Hillary Clinton cut both ways
 

Ok, Hillary is going to run. Let me post my flag to the mast straight up. I do not like her, I do not trust her. In fact, in my part of the world it is now a Sunday with Monday following. If Hillary told me that I would first check my calendar.

But I am open to persuasion on her. Talk to me:)

Well, she hacks off the misogynists and she is a surefire lightning rod for the rightwing ideologues. Both fun accomplishments in my opinion. :D

I guess in my simple political view, I see her mostly as Bill Clinton's potential third term. He can't help but be lurking, back-slapping and fixing things in the background. I just hope they keep the White House intern staff ugly and male.

I'm in a quandary. I dislike Clinton for the crooked southern lawyer that she is but I also don't want to see one party running both congress and the administration at the same time.

Good point. Anybody but HRC though. But in 2008 we had the exact same situation and look what happened.:dead::down:

I hate politicians on both sides. I would rather see a former governor on the resume run than a senator.

Eh, I'm not a big fan of her, whilst it would be nice to have the first female US president directly after the first US president of colour, she doesn't come across as the right boots for the job. But...what alternatives are there, really?
2016 is looking similar to the 2015 UK elections in that neither side are fielding a particularly appealing candidate.

EDIT: Maybe Webb...he seems a plausible choice, but I doubt he'd be able to beat the Clinton juggernaut...perhaps VP?


EDIT EDIT: Just think about it though, if Clinton gets the Dem election and Jeb the GOP, then it's going to be 1992 all over again...just with less Perot...

If I were to lay odds, I'd say we are looking at a Bush vs. Clinton race in 2016. Shades of 1992, except for the oddball Ross Perot Reform Party factor. Maybe somebody can talk Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin into a Tea Party side show run, so the race has some entertainment value.

And the last names of both potential candidates are a double-edged sword, although probably more so for Bush than Clinton.

:har::har::har:

This what I'm hoping for and both of them get voted off the island in the primary process.

I'm sure Jim Webb would appeal to the Dovish Democrats, the socially conservative, economically populist Democrats, and the Oh-dear-God-anybody-but-Hillary Democrats. But can he win with those numbers? He's only launched an exploratory committee, but I'm sure he is finding the answer is no.

And believe you me Oberon, we are going to hear that ad nauseam along with the glass ceiling.

If I ask myself why I do not like her or why I distrust her having never met her I must justify that to myself.

One, she is on record of having blatantly lied.
Two, it has been shown she will forsake any principal she might have for her own goals regardless.

One can say so what. Is not that true of any politician. Maybe I yearn for a Churchill, a Roosevelt, a Smuts - not that they were without clay feet, but by god they stood tall among us and led us with conviction outside of their own shrouded interests.

Why does it matter?
 

The folks who are really running the show will put whichever puppet they choose in the hot seat.:-?

:salute:http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/C...0409024703.jpg

Lincoln Chaffee is considering a primary challenge to Hillary. I suspect her candidacy will implode, making way for Biden and Elizabeth Warren (who is Hillary Clinton redux, just without the history of scandal).

Biden is weighing his chances. If Warren stays out (which she will until Hillary implodes) then Biden will jump in. I don't think Chaffee has the bona fides to pull enough far left support.

Now - the OP wants to talk about Hillary, so lets do so. Now I am known as being highly conservative, but I don't want to spend time going over scandal after scandal. There is enough of that already out there.

So instead, lets talk about what a Hillary administration will support and oppose.

She is very pro-choice, including support for so called "partial birth abortions". She supports spending federal dollars on providing contraceptives to the public.

She opposes cutting federal spending, paying down the debt through increasing efficiencies in federal programs and voted for stimulus.

Voted against a constitutional ban on flag burning and a 1 man/1 woman definition of marriage. Voted for adding sexual orientation as a cause for a hate crime

Voted for a relaxing of requirements needed to allow for cell phone wiretaps.

Supports 3 strikes your out program

Supports Medical pot federally, has not stated recent federal policy position lately on recreational use. Has stated in the past it should be a state issue.

Supports Common Core. Is against school choice.

Is against ANWR, exploration tax benefits, national oil reserves. Is for energy independence using non-petroleum, environmental friendly energy only. Would support ratification of Kyoto protocols.

There are a lot more - these are all sourced from:
http://www.ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm

Basically, he's Jim Webb with a less impressive resume (governor of Rhode Island?), a less compelling bio, and less of a political base.

Plus, another Lincoln in the White House? The South will freak. :D

Being an independent without a party, I tend to view all politics as a sort of chess game. That said, a Cruz/Palin or any other sort of Tea Party-ish 3rd party run would have a negative impact on the GOP vote count much like Perot had on GHWBush in 1992...

BTW, I'm one of those '1-in-5' Americans who voted for Perot; couldn't really bear either of the two (Bush/Clinton) although Clinton did surprise: left the White House with a balanced budget (without the need for a GOP insistence only a Constitutional amendment could achieve this result); a budget surplus; and a US not involved in heavy military action outside of the country. This is a far better set of accomplishments the two Bush bookend administrations that came before and after Clinton...

...and I'm still not really liking any of the candidates from either party, so far. It's going to be a tough decision :hmmm:


<O>

Every time that gets mentioned I cringe; not because I don't like the idea, but because of the deeper implications. There are only two ways to balance the budget - lower spending or raise taxes. Since the Clinton "accomplishment" was achieved by raising taxes, whenever I hear someone praise that move I always have the same reply: If that's such a good thing then wouldn't it be so much better to raise taxes to 100% and then give us back whatever you think we need? Not even the most hardcore liberals admit to liking that idea.

I came of voting age in 1971. I still have yet to see a candidate from either party that I liked.

You are right about the balanced budget: it's either taxes or cuts. It's never going to be simple or easy. But it doesn't have to be a 100% tax. If the loopholes enjoyed by the so-called 1% and the big multi-national corporations were plugged and everyone paid a single, flat rate without exception, the actual overall rate would most likely be lower than it is now. Add to this an elimination of 'pork spending' by Congress, a real and full accounting of military expenditures (which the Pentagon has been dodging for decades and has been perpetuating by continuing to use some of the most outdated and archaic accounting methods and technology [their accounting systems still run on Cobol and Fortran, for Christ's sake!] and the reduction and/or elimination of costly and unnecessary/failed defense projects, and the end to "corporate-welfare' subsidies to industries reaping record multibillion dollar profits, and we might have the lowest tax rate since the implementation of the Federal tax system...

Since you brought up the Clinton "accomplishment", how is the Reagan "miracle" accounted for?. Consider that even GHWBush, during the GOP candidate debates referred to Reagan's 'economic policies' as "voodoo economics". "Reganomics" were a rehash and extension of his policies as Governor of California and, as a resident of California, I can say when he left office (chased out by Jerry Brown's run for Governor in 1974), California was in seriously bad shape financially. Reagan's policies were based on a sort of 'smoke and mirrors' set up: as long as you didn't look too closely, you can't see the flaws. The whole structure was predicated on 'ideal' conditions, oddly much like communism is dependent upon to fully succeed. However, we live in a capitalist state and the erosion of a solid middle class will eventually lead to a top-heavy structure that will and did fall. It is very puzzling why GHWBush, whom I greatly respect as a person, would choose to continue on the "voodoo" couse set by Regan. When the fall came, it took GHWBush with it and gave us Clinton. In a strange sort of way Regan is responsible for Clinton's presidency...

Oh, I forgot to add in my previous post, Clinton left the White House with a nation experiencing a strong and healthy economy; eight years later we were left with what? The worst economic collapse since the Great Depression...

BTW, I also came of voting age in 1971...

God, I really miss Perot and his charts and graphs...


<O>

I'm not saying it does. I'm also not saying I think I have an answer. I'm just repeating my response to Clinton's boast about balancing the budget, and the people who talk about how wonderful it was.

And excellent point, and one I agree with.

The real main cause of all the country's financial problems.

Everyone should have to account for every penny.

See my reply above.

The original Tax System didn't have the IRS and a personal Income Tax, yet the country got along just fine.

First off, I never liked Reagan either.

That's the real problem with that system. On the face of it, "trickle-down" economics is not only a good system, it's the only system that works. The only people who can aid those who need it are the ones who have it in the first place. If we leave the corporate owners with more money then they will be in a position to pass it on to those who work for them. Of course that depends on the ones with the money being willing to pass it on, and no one ever wants to give up what they have.

On the other hand that leaves the opponents of that system wanting to use the government to force those who have it to give it up. Both ideals are good ones, but both depend on human nature, and as we all know human nature is the real problem.