Article here
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070120/...emocrats2008_1

I, for one, think it'll be interesting to see how this plays out. Personally, I feel an Obama-Clinton ticket would surely lead to victory, and I fear nothing less would for either of them.

And, all politics aside, I think Bill Clinton would make a fine First Gentleman. He's very good at having a big moony face and biting his lip in a sympathetic manner. What else do you need?

I'd rather have Clinton for president of the US than his wife, personally, I liked the man.

<font color=8fbc8f>Yea'll I saw that too. [img]graemlins/yawn.gif[/img]
Well to think of it, from being the Queen of the Arkansas DoubleWide, to the stint as The First Lady, now on the ticket as she's in, and in to win. Whats Next?

Obama or her will have to bow down to the other, like that's going to happen. :D Luckily though, neither of them has ever been in charge of anything, nor a governor, thankfully that is two hard strikes against them. Guess that Edwards fellow needs to pick up the pace. Then 'ol Rich down in New Mexico, he brings a different tune to the party. He has been in charge of something, and is a governor!

Sadly, there are no contenders from the other camp. Guess I should get to work on an ad campaign.</font>

The democrats must be determined to lose!! In the history of the country there has never been a woman or an african american as president. So now with the approval ratings for republicans at an all time low, the dems are going to fumble the ball on a wide open field. Good job dummies!

I have nothing against either women or african americans, but history has proven that it is a losing ticket every time.

On a personal note, I would not vote for Hilary Clinton even if you paid me. If she can't keep her own husband from cheating on her, how in the 9 hells is she supposed to run the country??Not to mention that her own state didn't want her, so she had to come invade mine. I might dislike her less if she had a house upstate with the rest of the New Yorkers instead of in her exclusive community in the Hamptons. How can she represent the people if she has no idea what it's like to be one of them??

[ 01-20-2007, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: Havock ]

So wait, you're saying that it's someone's own fault if their spouse cheats on them, not their spouse that's cheating scum? Did she somehow make it okay for him to cheat on her by not satisfying him right, or what?

I think you can hardly paint that as some flaw of hers.

And hey, if people never tried things just because they'd never worked before, there would never be black or women politicians. There has to be a first time for everything.

If you play politics entirely to "win," just to pander to what the public likes at the moment, you may as well leave. It shouldn't be about winning, it should be about getting someone competent with a desire to do good things for the people leading the nation.

Well, if you want competent then Hillary is definately out. If you don't play to win then you will most assuredly lose. Think about it for a second, what will happen when the dems run the Obama/Clinton ticket and lose. If Jesse Jackson couldn't do it and Gereldine Ferraro couldn't do it what on earth makes you think that putting up a double losing ticket will do it? They will just lose twice as badly and condem us to 4 more years of cronyism, war and general stupidity running the country. The general populace is just as prejudice and sexist as ever. No amount of rose tinting and vaseline on the lense will change the cold hard facts of it. You may feel diffrently, but I wouldn't bet against Vegas on this one.

If we play just to win, then we don't win, then we just get someone in who doesn't do jack, talks nothing but spin and just follows the poll numbers.

That doesn't get anyone anywhere, what gets change made are the people who don't give a damn about the poll numbers but do what they think is right instead.

A Democrat who wins by the "winning is what matters"-philosophy would be every bit as bad as the worst the Republicans can muster.

I'm not saying they have a good chance of winning, I'm just saying that it's a choice between a low chance of winning, where winning matters, or a high chance of winning where winning is just as bad as losing.

Well, the Republicans aren't taking themselves very serious either if you let Giuliani run for office, unless my information about his popularity among the masses has it all wrong.

<font color=8fbc8f>Set aside the word "cheat" and insert the words "value" "moral" and "ethical". Now place said candidate on the podium. Make way for the melting snowball.

There is a very well kept secret here in the US Mid-West. It's called the Midwestern farmer. He feeds thousands of people world wide, 2/3 of his crop is exported. When he votes, the state follows through. Tom, George, Bill, and Jethro ain't voting for no "darned woman politician"(Period). Nor are they likely to vote for a politician who has a name that cannot be pronounced easily, and does not sound like a derivative of the founding fathers.

I'm sure there are other states that will carry either of them, but the mid-west will not! The mid-west borders the West, except Colorado, they usually vote along conservative party lines as well. "Bubba" Bill offered a common ground, he was a Governor from the mid-west and gave them higher yields and more funding on bad years and lot'sa support! Hillary could not even get on her own state ballot, and had to invade a "Yankee" state to get into the Senate.

She has had the wool pulled way over her eyes, and Bill must be elsewhere to have allowed it to get this far!

BTW: I am a realist!</font>

Hey, sometimes you gotta dream, because dreams that have enough conviction behind them can be infectious. If you dream hard enough and bright enough, sometimes you can make other people dream that dream, too.

If we always stuck with realism, always went with the safe choice, we'd never have gotten anywhere.

<font color=8fbc8f>Hu? I mebtioned I was a realist about politics. I did not say I was a pacifest!</font>

I suspect your information is wrong. You're talking about someone who was Times "Man of the Year" in 2001, and is still occasionally refered to as "Americas Mayor". A while back Gallup did a poll where they polled people about possible canidates in their party, Giuliani ended up with the highest percentage of republicans "acceptable", and the lowest thinking he was "not acceptable". Giuliani is a fairly moderate republican canidate, which also gives him good (for a republican) levels of support among independents and democrats.

If you want to look at the Republicans not taking themselves seriously then you should be looking at Mitt Romney. There is no way that a Mormon is going to be elected president in 2008.

[ 01-21-2007, 12:31 AM: Message edited by: Seraph ]

It dont matter who you guys vote for what I want to know is who the supreme court is going to make president after the electronic vote rigging [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/171/story_17147_1.html

More on Mitt Romney, if people can get past the religion his record is very good. (but as the article says, there's a flat 17% of americans that would never vote for a mormon, too big of a chunk for the Repub's to take a chance on.

[ 01-22-2007, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: Morgeruat ]

Well, to be honest, there's a decent possibility that a lot of those 17% are of the people who would never vote for the Republicans anyway.

I imagine that more Democrats have problems with openly and strongly religious leaders than Republicans(Though this is just a guess, mind you.). And Mormons tend to be, if not necessarily more strong, in my experience at least more vocal about their faith than many other branches of Christianity.

Of course, I could be wrong. Could be that the Democrats are open to anyone who wants to do The Right Thing and it's religious right-winger Republicans who would never vote for someone who isn't a follower of THEIR particular favourite interpretation of the Bible.

Additionally, keep in mind that said poll was from 1999. 8 years is a lot of time for people to change their minds. It also has no details on poll methodology, etc., so it could've been a deeply flawed piece of research. All in all, I wouldn't put too much(Har har) faith in it.

Massachusetts, arguablly the most liberal Democratic state in the Union voted in Mitt Romney as Governor in 2002.

How much do we actually know of Hillary's policies though? She's got the name, but anyone know how she's voted on various issues?

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/c...c001041/votes/
http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm

[ 01-23-2007, 05:34 AM: Message edited by: machinehead ]

Throw down your shackles! Rise against those who would be your masters! YOU are the future!

I wish women ran the world. It would be such a nicer place. No tongue, no cheek. I mean it...

On the Mitt Romney religious vote thing; I think that he would lose out on a good chunk of the Christian vote. Mormonism is a quite a bit different than Christianity. It's much more than the difference between Baptist and Lutheran.

I think there are going to be a large group of Republicans who won't consider voting for him in the primary. If he does get the nod, I don't know how many of those would choose a liberal Christian over a conservative Mormon.

You do have a point about democrats voting for Romney, but you have to realize something. The Mitt Romney that ran for Governor of Massachusetts is a very different person then the Mitt Romney who wants to run for president. He is trying his best to look like a social conservative, something that will likely upset democratic voters.

I disagree. For a while it would be like that, but eventually women would become men, if that makes sense. We feel that women would currently make greater leaders because they haven't grown comfortable with their power as a group just yet, but sooner or later people with too much power turn into jerks.

I disagree. For a while it would be like that, but eventually women would become men, if that makes sense. We feel that women would currently make greater leaders because they haven't grown comfortable with their power as a group just yet, but sooner or later people with too much power turn into jerks. </font>[/QUOTE]Precisely! Very insightful. Tyranny isn't gender-specific.

You do have a point about democrats voting for Romney, but you have to realize something. The Mitt Romney that ran for Governor of Massachusetts is a very different person then the Mitt Romney who wants to run for president. He is trying his best to look like a social conservative, something that will likely upset democratic voters. </font>[/QUOTE]That is because he is running for a national office, so that means he has had to "adjust" his positions somewhat. I can see it now - Romney the flip-flopper! :D

I disagree. For a while it would be like that, but eventually women would become men, if that makes sense. We feel that women would currently make greater leaders because they haven't grown comfortable with their power as a group just yet, but sooner or later people with too much power turn into jerks. </font>[/QUOTE]Good point, but at the risk of sounding very unPC to suggest that there may be some slight differences between men & women, don't you think women in general are less violent and possibly less prone to, for example, warfare than men?

[ 01-24-2007, 08:50 AM: Message edited by: Leonis ]

I disagree. For a while it would be like that, but eventually women would become men, if that makes sense. We feel that women would currently make greater leaders because they haven't grown comfortable with their power as a group just yet, but sooner or later people with too much power turn into jerks. </font>[/QUOTE]Does that mean that eventually women too would pee standing up ? :D

Women are only less violent because of the way society currently feels it's proper for a woman to behave. It's not considered a particularly feminine pursuit to learn martial arts or play contact sports, for example, and women are also not raised to have a masculine pride to protect. A masculine pride that's mostly defined by how big your muscles, your dick and your farts are.

Women can be every bit as aggressive as men, also every bit as violent.

Not to mention I think that it's easier to patch up the international results of prideful posturing and macho rants than it is to deal with the sort of backhanded sniping that's generally considered a more acceptable way for women to resolve their conflicts in modern society. Male conflicts may have more physical fallout, but they tend to be more swiftly resolved, too, rather superficial things for the most part.

Purple- Exactly.

Johnny- I think that that is the sole thing keeping women from total world domination.

http://www.spoonyexperiment.com/rants/WickerMan/

an examination of a society run by women, also Nick Cage beats up women in a bear suit.

Hillary can't be president, she's already done two terms.