Election 2008. What if its Hillary Clinton vs Condi Rice??

Who Gets Your Vote

  • Hillary Clinton

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Condoleezza Rice

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I'll vote for almost anyone as long as its not one of those two ladies.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I just wouldn't vote at all then.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
Charge_7 said:
Particularly if she's doing it "for the party".
That was George W Bush's stated reason for running in 2000. That is pretty well guaranteed to be Hillary Clinton's reason for running in 2008. Either one waited or will wait for their party to more or less say, "Please save us!!"

If she doesn't run, I don't know who the Republican Party is going to come up with to have any chance of winning against Hillary, if she already has that much support.
 
If she doesn't run, I don't know who the Republican Party is going to come up with to have any chance of winning against Hillary, if she already has that much support.

My point exactly. Women are a huge untapped portion of the electorate. In fact, they are the majority of the electorate as there are more women than men. Not just the fact that they live longer than men but men are more likely to do the things that get them killed as well. I think the figure is that there's something like 3% more women than men in America but the figure may be higher. Hillary does indeed have a huge groundswell among Democrats and having her run can best be countered with another woman who also has a following.
 
I'd lean towards Rice personnally at least right now, and thats only because I dont trust Clinton and further than I could throw a F-16. But to really know who I'd vote for, I'll have to echo other's responses by saying that we need to see how Rice does as Secretary of State before we can really make informed decisions, because if the media and various commities are to be beleived, Rice might have had a hand in making a few false statements about Iraq, lets see if she does it again, or any other major mistakes before we promise anything.
 
I suppose that if Condi is eventually strongly suspected to have deliberately mislead, or lied to the American People, that would put them on equal footing in terms of intergrity, would it not? Emphasis on >suspected<.

I am curious. Can a Democrat Party loyalist please explain why, in their opinion, Hillary Clinton is a good candidate for President?
 
Whispering Death said:
Comparing politics to professional basketball is rediculous.

Depends on what politics, I am thinking in Arnold....For me will be strange to a have a Governor like him, to often will come to my mind recurrent images of Connan and Terminator.
 
staurofilakes said:
Whispering Death said:
Comparing politics to professional basketball is rediculous.

Depends on what politics, I am thinking in Arnold....For me will be strange to a have a Governor like him, to often will come to my mind recurrent images of Connan and Terminator.


There's just no figuring California.



As far as the Dem's liking Hilliary. I think it boils down to domestic social issues as opposed to Foreign Realations. The Clinton administration was good at that for the most part. In selling the ideas anyway.
 
godofthunder9010 said:
If she doesn't run, I don't know who the Republican Party is going to come up with to have any chance of winning against Hillary, if she already has that much support.

GUILLIANI FOR PRESIDENT! 2008

He reduced crime in NYC significantly, made it safe to walk the streets again, made it alot better, ect (Hey, "if you can make it there you can make it anywhere").

Also he is already proven to be a rallying point in a time of great crisis, as was in 9/11, a leader which people can look to in time of need that they feel confident that they can depend on . Which I think is very important for a presisdent to have, a quality which Hilary does not poses.

I think he qualifies.
 
Guilliani has too much political baggage. And that "It's the troops in the field's fault" comment to explain problems in Iraq will surely hurt him bigtime - it certainly does with me.
 
The American people would never elect a Woman to become President of the United States. In a fantasy world, a battle between Rice and Clinton, I would choose Ralph Nader. :lol:
 
Red_Army said:
The American people would never elect a Woman to become President of the United States. In a fantasy world, a battle between Rice and Clinton, I would choose Ralph Nader. :lol:
I'm strongly disagree with that sentiment myself. America is most definitely not a stronghold for male sexism in this world. The underlying matter is finding a woman to run for President that Americans will vote for.

The policital dynamics are insteresting. There is a much larger segment of the population of the Untied States that doesn't consider themselves to be Democrat or Republican today than 25 years ago. That mass of Independant voters can do very interesting things to the vote. Many women do not trust another woman to run the country. Many men are willing to vote with no consideration to gender. There are a good amount of women (and even men) non-voters that just might jump in and vote for any solid woman candidate that runs. It is that Independant segment of the US population that can completely change any election the moment that they bother to vote. So how do you counter the Democrats running Hillary if you are the Republican Party? I would suggest that Rice is the best shot the GOP has.
 
Red_Army said:
The American people would never elect a Woman to become President of the United States. In a fantasy world, a battle between Rice and Clinton, I would choose Ralph Nader. :lol:

Why do you say that?
 
godofthunder9010 said:
The fact that she did not divorce Bill for cheating on her repeatedly shows me that she puts her political ambitions above her own self-respect.

Well. that's a start on why I don't much care for her.

The Clinton family is worth monetarily wise more then we can fathom. If they were to get a divorce, both of their political careers would fall apart, and there would be so many more politics involved then we can imagine. So what if they sleep in seperate rooms? It's politics, it happens.

godofthunder9010 said:
Democrats = The Good Guys
Republicans = The Bad Guys
If you look at the main differences in the time when we've had a Dem prez and a Rep prez - the Dem puts less emphasis on the military, while the Republicans work to build it up. Of course a country is going to like someone who can't turn on them and hurt them.

The Washington Times said:
When President Clinton famously declared that he loathed the military while doing his best to stay out of it,
Clinton hated the military. 'Nuff said.

behemoth79 said:
since many of the republicans are conservative, i think she would lose some of the republican votes because she is black. if left with a choice of a white woman or a black woman, many conservatives would pick hillary.

If you haven't noticed, or maybe you are a little behind on the times, conservative does not equal racist. I'm conservative, but my best friend is black. I know just as many racist democrats as I do republicans. So either way, that will be the reason on both parties.

quote="godofthunder9010"]You lose the bigotted racists from the Republican Party, but I wonder how many black Democrats vote for Rice for similar reasons ... or simply because its a golden opportunity to actually have a black President of the United States for the first time ever. Don't underestimate the mindless masses voting for silly reasons.

Rice strikes me as more of a moderate than Clinton. Clinton is trying to be perceived as one these days, but sure as h**l isn't.[/quote]

don't forget the bigotted democrats who wouldn't vote for rice whether she was under Democrat on her ticket or not. Believe me..

I think it would be nice to have a black woman president. You are killing two birds with one stone. Plus, whether we like it or not, just being black exposes her to some harsh times. Not that its any easier being white somethime. :roll:

Red_Army said:
The American people would never elect a Woman to become President of the United States. In a fantasy world, a battle between Rice and Clinton, I would choose Ralph Nader.
Speak of being sexist. Wow. If you want something done, give it to a man. If you want something done now, and done right, give it to a woman. We have the ability to be more patient (ever heard fathers say they don't know how their wife does it?), but tend to be more passionate about things.

Just to say, when guys are passionate about something (Take the movie Hot Chick), the are percieved as being gay. Why? Dunno.

I think it would do our country some good to have a woman in the White House.[/quote]
 
The percieved positive implications of America electing a President that is both black and a woman are enormous. It would destroy much doubt about the United States being strongly influenced by both racism and sexism. It adds a new level of legitimacy to the USA calling for other nations of the world to respect human rights, particularly along gender and racial lines. It would be a final end to the idea that only a white male can be President of the United States.

Now whether a certain woman is or is not the best woman for the job is another matter altogether. Still, there is no reason that a woman cannot be.
 
This is so wierd. I can't believe beaver teeth is winning.

I completely don't trust the Bush administration at all anymore.
The clinton's have always been known as intelligent and Hilary could run from an example from Bill but she can probably lead the nation even better.

If Condy get's in. Americans should be scared of what the future holds.
 
I'm not sure who would do a better job, to tell you the truth. Condi Rice is not George W Bush. Not even close.

Trusting the Clintons after the several scandals they brought to the White House, is going to be difficult for some people. And lets face it, this is a Military Forum. President Clinton substantially downsized the US military during his Presidency. The reasons or lack of reasons for that downsizing are irrellevant for the most part. Electing a Democrat is very likely to be bad in terms of job security if your in the Military.
 
Rice is good but Bush is SOOOOOOOO much better even though i think it would be a landslide election (in favor of Rice)
 
Bush can't run again. The 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution forbids anyone from having a third term. This was, of course, enacted after FDR.
 
Charge 7 said:
Bush can't run again. The 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution forbids anyone from having a third term. This was, of course, enacted after FDR.
Interesting how Emperor Roosevelt forced the USA to make official the tradition of a two term limit.

Bear in mind, I don't call him Emperor Roosevelt out of spite. It is only that he is the only President we ever had who, most likely, could only ever be removed from the Presidency by his own death. I can't fathom him ever losing a US election.
 
Actually the 1944 election was very close. Dewey almost won. The 1936 and 1940 elections weren't landslides either. Only in 1932 did FDR have an overwhelming majority. The re-election of Roosevelt had more to do with Americans unwillingness to "change horses" in mid-stream than anything else. When in national crisis we always go with whoever's in power at the time. FDR was already perceived as the man who led us out of the Great Depression so he was well thought of as a strong President when we needed strength more than ever. Alf Landon, Wendell Wilkie, and Tom Dewey were unknowns to most people and of them all only Dewey had any reputation for strength as New York's "fighting DA".
 
Back
Top