on alot of talks I've seen her on and alot of the views she takes on. Now, many would say that she'd be a Clinton re-run, but I don't find that to be true. She has expressed (on CNN I believe) that she has alot of different views than he Husband, however, she will share a democratic approach to today's World News. Are we ready for a democrat? I'll let you decide.

My personal opinion: It would be nice to have someone other than Bush, and I'd love to hear her views, but I share republican-type views about many things, and I'm not sure if we're ready for that. I do want someone different in office however, that I won't deny.

EDIT: Haha, I also was reading awhile ago that Al Sharpton want's to run for the Presidential office in 2004. Wouldn't that be something? There's someone who's views are screwed up IMO. Only view I agreed with was his approach to the Iraq situation with him saying, " We shouldn't always use violence with every world issue, talking it out like true human beings can sometimes solve problems, and save lives". I probably couldn't have said it better....

For the whole article (of what ebo posted) go here

I think women should have all the "rights" in the world to run for president of the United States if they so choose. However, I would be less than excited if one was elected president....too many hormones. ;-)

The thoughts and opinions here DO necessarily represent the thoughts and opinions of mathgirl32.

Spyder, I have to disagree we are ready for a democrat. Bush has done a great job in many things, but he is a war thirsting guy that had all the power he needs handed to him. We need to look into America a little. What about our economy? Will we gain or will we loose from this war? Maybe your life style makes you share the same views as the republicans, but not everybody lives that life. I am talking about the life of the average people, the life of the poor people, the life of those who can not afford to have their tax raised because we are in a war. What about their views? We do not need Bush in office, neither do we need another Republican in office. I am sorry if there are people here who are for the Republicans, but i have to share and let people know about the voews of the average and the poor. -Ebo

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by ebo
Spyder, I have to disagree we are ready for a democrat. Bush has done a great job in many things, but he is a war thirsting guy that had all the power he needs handed to him. We need to look into America a little. What about our economy? Will we gain or will we loose from this war? Maybe your life style makes you share the same views as the republicans, but not everybody lives that life. I am talking about the life of the average people, the life of the poor people, the life of those who can not afford to have their tax raised because we are in a war. What about their views? We do not need Bush in office, neither do we need another Republican in office. I am sorry if there are people here who are for the Republicans, but i have to share and let people know about the voews of the average and the poor. -Ebo

---

Quote:

---

Bush has done a great job in many things, but he is a war thirsting guy that had all the power he needs handed to him

---

Hrm, I think I've made myself live on alot of the threads and I agree, we don't need Bush in office (see my above post). I think we need another Republican, maybe Democrat, but definitely not Bush. The war is something out of the spite and hatred for Saddam Hussein (and oil) from Bush. Nothing more than that, really. That isn't a republican thing, it's a Bush problem that his father had. He wants to finish the job his father started.

Quote:

---

I am talking about the life of the average people, the life of the poor people, the life of those who can not afford to have their tax raised because we are in a war.

---

It's odd though, because last I checked (when Bush got into office) he made a HUGE tax-cut. Most republicans are pro-tax-cuts, and most democrat's are against it. Many say Bush has helped the decline of the economy and the U.S's financial state. However, look what we had before it, we had Clinton. We had people spending tax-payers money on useless trials for something that shouldn't have been made public and/or was a personal problem which eventually affected the nation (a little) and his reputation (a lot).

Quote:

---

We do not need Bush in office, neither do we need another Republican in office. I am sorry if there are people here who are for the Republicans, but i have to share and let people know about the voews of the average and the poor.

---

Again, this isn't a republican thing, this is a Bush thing. I'm sure the poor supported when almost ever Republican president in office made a tax-cut, no? I think I speak for almost every lifestyle of America when I say that people like Tax-cuts no matter what social/economic class they are in. Now, when Bush got in the Presidency, his first goal wasn't to oust Saddam and create a war (although he wanted it, it wasn't a goal or something on the to-do list). 9/11 roll's by, and (IMO) Bush see's it as a chance to establish the foreign policy that America has always wanted to do since the 90's (quote from Negative, which is pretty much true). So, like I said, it's not a Republican thing, it's a problem Bush has.

Quote:

---

It's odd though, because last I checked (when Bush got into office) he made a HUGE tax-cut.

---

Yes, he did make tax-cuts and that was unexpected. You say that Bush has a problem, why didn't the Republicans see this problem before they supported him to run for presidency? He is like any other republican, they are all about money. What good is a tax-cut if you are out there wanting to fight. If this was starts, do you think he is going to be sending in robots to fight it? No, people will be drafted, and people will loose their life just because Bush has a problem, or he wants to finish what his father started? Any parent out there rich, average, or poor will tell you that they will rather not have their sons darfted for this war, than have a tax cut. The point I am trying to come across with here, is that what good is cutting tax if you want to start a war for your own personal reasons, and get more innocent Americans killed? We have lost enough, and people are still mourning for the past event. Lets not go out ther and have our bloods spilled, if there is really not a reason for it. A republican is a republican, even if Bush leaves office, the next republican president will be the same.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by ebo


Yes, he did make tax-cuts and that was unexpected. You say that Bush has a problem, why didn't the Republicans see this problem before they supported him to run for presidency? He is like any other republican, they are all about money. What good is a tax-cut if you are out there wanting to fight. If this was starts, do you think he is going to be sending in robots to fight it? No, people will be drafted, and people will loose their life just because Bush has a problem, or he wants to finish what his father started? Any parent out there rich, average, or poor will tell you that they will rather not have their sons darfted for this war, than have a tax cut. The point I am trying to come across with here, is that what good is cutting tax if you want to start a war for your own personal reasons, and get more innocent Americans killed? We have lost enough, and people are still mourning for the past event. Lets not go out ther and have our bloods spilled, if there is really not a reason for it. A republican is a republican, even if Bush leaves office, the next republican president will be the same.

---

Quote:

---

Yes, he did make tax-cuts and that was unexpected. You say that Bush has a problem, why didn't the Republicans see this problem before they supported him to run for presidency?

---

The main reason he has a problem with Saddam is because of 9/11. 9/11 gave him a reason to start a war and establish the foreign policy he's wanted to (as well as most American Conservatives) for awhile (again, going back to Negative's post, which I agree on). When they nominated him, they did it because, he announced his plans for the country. So, obviously they liked his plans (I guess the tax-cut thing answered your question, eh?). Why they didn't see it is because no one knew that the reason Bush wanted a war or saw a reason for war (9/11) was going to happen.

Quote:

---

He is like any other republican, they are all about money. What good is a tax-cut if you are out there wanting to fight.

---

Umm, last I checked, the "American Dream" or dream of most people is to make money and become successful. I'm also pretty sure that Bush made the Tax-Cut before ever planning to go to war with Iraq.

Quote:

---

The point I am trying to come across with here, is that what good is cutting tax if you want to start a war for your own personal reasons, and get more innocent Americans killed? We have lost enough, and people are still mourning for the past event. Lets not go out ther and have our bloods spilled, if there is really not a reason for it.

---

I can agree with that one.

Quote:

---

A republican is a republican, even if Bush leaves office, the next republican president will be the same.

---

This one doesn't make sense however. The next republican president (or next President) will always have different views than Bush, even if it was his Son or something. No two people think exactly alike (well, maybe). Like I've said, this thing isn't a Republicans shouldn't be president, they'll be a Bush thing. It's a Bush-wants-a-war-and-only-him thing. Republicans might share similiar views, but they don't share the reasons he has, no one really does.

EDIT: This is going way to off-topic, and I don't want that to happen.

Quote:

---

Umm, last I checked, the "American Dream" or dream of most people is to make money and become successful.

---

This i have to agree to, that is one major thing that the GOP do that i realli support. Many people think that taking from the rich is the way to go, but its not. As you can see, not taking from the rich makes us more successful. If somebody is wealthy, he opens up a lot of job opportunity for many people. He will need people to do his lawn and take care of his yard, cook his food, and clean the house. That right there already creates job for many people, so i really support this. All i am trying to say here is that many people think that this country was a little bit smoother when we had a democrat in office. Even though the 9/11 roared up a lot of things, we still had a very smooth country when Clinton was in office. This brings me across the main point of this thread. We need to put another Clinton (if she choose to run) in office. She is and has done a great job in New York, and i think we will have a better country if we get the democrats, and Hiliar in office. Thank you for your time, and hearing the few things i had to say about this thread. -Ebo

well hilary would indeed stand a chance in the democrats hand. however, the republicans/3rd party voters wouldnt go for her mainly because of her lack of military experience. the conversatives in particular tend to vote towards that. now her husband, our last president, was a draft dodger, and won mainly from the democrats and a few liberal republicans. i personally wouldnt want her as a president. i dont agree with her choices. she is a good senator, but there is a very large difference between that and the bloody president.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by ebo


This i have to agree to, that is one major thing that the GOP do that i realli support. Many people think that taking from the rich is the way to go, but its not. As you can see, not taking from the rich makes us more successful. If somebody is wealthy, he opens up a lot of job opportunity for many people. He will need people to do his lawn and take care of his yard, cook his food, and clean the house. That right there already creates job for many people, so i really support this. All i am trying to say here is that many people think that this country was a little bit smoother when we had a democrat in office. Even though the 9/11 roared up a lot of things, we still had a very smooth country when Clinton was in office. This brings me across the main point of this thread. We need to put another Clinton (if she choose to run) in office. She is and has done a great job in New York, and i think we will have a better country if we get the democrats, and Hiliar in office. Thank you for your time, and hearing the few things i had to say about this thread. -Ebo

---

Indeed, however I still think your overlooking the fact that things were smooth with Clinton compared to Bush primarily because of the fact that Bush has to deal with 9/11, Clinton didn't. Your right, she might have some serious strong views about this country and whatnot, but saying she's doing good in New York? She's a Senator, someone who presents new laws and bills. She doesn't affect the way of life or anything that much of New York. Having Hillary in office can be a good thing, or it can be a bad thing, only time will tell. Oh, and Thanks for YOUR time ;)

Well, I call myself a Republican but tend to vote more Libertarian, so I'm not crazy about either Billary nor GWB. If only those two were running, I'd vote for Bush. The 90's were boom years for this country, but I think those were a result of Reaganomics more than anything Clinton did. That, of course, is open to argument and is only my opinion.

I trust Bush far more than Clinton, and I trust Bush as much as I trust any politician which is almost zero. The Clintons were too devious and sneaky for my liking and I doubt Hillary is any different. Again, just my opinions.

Quote:

---

I think women should have all the "rights" in the world to run for president of the United States if they so choose. However, I would be less than excited if one was elected president....too many hormones. ;-)

---

IMO, men are pretty hormone addicted too :)

but really, the only woman I want to see as president
is:

http://www.britneyspears.com/home/index.php

rcgreen, Britney Spears??!!?? :::laughing:::

Well, I guess I'd be forced to resign as a citizen of the United States and move to whichever country would have me if that ever happened! :D

Seriously, (in MY opinion) it's a man's world. I'd like to keep it that way. ;)

Quote:

---

it's a man's world. I'd like to keep it that way.

---

We thank you for the vote of confidence.
If people vote for Hillary, thinking she can save
the world, or that a woman could do a better
job, they are pretty naive.

It would be sad to experiment with the
nation's fate trying to prove a point about
gender.
:cool:

Chuck56 - I'm going to have to agree with you on the economy thing. People tend to ignore the fact that the decline in our economy STARTED in 1999, well in to the second term of Clinton. Also, as has been stated by numerous economist, professional and academic alike, the first 4 years of a presidencies economics are left overs from the previous presidential changes. Look at Reagans first 4 years or so, they were horrible and were pretty much due to the changes the the Carter administration made. Then things started to swing to the positive in the mid-80's and continued to grow strong until Clinton changed things. The downturn has been traced back to as far as 1998 but most of the thinking is mid 1999 that we really started to hurt on the economic front.

Those are not the fault of GWB, and I'm not saying he's a knight in shining armor, but I also don't hold him responisble for this recession we have been in as I think it's due to a move away from fiscal conservatism to the "liberal accounting" methods that have been prevailent in our business society of late (read: Enron).



El Diablo