Hillary Clinton for President?

Earthhorse · 08-01-2008 10:55AM

~Rebel~ wrote: »

I was wary of Obama at first with his lack of experience, but i have to say he speaks incredibly well and he's growing on me

That's just the thing though; the man is a brilliant public speaker and nothing else it would seem. Admittedly, this would be one better than the current president. I'd still prefer to see Hillary take the reigns.

cornbb · 08-01-2008 11:29AM

BBC News wrote:

Senator Obama's main Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, brought an emotional end to campaigning, choking back tears as she called the poll "very personal".

Seriously, GTFO Hillary. Not very Iron Lady-ish of her to do that, is it :cool:

I hope Obama gets this one

chopperbyrne · 08-01-2008 11:39AM

Hill-Dawg or Obama, it doesn't matter.

I reckon the republicans are going to get their candidate elected again anyway.

Earthhorse · 08-01-2008 11:57AM

cornbb wrote: »

Seriously, GTFO Hillary. Not very Iron Lady-ish of her to do that, is it

I've seen clips of this and it's being completely exageratted by the press. She pauses for a moment at a press conference to collect herself, and I mean for the smallest of moments here. You can see she's a little "emotional" but she's hardly on the verge of tears.

Morlar · 08-01-2008 12:49PM

chopperbyrne wrote: »

Hill-Dawg or Obama, it doesn't matter.

I reckon the republicans are going to get their candidate elected again anyway.

I think so too - unless the republicans put forward a black man or a woman (which is unlikely) I think the democrats are making things more difficult for themselves.

You can imagine the negative campaigning already. Every tv ad will mention Osama and Obama in the same sentence, When pronouncing his name special attention will go on the osama HUSSEIN barrack part, I wouldnt be surprised if the republicans used photos of interracial couples in the background of their adverts too - things like that. Every campaign in recent years that I can think of has had a negative aspect - theres no reason to think this upcoming one wont either. I think the democrats have alienated a chunk of american society who arent ready for either a black man president or a white woman president - granted many of them will be republicans but not all. I think despite what polls say when people come to putting their vote down in the booth there will be a moment when voters prejudices (against black people) and fears (about irrational women in charge) may kick in.

daveirl · 08-01-2008 12:56PM

This post has been deleted.

Morlar · 08-01-2008 01:02PM

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I didnt know that - it would be surprising (imo) and interesting if they do select a mormon. If they do let the games begin . . .

ps now I cant get that southpark 'joseph smith' song out of my head - cheers.

Spud83 · 08-01-2008 01:09PM

The only states that would have a problem with a black man, or woman are typically Republican anyway. So the democrats normally lose them, and probably will this time too, not because of the candidate but just because some states are typically republican or democrat.

Every Us election comes down to the same few swing states, and these swing states wont be thrown by the fact it’s a woman or black man. That is why they are typically swing states as the voters are so hard to predict which policies will swing their vote. It normally comes down to one/two issues with each voter.

As for people saying that the republicans are used to using dirty tactics yes they are. But they will be wary of it this time as it back fired against them during the mid-terms when they spent more time insulting the opposition and ignore there own issues. Also most commentators are speculating that it is very hard to run a negative campaign against Obama without there always being an underlining feeling of racism.

The republican race is very open at the moment with Rudy Gullani’s campaign not really getting started till after New Hampshire, while the democratic race seems to be between Clinton, and Obama, however Obama seem to be taking all his votes from Hillary which could leave Edwards as a bit of a dark horse if he can pull the same result as he got in Iowa.
.

Morlar · 08-01-2008 01:21PM

My money would not be on Guliani - there is a backlash against him using 'just like 9/11' to close every sentence (google '911 tourettes')

Spud83 · 08-01-2008 01:25PM

Morlar wrote: »

My money would not be on Guliani - there is a backlash against him using 'just like 9/11' to close every sentence (google '911 tourettes')

I'm not saying he will win it I'm just saying his campaign hasn't even started as he pretty much wrote off Iowa and New Hampshire from the start. He will become a player later on and will win some primaries etc. Its gonna be who he takes his votes from that will be interesting.

Wait a minute this is after hours, emmm farts, tits, damn immigants, taxi drivers, yore ma etc etc.

Morlar · 08-01-2008 01:32PM

alanmurphy83 wrote: »

Wait a minute this is after hours, emmm farts, tits, damn immigants, taxi drivers, yore ma etc etc.

& american bashing . ..

Earthhorse · 08-01-2008 02:13PM

If John McCain can win the Republican nomination then I'll rest a lot easier. Other than that I'd really like to see the Republicans loose and I think there's a good chance they will too.

08-01-2008 02:44PM

There's only one person I want to see in power in the White House, and that is John McLane. The fact that he is a fictional character may somewhat hamper his chances of getting in.

Lockstep · 08-01-2008 02:46PM

Earthhorse wrote: »

If John McCain can win the Republican nomination then I'll rest a lot easier. Other than that I'd really like to see the Republicans loose and I think there's a good chance they will too.

+1.

I differ from McCain on a lot of things but he has a lot of balls. Far more than the likes of Bush who just gets told what to do.
If there's gonna be a Republican president, he's the least of all evils.

I keep getting accused of sexism for being against Hillary and that she could be the first woman president etc.

B*llocks to that, I'm not going to support someone just as they're a woman. She's too indecisive and "moral majority" for my taste.

Earthhorse · 08-01-2008 02:56PM

Deleted User wrote: »

There's only one person I want to see in power in the White House, and that is John McLane. The fact that he is a fictional character may somewhat hamper his chances of getting in.

Are you kidding me? America is the greatest democracy on earth. They'll find a way; all McLane has to do is believe!

Overheal · 08-01-2008 03:59PM

I never once liked Hillary through all the debates - she's really a two timing bitch and I dont want that at all. Obama is a decent enough candidate as well. And I must admit I like a couple of the Republican candidates like John McCain. So it will be an interesting presidential race but I think I'll run to the bookies with Obama.

Spud83 · 08-01-2008 04:04PM

Overheal wrote: »

I never once liked Hillary through all the debates - she's really a two timing bitch and I dont want that at all.

Thought that was Bill.

FidesEtRobur · 08-01-2008 04:23PM

What's the difference between caucuses and primaries?

cornbb · 08-01-2008 04:34PM

FidesEtRobur wrote: »

What's the difference between caucuses and primaries?

There's a good explanation here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7049207.stm

Caucus or primary - what's the difference?

Caucus procedures vary according to state law.

In Iowa's caucuses, voters meet in private homes, schools and other public buildings in more than 1,780 districts, or precincts, to discuss the candidates and the issues.

They then elect delegates to the county conventions. County convention delegates elect delegates in turn to state conventions, where delegates to the national conventions are chosen.

At Iowa's Democratic caucuses, the voters publicly divide into groups, gathering in different corners of a room to show their support for the different candidates, and delegates are allocated accordingly.

Voters at the state's Republican caucuses take part in a secret ballot, the results of which inform the allocation of delegates.

In primary elections, such as take place in New Hampshire, all registered voters in a state directly vote for their preferred candidate.

FidesEtRobur · 08-01-2008 04:40PM

Thanks. US system can be quite complex and thats before we get talking about Electoral Colleges etc

aequinoctium · 08-01-2008 09:21PM

i like her anyway....most of the time

Overheal · 08-01-2008 09:26PM

The US system is admittedly complex alright... part of the reason I dont vote.

Also you still have to worry about electronic voting. Was reading an article yesterday about just how infallible those devices are... its actually fairly horrific.

daveharnett · 09-01-2008 11:37AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg
John McCain on his approach to forigen policy:

bom bom bom
bom bombiran

The heir apparent has made himself known.

mickd · 09-01-2008 01:00PM

RTE doing their bit for Obama

Terry · 09-01-2008 04:27PM

Meh. Obama won't win.
Everyone knows black people's votes don't count.
Just ask Al Gore.

John Edwards FTW.

kevmy · 09-01-2008 05:34PM

TBh I see Hilary just about swinging the nomination as a whole. She has more money and has planned this from 4+ years ago. She knew a lot of die-hard Republicans hate her therefore it made no sense to contest primaries last time when they would have crossed sides to vote against her (since Dubya was their candidate). Add in the fact that the Republicans have an open nomination contest Reps have too much on their mind to vote against her.

Obama has really came from nowhere and upset her apple cart a bit but she can still pull through. If she does manage to defeat him it could turn out to be a bonus as she may very well give him the VP slot (unlikely to give it to Edwards again). This ticket would mean the total core vote of Democrats turning out in the presidential elections.

Personally I like both candidates well enough and wouldn't mind either of them getting the nod.

Overheal · 10-01-2008 08:27PM

I question wether Obama would be her VP. Theyve been having a bitch fest at each other for months.

Of course it could just be sexual tension.

tech77 · 10-01-2008 09:13PM

chopperbyrne wrote: »

Women, know your limits!

Also, Hagar is my new hero.
Top trolling

Manic Moran · 10-01-2008 10:01PM

Thatcher

Unless my knowledge of military history is seriously deficient, which I doubt, I can't think of any war she started.

NTM

Lockstep · 10-01-2008 10:17PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Unless my knowledge of military history is seriously deficient, which I doubt, I can't think of any war she started.

NTM

Fair point.
Not exactly starting a war, but completely overeacting to the falklands situation and questionablle attempts at keeping the peace (rejecting the peace plan of US Marshall Haig for example)

Rather given the sending off of warships, aircraft carriers and troops seemed more of Thatcher's attempt to show the world that England was still a big strong nation.

my own personal opinion is either that:
a) Thatcher was living up to her "I'm only a grocer's daughter" persona and treating the invasion of tiny sheep filled Islands the same as an invasion of the old empire (In the same way a grocer would be angry of the theft of sweets or for a plasma screen TV)
B)GIven the popularity of Thatcher before the war (or lack thereof) the Falkands was her attempt at keeping the nation distracted from it's economic ills, during a war, most don't question their leaders,

Hillary Clinton for President?

Comments