At this point, if Hillary is the nominee it’ll be because of the super delegates and we’ll get a chance to use the liberal phrase “Selected, not Elected” throughout her entire campaign for the White House. Obama’s just plain got her beat 7 ways from Sunday in states won and votes cast.
Hillary Clinton
-
Candyman - I don’t think you’re being quite as accurate about the state of the economy as you could be. Growth has been good since 2003, no doubt, but for almost two years after the recession it was certainly a jobless recovery, as your own link shows. The US is still about a percentage point off of pre-recession unemployment levels, so in some sense there hasn’t been a full recovery, although that is of course to be expected.
Deficits were projected to go down, although the relief packages for Katrina and Rita have certainly changed that. Don’t forget that trade and current account deficits are making up for lower budget deficits. Essentially, US is exporting debt to enable greater consumption at home.
http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/sawhill/20050816.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,1579037,00.htmlMost of the major indicators point to US economy which is still strong, but is increasingly showing signs of major imbalance. Consumer confidence has decreased (http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10003423.shtml), likely because of the contraction of oil supplies (perceived or otherwise) from Katrina, Iraq, and Venezuela. The current accounts deficit is sustainable in the short-term, but the nightmare scenario is of shocks greatly disrupting the US ability to continue financing, or of Asian countries refusing to buy up US debts. More longer-term, the US savings rate fell to 0% last month, which threatens financial stability and continuing domestic investment. Finally, capital markets aren’t exactly encouraging. Despite a weak dollar, the US trade deficit has continued to increase.
Deficits unfortunately aren’t as easy to control as you might suggest. This administration came in on a smaller government platform, but has wildly exceeded the spending of most previous presidents. (See the David Brooks interview on the News Hour last Friday.) The difficulty in retracting the transportation bill and the lack of clear direction on funding Katrina relief should be considered an extremely troubling political situation for long-term economic stability.
-
Back on topic.
I have heard somewhere that if Hillary should run for president (knock on wood that she hopefully doesn’t) that she would not get a single vote from a Republican male. As for the Republican candidate, how about Rudi Giuliani for President? (I know I probably spelt the name wrong and I appoligize.)
-
Yea id vote for him easily, and im sure he would win easily. Make Colin Powell his VP and maybe even 5% of the Blacks would turn out to vote for them too.
-
@Yahoo:
WASHINGTON - Hillary Rodham Clinton announced her candidacy for the 2008 presidential election Monday, saying quote “I want to finally give women a chance to be behind the Oval Office desk, not under it.†Her move ended months of speculation among the press.
-
@Imperious:
The Taliban ALREADY attacked you, and Iraq only had eyes on Iran (plus they did not have the means or the wherewithall to attack anyone).
Facts: We were attacked by Osama and his organization known as al qaeda, the Taliban was in control of the nation where we had to invade into too take out his organization. Of course the Taliban wasnt good for their people either. The Taliban didnt attack the towers. So my point is correct and you need to crack a book open soon.
yeah yeah, so i got a little lazy.
This doesn’t change the fact that Bush appears to be the most reactive president ever. Your point is still wrong as Bush didn’t do anything until you got attacked.Saddam ran his nation into the ground and clearly went against the very rules established by the united nations after the gulf war which they started. The fact that Osama had to move into another nation to host his activities and the fact that Sadamm threatens our interests in the region allows us to use our big stick to knock him down before he activated his power to do evil in the world again. This was another preemtive attack. now we have two which makes a pattern of national policy.
you still didn’t say anything to back up your point.
Also - SH threatened nothing. He shot at people bombing his country, but that was about it. “activated his power to do evil in the world again”??? WAKE UP!! BUSH IS EVIL!Face it - Afghanistan was reactive, and Iraq was not pre-emptive - it was just imperialistic stupidity as you have killed many tens of thousands of innocent people at the cost of thousands of US soldiers. Stupid.
Hopefully we can take out Iran soon or North Korea and finish the job.
riiiight.
:roll:
Oh yeah - and i almost would like to see you attack Iran and NK. You would get the most obscene a$$-kicking you ever imagined. You are having trouble in a nation of 25 million moderates? I’m thinking that 68 million Persians are going to hand you your a$$ after ripping it off. -
SH threatened nothing. He shot at people bombing his country, but that was about it. “activated his power to do evil in the world again”??? WAKE UP!! BUSH IS EVIL!
Yes Yes Saddam didnt threaten anybody he is a nice dictator who allows his sons to kill and rape women and perform national executions in public, all the while he is killing and gassing his own people to maintain political control of his great minority and invading Kuwait because Bush pushed him just too far… On the other hand Bush has gassed millions and ordered the hurricane to attack us and kill black people, while his Dad started AIDS and the BUSH family is a group of Satanists who plan to destroy the human race with constant wars against peaceful loving nations. Is this from the Democratic rally playbook? If it helps you get thru the day believing this crap then enjoy your bliss while you listen to NPR radio and play the bongo.
Im sure its all Bush 41’s fault according to you people because hes a republican and you people allways just never accept problems from your side of the aisle. Just like that lush Ted Kennedy who allways tries to shoot down any Bush appointment just because Bush appointed him hating the fact you people didnt get into power and have to wait for another chance to make another 9th circus court of appeals.
Its just so typical to blame the problem on the guy who inherited the problem from Clinton who did nothing to preemtively put an end to all threats both real and possible to the free world. Your political correctness cannot accept our “Imperialism” because it involves violence and this goes against your 60’s play guitar and pick flowers culture.War is a viable and necessary means to achieve peace after diplomacy fails. Wars will never end no matter how many times you vote for John Kerry-
War out-
-
Back to the original question - I can’t say yes or no, because
-
Are we certain she will run? If so, will she win the Democratic nomination?
-
Who will run against her? I want to select the best person and I cannot know who that is until I have the full list of choices.
-
Who will be the runningmates? This is important considering the VP could well be President someday?
-
National context is important. Would she be a good fit for President in '08 considering the state of the nation then? We cannot know this until 2008.
-
-
@F_alk:
i wouldnt vote for her if she were the last person on earth!
Of course not. If she was the last person on earth, you wouldn’t be there and thus you couldn’t vote :).
And still, if she was the last person on earth, she would be voted with 100% of the votes.Not true falk, florida in 2000 proved that dems are not capable of using a voting machine correctly. Perhaps if there were only one hole to punch it might be a sure thing.
-
God forbid we return to the days of budget surplusses, peace, and a robust economy :roll:
Is anyone really happy with the direction the country’s headed in?
ahh, and the days b4 N Korea became a nuclear threat, letting bin laden go on 2 different occasions, ending the term in a recession, building up the whole .com bubble so that it would burst, giving our tech to the chinese, handicapping our trade for decades to come with Nafta, getting us involved in 2 conflicts we had no bussiness being in, the list goes on. Bush has his problems, but Clinton was a jacka$$.
-
as to this CC,
As for the war - this is such a joke for the rest of us watching the US pi$$ your money away.
There is one real reason we are in Iraq. A show of force (to aquire the bases needed for future shows of force). Any more planes fly into buildings or what not, 100,000 pissed off Americans are going to invade the country who let it happen. That is a DETERANT! That is worth fighting for. That makes us safer. The fanatics in the middle east respect and respond to 1 thing, and one thing only. Strength, either we show we have the ability and will, or they win. Know what OBL favorite movie is? Black hawk down. Kill a few americans and they run.
It is impossible to argue logicaly on this with anyone who can not grasp the very simple reality that the only language people (and the governments) of the middle east will understand is force.
-
Oh yeah - and i almost would like to see you attack Iran and NK. You would get the most obscene a$$-kicking you ever imagined. You are having trouble in a nation of 25 million moderates? I’m thinking that 68 million Persians are going to hand you your a$$ after ripping it off.
This is naive, to put it mildly. Lets say Iran or N. Korea gives a nuke to the terrorist and it is detonated in the US. We are using kid gloves in Iraq, the kid gloves would be off after that. Ever see what our airforce did to Dresden or Tokyo 60 years ago. Apply that now with 60 years of tech to back it up. No one would be left alive. All the terrorist can really succeed in doing is getting us to fight a total war (just short of nuclear). And than there is no middle east any more. That is a fact. If you think for a second that those countries could stand up to the US (during total war), you are not living in reality.
-
Imp - i’m not a democrat - i’m not even an American. I don’t listen to NPR - i don’t even know what it is. Anyway - you’ve sidetracked the argument with your strawman arguments and non-sequitors. If this makes you feel like the better debator - so be it.
War is a viable and necessary means to achieve peace after diplomacy fails.
did they not allow you to see the news the week before you invaded??
It is impossible to argue logicaly on this with anyone who can not grasp the very simple reality that the only language people (and the governments) of the middle east will understand is force.
and it is impossible to argue logically with someone who is so racist it makes me sad to live in North America.
-
God forbid we return to the days of budget surplusses, peace, and a robust economy :roll:
Is anyone really happy with the direction the country’s headed in?
ahh, and the days b4 N Korea became a nuclear threat, letting bin laden go on 2 different occasions, ending the term in a recession, building up the whole .com bubble so that it would burst, giving our tech to the chinese, handicapping our trade for decades to come with Nafta, getting us involved in 2 conflicts we had no bussiness being in, the list goes on. Bush has his problems, but Clinton was a jacka$$.
2 conflicts we had no business getting involved in? What Somalia? Bosnia? Incomparable to the hundreds of billions spent on Iraq, the lives lost on both sides. But I digress- when the Clinton-blaming starts, the white-flag goes up. I accept your surrender on the condition that you really start examining Bush’s policies.
-
There is one real reason we are in Iraq. A show of force (to aquire the bases needed for future shows of force).
Because THIS show of force has been sooo efective. What’s going on is pathetic- we can’t even subdue a country the size of California. You think Iran is afraid of us? LOL, we can’t even bail out our own cities, let alone invade another country. We might as well have given Iran the green light to get as many nukes as they want. By the time we get our shit together in Iraq (if that is even possible anymore), Iran will have enough nukes to be in the same position N. Korea is.
Any more planes fly into buildings or what not, 100,000 pissed off Americans are going to invade the country who let it happen.
Uh, no we won’t. Our capacity to invade anyone is gone. You can only stretch the volunteer army so far and it’s already near the breaking point. The worst we can do are airstrikes or lob a couple nukes.
That is a DETERANT! That is worth fighting for. That makes us safer. The fanatics in the middle east respect and respond to 1 thing, and one thing only. Strength, either we show we have the ability and will, or they win. Know what OBL favorite movie is? Black hawk down. Kill a few americans and they run.
I’m sure OBL is quaking in fear over our inability to catch him for the last five years. Or maybe its the rapid speed with which we crushed the insurgency in Iraq. Oh, wait.
Since we can’t invade anyone, ironically our deterrant now is the same as it was pre-invasion: the threat of airstrikes.
It is impossible to argue logicaly on this with anyone who can not grasp the very simple reality that the only language people (and the governments) of the middle east will understand is force.
And violence never begets more violence :roll:
Suggested Topics
