Hillary Announces US Presidential Candidacy (3 Viewers)

[avernus]

Basically... Hilary will lose it. If she gets the primaries, (and Obama is probably not going to I think), Hillary will then go on to lose it.
She would make a good President, better probably than Bill. But, there is no way that this country will vote her in. The smear campaign will be staggering. It will involve her sexuality, and regardless of the truth she will be presented as a lesbian lunatic liberal.

Sad but true.

Out of Giuliani and McCain, I would take McCain. Giuliani is a facist. The place is already a police state now, but, Jesus Christ. Condi might go as vice. Maybe. The republicans are very good team players. They will be cohesive behind whoever they chose.

The democrats will be less so.

I dont know. All I am thinking at the moment, is whatever (more than likely) tool gets in there, they will be better than Bush.

WRT to dynasties... I dont think the US has a problem with them.
Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush... its more that many people here violently hate Hillary. This hatred stems from the fact that a few media moguls hate her.

Obama is screwed because, regardless of his popularity or ability to do teh job, he has not got the cash to run.

People make the mistake thinking that there is a democratic system running in the US. This is not true. You are President here, if you can afford to be.

I'd be pretty sure he could raise the money for a good campaign. all he'd need is for 200 people to give him 1 million dollars and that's not as crazy as it sounds.

 

[hugh]

Basically... Hilary will lose it. If she gets the primaries, (and Obama is probably not going to I think), Hillary will then go on to lose it.
She would make a good President, better probably than Bill. But, there is no way that this country will vote her in. The smear campaign will be staggering. It will involve her sexuality, and regardless of the truth she will be presented as a lesbian lunatic liberal.

True all right. But then .... she has had so much shit thrown at her over the years that she may now be immune. Every possible nasty thing that they could throw at her has been thrown at her already.

 

[TrueLoveWaits]

Yeah, I don't remember seeing much support from Romney with the gay marriage thing, and he's in a state where there are enough liberal checks and balances that he can't have the same sort of power he might in a more conservative state.... My assumption was that it wasn't his favourite idea, but that he'd already accepted that there were going to be things in Massachusetts that he didn't agree with and that he was just going to have to go along with, which really is fair enough in a way. Politicians are supposed to do what their constituents want, and sometimes it won't be what they want. And besides, he was waaaay outnumbered.

true, he was insanely outnumbered but it didn't stop him from being viciously outspoken about it...he also pissed off a LOT of Democrats by going to the Senate to testify against the idea of the legalisation of Gay Marriage and by trying to have it appealed in MA. You are right, even if he did get the Rep Nom, there is not a chance the Dems would support him.

I also just noticed -- he's a fricking Republican sex symbol? Creepy.

scary but true! lol

Plus, I'm so with you on Obama. He is a fresh voice, and it's impossible to say at this early stage, but he may well have enough charisma (and we learned the hard way that it counts for a lot more than most things) to allay people's doubts and fears about electing a black dude with uppity ideas and not a lot of experience. .

I think what is so crucial about Obama is that he could finally be the candidate to galvanise Democratic support and corral the swing vote, as you said, he has buckets of Charisma - he is one of the best political orators I have seen in a looong time and this alone catapults him far in front of the other candidates. He makes you believe in him, he makes you want to jump out of your seat and do all you can to make sure he will get elected...I think he may finally get the apathetic Democratic heartland to the polls. Also, he will get the money, as his campaign picks up pace he will have people throwing money at him.

Can I just say though, anybody else seeing the parallels between this and the final series of the West Wing? lol, I mean imagine if McCain/Giuliani were to run against Obama...life imitating art?? !ironyyy

 

[Dude no.7]

What about Al Gore? Some people on the internet seem to really want him to run again (and win again but this time be the president and stuff...)

http://houseoflabor.tpmcafe.com/blog/just_karl/2007/jan/21/calling_al_gore

http://www.blueoregon.com/2007/01/should_al_gore_.html

to those with short memories, that's captain planet in the above picture

I would love to see him win but could he go through all that again?

 

[snakybus]

I think Obama couldn't win. There is no way he could win. He's a black man with a history of drug use in a country that is terrified of such things. Hilary Clinton is far more likely to win, if she gets the nomination. And I'd say USA is more ready to vote in a female president than a black president. Having said that, however, John Edwards is more likely to be nominated - he's male, for a start, and he has charisma and a southe'n accent (though he seems directionless, policy-wise, but when has that ever been a problem for democratic nominees?) It'll be an interesting race nonetheless.

 

[jane]

true, he was insanely outnumbered but it didn't stop him from being viciously outspoken about it...he also pissed off a LOT of Democrats by going to the Senate to testify against the idea of the legalisation of Gay Marriage and by trying to have it appealed in MA. You are right, even if he did get the Rep Nom, there is not a chance the Dems would support him.



scary but true! lol



I think what is so crucial about Obama is that he could finally be the candidate to galvanise Democratic support and corral the swing vote, as you said, he has buckets of Charisma - he is one of the best political orators I have seen in a looong time and this alone catapults him far in front of the other candidates. He makes you believe in him, he makes you want to jump out of your seat and do all you can to make sure he will get elected...I think he may finally get the apathetic Democratic heartland to the polls. Also, he will get the money, as his campaign picks up pace he will have people throwing money at him.

Can I just say though, anybody else seeing the parallels between this and the final series of the West Wing? lol, I mean imagine if McCain/Giuliani were to run against Obama...life imitating art?? !ironyyy

I haven't watched the West Wing, but from what I can gather, it was a coping mechanism for a lot of people, a place to escape into a non-Bush administrative fantasy, at least temporarily. And that's no bad thing now that the tide is actually turning, even a little.

I think it's not so much that it's necessarily swinging to the left (because while I might agree with the lefties, they aren't automatically more effective at getting stuff done), but that people are maybe (and this could be wishful thinking on my part) starting to see that most of us actually want very similar things: we don't want our kids to die in a war, we want to know we'll have a job tomorrow, we don't want our government's ineptitude to cause us to die in a natural disaster, and we want to know the world will still be there when our kids grow up. Although visions differ to the point of not always being compatible, I think people are starting to get tired of the rhetoric that clouds the important issues, and realising that people have to stand up and speak or lose their voices entirely, and that's a really good start.

And yeah, the fact is, elections are more likely to be won on hope and charisma than they are on one or two issues. The terrible truth is that Bush talked to his potential voters like he was 'one of them' (despite being born a millionaire and just choosing to adopt a dumb redneck persona).

Christ, though, I'm glad I missed Romney's responses to it. I'd have needed a bucket, and I'd be reeeeally mad at my home state for electing someone who advocates inequality. Although I'm still sort of proud that even in the face of being led by someone who doesn't believe that all people deserve rights, they passed it anyway.

I think he could be a real Bobby Kennedy figure, and that's absolutely what the US needs right now.

 

[Bellatrix]

He's a black man with a history of drug use in a country that is terrified of such things.

Bush was an army-deserter with a history of cocaine abuse. Sure, he came from a political dynasty but still, these things aren't insurmountable.

Edwards' Southern thang is a major advantage though. It's hard to rally those Southern swing voters. Even the Southern Democrats are twitchy as fuck.

 

[TrueLoveWaits]

Christ, though, I'm glad I missed Romney's responses to it. I'd have needed a bucket, and I'd be reeeeally mad at my home state for electing someone who advocates inequality. Although I'm still sort of proud that even in the face of being led by someone who doesn't believe that all people deserve rights, they passed it anyway.

I think he could be a real Bobby Kennedy figure, and that's absolutely what the US needs right now.

I, unfortunately, (*hangs head in shame*) was working for Romney in the summer of 2004 and so witnessed it all first hand...it was a college internship, i had no choice!

Also, I absolutely think Obama could be a Bobby Kennedy figure and boy does America...and the rest of the world to be honest...need that right now. I don't think it is too much of an exaggeration to say that had Robert Kennedy not been assassinated, the world would be a very different place right now. I'm not saying that Obama quite has that power and strength behind him just yet, but wow does he come close - closer than anyone has come in a long, long time. He has vision and that means something.

I also don't think being a black man will be as much of a hindrance as it may have been ten years ago...America is changing rapidly, Colin Powell and Condi Rice have both opened a lot of doors...besides, it is fair to say that most Americans who worry about such things are more concerned with being overrun with Hispanics at the moment...but that is a different debate. I actually think that it would be harder for a woman to get elected...especially in today's security climate...both sexes instinctively still see the male as the protector of the species...a woman doesn't offer that same strength and reassurance...remember, it is a commander-in-chief being elected here and the image of a woman as head of the armed forces still doesn't sit well with many people (wrong as that may be).

Anyway, that was my really long-winded way of saying I don't think Hillary stands a chance

Edwards...a definite, definite possibility...it's all in the charm.

 

[TrueLoveWaits]

http://www.angelfire.com/pa4/kennedy/speech.html

All are good but his announcement for president and the speech bout Martin Luther King are my favourites.

 

[Corey]

I love the american election build-up. It's gonna be fucking huge next year. All the candidates hit the ground at a fucking sprint the second democrats got senate et all.

'Who can be president' verses 'who should be president'

Fucking nail-biting stuff.

 

[Pantone247]

I think Obama couldn't win. There is no way he could win. He's a black man with a history of drug use in a country that is terrified of such things.

Bush was an army-deserter with a history of cocaine abuse. Sure, he came from a political dynasty but still, these things aren't insurmountable.

Bellatrix you should be right and you make a great point, but I think I have to side with Snaky here, America ain't ready for a Brother who digs on the chronic just yet... the could hack a rich white guy with a DUI and patchy millitary record... but... The Republicans will be the one who go for Obama and try drag him through the dirt, the same Republicans that blew all sorts of smoke screens and lost all kinds of documents when it came to checking out what kind of asshole Bush really was....

I'm not sure about Hilary either, is the US ready to elect a women? um...

Robert F Kennedy!!!

And Janes right McCain is a terrifying weasaly little shit, never trust a man who can't lift his arms over his head...

 

[MDR]

I usually hold off on these things until the primaries get going and I get to hear a little more from the candidates, but it concerns me that the main Democratic front-runners are Senators, rather than Governers, for example. Senators are legislators and their style isn't always easy to translate into a presidential race. John Kerry was too ponderous, and I can't help feeling that Governers have better experience of how to win a one-to-one contest and give off the right type of Presidential signals. I think Nixon was the last Senator to make it to president, albeit becoming vice-president first.

 

[MDR]

ooops

 

[MDR]

I usually hold off on these things until the primaries get going and I get to hear a little more from the candidates, but it concerns me that the main Democratic front-runners are Senators, rather than Governers, for example. Senators are legislators and their style isn't always easy to translate into a presidential race. John Kerry was too ponderous, and I can't help feeling that Governers have better experience of how to win a one-to-one contest and give off the right type of Presidential signals. I think Nixon was the last Senator to make it to president, albeit becoming vice-president first.

 

[skrellp]

I was reading somewhere that clinton's popularity with black voters is actually higher than obama's. Largely due to Bill, but still. Also: people are noticing that (a) his middle name is hussein and (b) his surname is eerily similar to osama. It'd be great to have a president who has hussein in his name. Although, I'm not too sure if all this excitement over his candidacy is warranted. JFK and Bill Clinton had the same appeal, and look what happened to their presidencies. Bobby Kennedy never got elected, so he can still be viewed in positive glowing terms, without his ever having been president to taint it.

Personally, I hope to god Clinton doesn't get it. She's seems to have a similar foreign policy to Bush, or atleast she did when the war was 'popular'. I don't know enough about her domestic policies to comment.

Does anyone know if Nader is going to run again?

 

[jane]

I was reading somewhere that clinton's popularity with black voters is actually higher than obama's. Largely due to Bill, but still. Also: people are noticing that (a) his middle name is hussein and (b) his surname is eerily similar to osama. It'd be great to have a president who has hussein in his name. Although, I'm not too sure if all this excitement over his candidacy is warranted. JFK and Bill Clinton had the same appeal, and look what happened to their presidencies. Bobby Kennedy never got elected, so he can still be viewed in positive glowing terms, without his ever having been president to taint it.

This is a really good point. And plus, JFK was only president for three years, so he can go on 'untainted', too. Which really again sets Bill Clinton apart: not only did he have charisma and staying power, the only thing that really broke his universal appeal was a stupid blow job. There aren't that many presidents ever who managed to remain in so many people's good books for so long, especially at an international level.

Personally, I hope to god Clinton doesn't get it. She's seems to have a similar foreign policy to Bush, or atleast she did when the war was 'popular'. I don't know enough about her domestic policies to comment.

Does anyone know if Nader is going to run again?

I think a lot of us are skeptical about Hilary's foreign policy, including me, and I think that, given the overwhelming opposition to the war now, Americans are going to be doubtful of anyone who isn't going to take a strong stand against it. I think they're tired of people backtracking.

As for Nader: Nader has been running for president EVERY SINGLE ELECTION since the 1970s, it's only that in 2000 anyone really noticed. Ralph Nader, who always ran on a consumer awareness platform, and the neo-Nazi Lyndon La Rouche were always the big election jokes. Nader was, is and always will be a total nutjob. A nutjob who managed to do some good as far as consumer affairs, but a nutjob all the same. There's a documentary coming out on him soon, and I'm dying to see it.

 

[skrellp]

There aren't that many presidents ever who managed to remain in so many people's good books for so long, especially at an international level.

Which is especially depressing considering what he did. Maybe Bush coming after him, and being preceded by Reagan and the first Bush helped the perception aswell?

Nader was, is and always will be a total nutjob.

Why is he a nutjob? Because he runs without seriously thinking he'll get elected or because he's an actual nutjob?

 

[jane]

Which is especially depressing considering what he did. Maybe Bush coming after him, and being preceded by Reagan and the first Bush helped the perception aswell?

I think there was definitely an element of his coming along at the right time, but he did turn the American economy around in a way no one had done before. Under Bush I, the recession was pretty awful and jobs of any kind were hard to come by, and during Reagan's term, the working class was turned into an underclass. The US was certainly not as bad as Ireland in the 1980s, but Clinton definitely turned things around that had been on a downturn since the mid-1970s, and quite quickly. He also benefited from the early years of the post-Cold War era, which was a huge relief for so much of the world. I don't think he ever tried to take the credit for ending it, but I do think that he'll always be associated with some positive stuff.

Why is he a nutjob? Because he runs without seriously thinking he'll get elected or because he's an actual nutjob?

No, he's an actual nutjob. He's always been known as a loose cannon because, er, he's always been a bit of a loose cannon. Not a bad dude or anything, it's just that he's a crusader, and crusaders are necessary to society, they'd just make totally ineffective presidents. A president is a manager and a crusader doesn't usually make a great manager unless they can sometimes suppress their crusading. And the thing is, that's his strength. Take that away from him, and he's not really all that.

If he'd pulled out of the race before polling day, even taking into the account the voters who either would have voted for Bush or who would not have bothered voting at all, it's still extremely likely that this would have put Gore over the top, and we'd be living in a very different world right now (I'm not deluded enough to think it would be all sunshine and roses, but let's face it...). I understand he wanted to break the back of the two-party system, and that if he'd got 5% of the overall vote, he'd have been entitled to federal funding for his next campaign. But anyone who would stay in the race for principle (admirable though it may be) and self-interest, knowing how bloody high the stakes were (and if he didn't see impending doom in the idea of a Bush presidency, then he definitely wasn't doing his homework), is a fucking megalomaniac.

I do believe he has a passion for stuff, but his politics are in reaction to those around him, and he never really thought about what he would do as president, just that he wanted people to vote for him because the principle of the thing was right. And sure, there's a lot of value in what he's done for the American consumer, but he's kind of always been known as a ranter. He's a ranter who gets shit done, but he confuses charisma with just being really shouty.

So yeah, he's kind of a nutjob, but a nutjob with a strong and valuable sense of purpose that was so fucking misguided that he took a gamble with America's future, and America lost. Fine, there were other factors (like that the election was stolen anyway), and there's a chance Bush still would have ended up in the White House (see above), but the fact that he took that chance says he'd never have Americans' (or, considering the US's power, the world's) interests at heart. Which, neither does Bush, but it's something Nader claims to have.

Good dude. Nutjob. Megalomaniac.

 

[skrellp]

I've always had a problem with the whole 'nader lost the election to Bush'. And I certainly don't see it as self-interest (unless by self-interest, you could include interest for his policies and ideas). It seems to perpetuate the whole lesser-of-two-evils idea, which although this at least acknowledges that the democrats are evil to a certain degree, kinda shrugs its shoulders and says eh, what are you going to do? The democratic and republican parties are both heading towards the same point, and possibly have been for the last 40/50 years, but recently the democrats seem to have made a sudden surge to the right. I know other factors are in play at the moment (fear of being seen as weak on terrorism, etc, and also a general greed to win the election at all costs, regardless of idealism, ethics, morality etc). So, we're left with the situation, in recent years - at least as far back as JFK and Nixon, where the candidates are saying pretty much the same, and the American public has to vote for one or the other. Would 5% of the vote going to Nader change this? Will there ever be an actual third party? It seems absolutely unlikely, but I reckon the Whigs in England were saying pretty much the same thing around the mid19thC.

So, we're left with choosing between Bush II and Gore (who supported NATO bombings in Yugoslavia, bombing campaigns in Iraq before the second gulf war, and various military incursions during Clinton's presidency), Bush II and Kerry (who supported the war, if I recall, but then backtracked afterwards saying if only I had known about the WMD). In the next election, we'll probably have the choice between some warmongering republican and Hillary Clinton (suports the war, is making confusing and guarded positions about abortion rights).

And if The Inconvenient Truth is anything to go by, Gore is as much of a crusader as Nader (funny how Nader kinda rhymes with crusader).

 

[Janer]

Same in UK
Conservative/New Labour blend into one really.