This post will specifically address Hilary Clinton in relation to this war, but other things related to Her and her campaign can be discussed, this is one section of a much broader War On Terror post of mine, that can be read here.....

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...mp;#entry228304



I want to talk about Hillary because more than any other candidate, whether they be white/black, male/female, conservative or liberal, this is the candidate that has me worried about the wellbeing of America more than anyone, and her position on the War on Terror, has been as inconsistent as I've seen, even from other candidates who have changed their position, and I'll explain why. I'll try to keep this section clean though, this is my honest criticism on her not a bashing of her, or liberals. Its a tough criticism, but I'm not going to state anything that I think is unnecessary or inaccurate, and anyone is welcome to cross reference me. To her credit she is highly intelligent and understands the political process well, I'll giver her that.

Now it is anybodies right to change their mind, however with elected officials I tend to set a higher standard. These are individuals who are far more informed than most civilians, in the area of war, and the politics of war. More than anything Its some specific key things she has stated publicly that has me scratching my head.

Hilary claims she supported the war because she didn't know that Bush was going to invade Iraq. Thats almost without a doubt a lie on her part, Bush was more than clear about his intentions from the beginning. This war being such an important issue and Hillery being one of many running for president, I will elaborate on this flip-flopping with some links....

In the following link is a Glenn Beck clip of Hilary saying different things at different times concerning Iraq, I originally saw this side by side comparison watching that episode of his program, and later followed it up with research of my own.......

(Video Link) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4-hsl4VqU0

From the video link above the following was stated by Hilary on November 28, 2003 (One year after her vote for [H.J. Res. 114] a Resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.)

Hillary Clinton...



Today she claims she did not know our presidents intension's, and this can only mean one of two things, she didn't read the Resolution she voted for, or she is lying. It can mean nothing else. The resolution is so easy to understand that there is no way it could have been misinterpreted, and I'll substantiate this claim.

Here is a Wiki link that list all those who voted against, and for the Resolution, and a description of the Resolution.......

(Text Link) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

And here is the Resolution itself.....

(Text Link) http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

So what kinds of things are in this Resolution? Its pretty clear even from the title of the resolution itself, what it's about.

Heck Its titled...

'''''''''''''''''''''Joint Resolution''''''''''''''''''''''''''
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Throughout the resolution its very clear and specific, the segment below states a bit about what power the resolution granted our president and
More can be read on the PDF....



Now she says she expected Bush to use diplomacy before going to war, being her only reason for funding the bill, however just before casting her vote on this she voted against the Carl Levin amendment which was an amendment that would have required more diplomatic measures to be taken by our president before committing to war. This can be read about at the following two links........

(Text Link) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huff...ry_b_49733.html

(Text Link) http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/polit...us_about_i.html


from the first link this is the most relevant section.......






So to make matters worse instead of admitting it was a mistake on her part like John Edwards did, she made an excuse suggesting she was somehow duped by the big bad bush, but I just don't see how thats possible given some of the things I've learned here. Now additionally she has flip flopped on many other occasions as well. The more research on her I've done, the more things like this I find.

For example at this link describes how she changed her position in a matter of 2 days....

(Text Link)
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?he...f1-d5b257c082c9


Now I further researched that to be fair, even went to her site, and found that the first time she was actuality referring certain aspects
of the surge, and that their has been some progress, but how someone even goes from saying the surge was a partial success to an all out failure in two days makes me wonder. What I think that is, like many things she says, is her saying what is best for her political image at the time she says it.

If anyone watched the most recent democratic debate for example, yet again you would have seen signs of inconsistency. Did I hear her say on the 26'th that we may need forces in Iraq as late as 2013? I Never heard her say that before, but this woman is woman a genius. She probably has an IQ of 156 this one. I have a feeling that the reason she has become a little less drastic with her bush bashing and says things that appeal to conservatives more now than she has in the past is because she knows she has the primary won, and she knows she has the left on her side already.

As we all know she is leaps and bounds ahead of the other Democratic candidates and In this realization she is looking into the future. Next year when it comes time to vote for president, It will likely be her and whoever wins the primary for the Republicans. So who does she have to appeal to in order to clinch this presidency? The swing voters and the conservatives. The Democrats support gets her almost halfway there. The Unaffiliated or swing voters are key, and many of these people do agree to a reasonably lengthed withdrawal of troops from Iraq that doesn't result in overnight disaster in Iraq, and the support of just a few conservatives couldn't hurt either. She is not the only one playing politics but she has mastered this technique of getting support politically unlike any candidate running. Unfortunately she has to lie and change positions to achieve that.

Of course, I'll admit I say the things I do as a supporter of this war in the opposite party she represents, but I tried to make that less of a candidate bash, and more of an honest criticism as I possibly could, but really we all have to decide for ourselves who is best suited to be next commander and chief. Come next November I will be as informed as I possibly can be on who I'm voting for.

_______________________________________________________________________________

1. What type of opinion do you have on Hilary Clinton? Positive, Negative, or Neutral? (please explain)

2. Do you believe she will become president of the U.S.?

3. Do you believe she should become president, and that she will make a good one if she does?

1. What type of opinion do you have on Hilary Clinton? Positive, Negative, or Neutral? (please explain)

I'd say mostly neutral. She seems like a very typical career politician to me.

2. Do you believe she will become president of the U.S.?

Tough to say. I wouldn't bet money on it, but I suspect she has slightly less than a fifty-fifty chance.

3. Do you believe she should become president

Well, better her than somebody whose positions I disagree with entirely. Perhaps I'm just too cynical, but I'd rather have a slick, manipulative politician in the White House than an honest and sincere leader who is heading the wrong way.

and that she will make a good one if she does?

I don't think it's possible to be a good President anymore. The best we can hope for is mediocre. Clinton II, if it happens, will probably be very similar to Clinton I; nothing worth get excited about.

I would have to go with Neutral-Negative.

Neutral because I admit to having bias for not liking her husband all that much and I don't think that's a reason to dislike her.

However, I say negative also because I do not agree with her 7 times out of 10. I try to keep my personal feelings out of the equation, but in all honesty, it's pretty hard. I believe that personality traits do, to some degree, affect one's ability to lead. I'm probably going to get tasered for this, but here goes.

What Bill did to her was horrible and I would never wish it on anyone because it's been done to me. An unfaithful spouse has a huge detrimental effect. You may be asking me why should I not like her, then? Because she took it, and she's still with him. Spare me the "political convenience", "forgiveness", and "marriage is a joke these days anyways". That's bovine manure, and you know it. You can't forgive someone for that, you can say the words, but you will always wonder every time they step out the door if they're going to see someone else, that feeling never goes away. You start to resent your spouse, later you'll resent yourself, then bitterness swoops in for the kill. Even if, and this is a HUGE if, they have some sort of "open relationship", he still humiliated her for months in front of the entire country.

I can't see how she can attract feminist voters when a man treats her like that and she just takes it in stride like a good little woman. Apparently voting a woman in office at the expense of what you preach is their new motto.

Personal opinion aside, I can never tell where she stands on an issue and last night's debate only confused me more. She changed her mind within a minute more times than I could count that even Tim Russert, as well as the other candidates, called her on it.



I think it's becoming more and more likely as time goes on. Hillary has a commanding lead on the democrat side and looks like a lock on the primaries. If you look at the other side of the aisle, it's still up for grabs for the Republicans. Sure, Rudy has a slight lead, but Romney is scoring some huge numbers in Iowa and New Hampshire. We all know what happened to Howard Dean.



We could do worse....*coughbillrichardsoncough*

Neutral to negative. Her vain attempt to appeal both to the left wing of the party by lying about her war position and votes and her recent lie about the solvency of the Social Security system tell me she is a slick politician who will say anything to get elected.

In the recent debate she danced around the issue of drivers licenses for illegal aliens in NY to such a degree I defy anyone to tell me what he actual position is.

That said she is by far the most centrist of the Democrat lot out there.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,306525,00.html

1. What type of opinion do you have on Hilary Clinton? Positive, Negative, or Neutral? (please explain)

I have a neutral opinion of Clinton. I'd rather she not be the democratic candidate for two reasons. One, for right or wrong reasons she has generates an intense negative opinion. I listen to the reasons and I still don't know exactly why. I sense that it is mostly about our present culture wars and the proper role of the first lady. The other reasons tend to be unsubstantiated, rumor, conspiracy etc. Although I'll recognize Mrs P.'s negative experiences being a military guinea pig for Ms. Clinton's failed health reform efforts. This is related to the negative opinion theme, she doesn't have charisma. She is a very polished politician and usually gets her policy and theory right, but she still has a campaign persona like Bob Dole, but Bob Dole trying hard to pretend he's not cranky.

My other problem with Clinton, is that she will bring back a team that has had enough time at the helm of power to be entrenched with the major interest groups in our nation. I want a candidate who is going to be free to lead in a new a fresh direction and reevaluate all of our policies with a fresh eye and a relative independence to look at what truly is in the 21st century nation's best interests.

2. Do you believe she will become president of the U.S.?

I think she will. She is well-positioned and I don't see a strong candidate coming from the republicans and she is starting to make the other Democratic candidates look flawed, feeble, and desperate.

3. Do you believe she should become president, and that she will make a good one if she does?

I believe she will espouse the mainstream/conservative views of the democratic party and run a centrist government. I believe her appointees will generally be good appointments based on merit and experience, and that the Democratic economic policies, lip service to tax hikes for the wealthy aside, will be more to the liking of hte world markets. She will be a strong presence in foreign policy and will be every bit as competent in that area as her husband. In short we will be in much better hands than we are today.


The unlisted question: Do I think she is less of a candidate because of her votes on our nation's Iraq policies?

I do not think Clinton's explanation for her vote is flip-flopping or equivocating. The vote was to authorize the president to use force if necessary in Iraq. As the executive branch built up pressure on Iraq he turned to Congress for a strong resolution to show Iraq that the US meant business. I my have voted for the resolution in Clinton's shoes. I too am surprised 1) how little real diplomacy or intelligence verification was done from that point on. and 2) how ineptly the bush administration has handled almost every policy for the war.

Allowing the president a free hand to determine the initial use of force is not the same as a Congressional declaration of war.

This is the trap that the right thinks it has set for anyone who initially voted to authorize the president to use force. It is often misrepresented as a Congressional declaration of war. I think even cynical democrats expected a better examination of existing intelligence to determine if action was necessary. There is no excuse, ever, for wrongly leading a nation to war. Bush asked us to trust us, Clinton trusted her president, now we are supposed to blame her for that?


She voted for this bill and spoke clearly about it at the time, on some points, like the certainty that Hussein was strengthening his WMD program she was wrong.





Clinton's floor speech about this resolution

Clinton is not flip-flopping on this issue. Not that I don;t believe that politicians should be pilloried for changing their minds, but this was a very important issue. She was in a tough spot on this vote. And clearly by her speech she would not have agreed with how Bush used this authorization.

Ataal


It's hard to tell where she stands on many issues, I agree. Before she ran for president I didn't know how inconsistent she was until of course she ran, and put herself in the spotlight. I never fail to notice how indifferent she is in debate. She is always seems to want to take the middle ground but when she gets emotional she fouls up, and says something that is in many cases inconsistent with what she said on another occasion.




The republican party sure faces a challenge next year. There is one issue that will make things difficult and I believe its this war. Regarding Hilary I believe thats the primary thing that Is giving her the edge over Giuliani in the national polls. The majority of Americans are either confused about the war, or simply don't support it, that alone is giving her the edge. Otherwise she is highly unpopular for being a front runner, this poll being one small example of what the opinion on her is. Beyond the few that have voted here, I see this stated on the news frequently.

However as you pointed out despite this she has gained increasing support over the months. I think there is a way around this but I think its up to the republican voters to elect the candidate most likely to beat her. Who we elect in the primary will be the difference between a win and a loss. Everyone has there favorite candidate, mine as of now is Mike Huckabee. Although he is a Second teer candidate, he is moving up fast. The reason I like him is because he comes off as most genuine in my opinion, he's very well spoken, very direct, and its not hard to figure what his position is.

I like Guliani but I think he relies to much on his Position on this war, and too much on his handling of 9/11. This will get you where you need to be with republicans, but beyond that the chances of him beating a candidate like Hilary I believe are slim. Fred Thomson I believe may have a slightly better chance than Rudy to beat Hilary, I believe this because I think he will have more appeal to the left than Giuliani.

However debate after debate Huckabee is striking me as the one who has used attack methods on other candidates the least. Hes been very consistent so it would be hard for Hilary to use cheep tricks on this one. If it were just the two of them I believe the people would see a candidate not interested in playing games. The war would be one of the only things that Hilary would be able to use, However his position on the war is just what Republicans need in a candidate, he supports winning it but is highly critical of how things have been handled, a bit like John Mccain.



Yea, he mentions his credentials in almost every sentence.

(TED)


Well that link shows she is still willing to launch attacks, she has just gotten smarter and more postured, particuarly while debating.



I partially agree with you on one point, that being that there was some obvious poor planing and bad intelligence going into this war, I point this out all the time myself. However the idea that this fact equates to (There is no excuse, ever, for wrongly leading a nation to war.) I don't believe he wrongly lead anyone to war, this was a war we went to as a nation. Despite going into Iraq knowing there was a slim chance we would find Saddams WMD, this doesn't mean we were mislead to war, and I'll explain why.

To put it simply, WMD discovery was not our primary objective, it was a secondary objective. The primary purpose for this war was to disarm the Saddam Regime that, even Charles Duefler and David Kay, the two heads of the Iraq Survey Group said was more than dangerous, then establish a stable democracy. Now H.J. Resolution. 114, which I linked to originally shows directly what power it would have granted our president. That resolution was passed in October of 2002, but here is another link showing George bushes plan was clear as crystal to any elected official that can read, hopefully they all can read. This is dated at the star of the war....... http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MAR303A.html

There are a number of sources dated at the start and before the war that state what bushes intension's were for the war.
I don't believe he mislead anyone, everyone who funded this war knew what they were doing. Bush did however fight with questionable tactics, turning a large number of people against him, and while I couldn't disagree with candidates like Barack Obama more I throw him some respect because he seems to have no fingers to point. He doesn't believe the war in Iraq was right but he didn't vote to fund it. Now even John Edwards I give a degree of respect, because he does at least say he was wrong without playing Martyr. As for Hilary, I respect your point of view and I agree to disagree, but did you read the bit in my original post about the Carl Levin amendment?

First to clarify my point. While I do believe that Bush wrongly led us to war, my point was that as the commander in chief of this nation, when you make the call to war, you must launch a successful war effort. This is not an area where less than 100% allows you to be deemed a good president. When you put our people and foreign policy capital on the line, (especially if we have the luxury to choose) failure is not an option. Bush mucked it up. Whether or not I agree with his choice, the results have harmed our nation.


And no, the opening post did not draw me toward a new reading of the Levin amendment or your point about it.

The disagreement I seem to have with so many people regarding our president isn't that he screwed up, or that he made some poor choices. The disagreement I have are the elaborations that have stemmed from this. One elaboration being that he knowingly and purposefully mislead this nation by going to war. I hear people say this all the time, yet I have never seen any real substantiation for it. In fact by reading documents dated before the wars start I know for a fact that he didn't mislead anyone. All primary goals that are stated today for the war were stated in documentation before the wars start and was available to everyone. Ive also heard people say he is a war criminal, but when getting down to specifics, there is no substantiation for that either, only conspiracy theories that sometimes go as far as suggesting that he was involved with the 9/11 attacks. By the way your right there is little room for error on an issue such as this, and I don't excuse his fouling up, because he has fouled up in a number of ways.

I think he went into this war however with the best of intentions, but choose tactics which were simply ineffective. Do I believe the results of this war thus far have harmed our nation? Well Ill believe that if we get attacked again while being on the offensive, we are certainly lagging behind where we should be however so I agree with you on that much.

Now as for the Carl Levin amendment, this was a crucial part of evidence in this case. Now her excuse for having voted yes on [H.J. Res. 114] is she says she wanted and expected more diplomatic measured to be taken. Ive read enough of the actual resolution which I previously linked, to know that anyone who read this would have known what exactly they were voting for. The resolution is neither hard to understand, or easy to misinterpret. So from this alone I figured she was lying by saying she was Duped by Bush. However the Nail in the coffin is the Carl Levin amendment. This amendment she did not vote for yet it would have required more diplomatic measures to be taken by our president before committing to war. Read the link in the original post above.

I was very thorough in my research of her. I didn't want to be unfair, Ive been to her site and looked for counterarguments on this one, yet nothing explains to me the position she takes in calling this "Bushes War" and a war she was duped into funding, and this is solely because of her own voting record as well as things she has said in the past regarding her commitment to staying the course, and putting the time in to win in Iraq. Read the post from start to finish and you should see what I'm getting at.



I think a lot of people are in your shoes Silverwolf. Unfortunately If she wins im staring to believe it will be almost soley because she is more likely to end the Iraq war than most republicans, in general I think many will vote for her while grinding their teeth, thats how powerful a weapon this war has become amongst the democratic candidates.

What positions in general amongst conservatives do you tend to disagree with enough to determine whether or not you would vote for them? Is it primarily this war, or a number of things?

My first answer is "no" to the poll- she, and all the other lawmakers, were clearly mislead an lied to by GW and co- yellowcake memo anyone?

Since we have had 8 years of the worst president in US history to deal with, anyone without an R behind his/her name besides Ron Paul would do a better job than the piles of human offal that have been in power for the last 8 years.

Hillary, if anything, is competant. That alone would be a step up, unfortunately. It is an illustration of how bad it has been since the 1994 mid-term elections under conservative rule that makes me wish we still had Bill Clinton in power. I personally despised Clinton, and haven't ever respected ANY president since Carter- though ineffectual, he is a person of real morals (not made up ones like Reagan-to present )

but we have regressed to a kleptocracy goverment similar to what we saw in former eastern bloc countries, and I hope we can reverse this trend before it is too late.

Clinton can run the goverment and poeple's business competently, pretty free of idealogical bull crap that we have had to put up with since Reagan as well- and I would welcome that.

Net- Hillary is far more fiscally conservative than any self styled conserative in office has EVER been since before WW2. Reagan, Bush Sr and Bush Jr had HUGE borrow and spend programs, on a truly massive scale, and escalated debt and deficit like no president before them.

If you are linking "coservative" values to those presidents- and include fiscal restraint and spending issues- they are the biggest spenders in US history.

Bill Clinton has more fiscal conservative credentials than Reagan, Bush Sr and Bush Jr combined.

As lukewarm as I am about Senator Clinton, at least I am pretty sure that she will not speak out in favor of a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, or one banning flag-burning as a form of free speech, or other causes dear to the hearts of social conservatives. No doubt she will murmur vague statements about these kinds of issues while avoiding any real committment, but at least she won't openly support things which I oppose. Maybe that's the best I can hope for in a Presidential candidate.

As far as the war goes, I think that is a huge mess for which there is no good solution.

And I might as well admit a bit of personal bias and say that, all other factors being equal (and they never are, of course), I would rather have a mediocre woman in the White House than a mediocre man. That's a very, very small factor, but one that might tip the scales for me.

Eeyore, I strongly disagree with the jist of your post here. First of all, do you have any shred of evidence that Bush did not put in 100% in the planning of the war. From my take on the military Bush does make the final decisions but cannot micro-manage the war. Also, if you can find me a Barbie cut out that will always win a war, ill give you a trillion dollars, or Dinars if you prefer. From my take on Bush, "failure is not an option" is what he is geared and being a stubborn terminating machine towards.

You cannot expect anyone to "launch a winning war". You can only expect them to launch it to the best of there ability, and I don't believe anyone will disagree that this is a complicated war with no easy solution, even from the start.

More on the original topic. I do agree with what you said about Hillary for the most part in that she is a basic career politician, but I do not believe she will beat Rudolph.

Well I'm generally pro choice myself I don't really have a problem with same sex marriage, they should be able to do what they want. I believe Rudy is pro choice on same sex marriage, of course he supports the war effort also where you don't. Who however is your favorite candidate in both parities? I should have added a poll for that. Amongst the democrats my favorite is Joe Biden because his positions are a little closer to mine than the other democrats, if I had to pick a second favorite it would be Barack Ohbama would be a close second, almost solely because of his personality, I think he says what he believes rather than what he thinks will get him voted. Although I do disagree with many of his positions. As for the Republicans, My favorite candidate is Mike Huckabee. This because of his personality as well, he seems most genuine to me of all the candidates running and when a candidate can pull that off thats when I give them most credit even if I don't agree with them 100% of the time. Huckabee unlike with Barack I agree with his positions as well as personality. Second favorite would be either Fred Thompson or Rudy.



Net- Hillary is far more fiscally conservative than any self styled conserative in office has EVER been since before WW2. Reagan, Bush Sr and Bush Jr had HUGE borrow and spend programs, on a truly massive scale, and escalated debt and deficit like no president before them.

Yikes, what can I say about that other than I disagree. Don't know how I feel about the Idea of Jimmy Carter being the last great president either but I suppose we all differ. I do know he failed to earn a second term, like two of the three Republicans you mentioned managed to do. I thought JFK was the shining example of a fine Democratic leader, that man motived a nation and had a way with words. As did Ronald Regan. For being such a bad example of a great Republican leader as you hinted, he sure did go down in the books with the best of them. Personally I'm not reluctant to give credit or support to anyone I think deserves it, Republican or Democrat. On the flip side I don't dislike Hillary for example because shes Democrat and I'm Republican, I dislike Hillary because she's Hillary. She changes positions too much, she gets caught lying too much, she bases her campaign by pointing fingers at conservatives too much. What can I say she does a lot of things too much. One thing I agree with you on is that we haven't had a great president in a long time, however the odds of Hillary filling that spot are about as slim as the majority of Democrats falling in love with George Bush. In other words a snow balls chance in hell. Comments like that may be snarky, but I say what I do having watched most the Democratic debates, and researching her, therefore I believe its Hillary and Hillary alone that has earned herself such widespread criticism.

For the record- i did NOT say Jimmy Carter was a "great president"- I say he was a personally honorable and upright man, a decent human being- for that, he was the last president that i would say could fill those criteria- i would say he was a failed president for the same reason GW was a failed president- he had both houses of the legislative branch as a majority, the supreme court was ideologically on his side- and he blew it.

But he was the last person in office, in my lifetime, and I was born in 1965. Jimmy Carter was the only person in the white house in my time that was even a decent human being.

the rest where sociopaths and meglomaniacs and just plain ol' fashioned evil.

1. I'm impressed how easily and early Hillary Clinton sprinted out to take such a wide lead over her challengers. She's had no problem putting together an impressive staff and raising cash. Of course, being married to the most successful Democrat since Franklin Roosevelt might have something to do with it. I'm positive about Senator Clinton on most issues, but negative about her personality and style of campaigning (which I guess equals out to Neutral). She's not my candidate, Barack Obama is, but she doesn't seem to face the doubts the way Obama does that she's qualified and experienced enough to be President of the United States.

The trap for Hillary Clinton is she may have peaked too soon. The expectations are that she's going to win the nomination in a walk, raise millions of dollars to crush any Republican and take the prize next November. The thing is, what if she loses Iowa and/or New Hampshire? If Clinton has to depend on South Carolina to save her candidacy she's cooked. It may not play out that way and people a lot smarter than me are advising her as to how the scenarios should play out, but I don't think
Clinton is an "inevitable" as the Washington media says she is.

2. If she wins the nomination she can win the general election. There are a LOT of reasons that make her becoming president problematic. A lot of people are tired of the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton merry-go-round. The idea that two families should occupy the White House for at least 24 years is a bit disturbing to me. There needs to be some fresh blood injected into the American body politic.

Nobody has the negatives that Hillary has. She polarizes a large swath of the electorate who plain just don't like her or the idea of putting Bill Clinton back in the White House. That's a huge monkey to get off her back and I can't see how she can say or do anything to make her look more passionate and warm instead of calculated and cold. Hillary doesn't charm people
the way even Bill or George W. Bush do.

3. Only time and history can tell if a President Hillary Clinton would be successful or not. Who knows what types of national and international calamities may occur that would demand a swift and sure response from her? Another massive terrorist attack on America could either define her presidency or ruin it. Blessed with an intelligence missing from the White House for the past eight years and the political acumen to serve her well, Clinton could do more than just make history as the first woman president.

But can she overcome her high negatives and possible "Clinton fatigue" to accomplish her goal? That is a question that can't be answered just yet.




This is probably the kiss of death for Huckabee coming from a confirmed liberal like myself, but of all the Republican candidates, I find Mike Huckabee the one guy I'm pulling for. There is no doubt that he is a solid and staunch conservative, but I found myself listening to him during the debate hosted by Tavis Smiley and he came off as intelligent, thoughtful and not overly prepped the way so many of the other Republican and Democratic candidates do.

I'm not saying I would vote for Huckabee. He's a bit too conservative and his proposals aren't particularly bold, but I find myself listening to him more. I pay a bit more attention when I read things like this from NEWSWEEK:

A few years later, Huckabee took the pulpit of a small but growing church in Pine Bluff, Ark., and started a Christian radio and TV station, which aired his Sunday sermons. One day a listener contacted him. He was a black teenager and was interested in attending services at Huckabee's church, but worried he wouldn't be welcome; Immanuel Baptist Church had been all white since its inception in the 1890s. "Of course you can come, I told him," Huckabee recalls.

The minister prepared his flock. "I hope that nobody has anything except warm feelings," he recalls telling them. "In fact, if he is not welcome, I don't want to be here either." The speech didn't go over well among some church elders, who threatened to fire him. Several members quit in protest. But most of his parishioners stood with him, and in the years that followed, the church slowly integrated. "I grew up with a lot of people who really resisted integration," Huckabee tells NEWSWEEK. "The more I listened to them, the more I became convinced that racism was an incredible evil." Rex Nelson, who worked for Huckabee when he was governor, says his racial awareness "comes from being raised poor … He knew what it was like to look up at other people who were looking down on him." (Huckabee later carried these lessons to the statehouse, where he pushed to end racial disparity in drug sentencing and urged compassion for the children of illegal immigrants—a position that put him at odds with some in his party.) link

A Republican not named Jack Kemp that talks candidly about race? What's wrong with this picture?

There is talk that Huckabee may be positioning himself as Rudy Giuliani's running mate, but if he finishes strong or wins Iowa, he could break through and push Giuliani, McCain, Thompson or Romney out of the top tier of contenders.

It would be supremely ironic if Hilliary were to win the nomination only to find herself squaring off against another former governor of Arkansas.

nighttimer



Barack Obama id feel much more comfortable winning the democratic primary than Hillary. However the very thing I like about him could be his downfall. I disagree with him on many things, especially the war, but I like to think of him as the Huckabee of the Democrats, while the two dont agree on policy they have a similar demeanor. It seems the most polished and rehearsed candidates attacking each other are the ones getting the farthest unfortunately.

In the Republican race its the game of who is the real conservative. With the democrats its who will end the war the fastest, and for the ones paying attention you can get a sense for who is playing games and saying anything to get elected and who isn't. Obama is very sincere looking and seems to believe what he says.



I hope she has peaked, I actually missed the last democratic debate, but Ive heard she didn't do well at all, hopefully she gets tripped up some more as time goes on.



You know I think your right, I think in general people are tired of the back and fourth Bush/Clinton/Bush routine and to add another Clinton would likely mean we would have another president people generally wouldn't care for. Im confident her numbers will begin to fall some but question is will it be enough for another democratic candidate to gain the upper hand. Reason Im involved with researching democratic candidates is because I know that this next election is going to be particuarly challenging for Republicans to win. The war is one factor and we are pushing to have a Republican in office for a third straight term. So it wont be easy. So in the prospect that we don't win this general election Im hoping not to have someone in there that makes me roll my eyes every time I see them. Honestly I even liked Bill more than Hillary, Her being president is something Id have to accept if it happens but I wouldn't be happy about it.





I'm really hoping thats what he can do. If he can gain enough popularity to be a top runner that would be great, I just hope there is enough time and enough people on the republican side who are noticing what you are about him. I also think he would have the best chance of beating Hillary being that he has so much consistency over her, and he's much more genuine. A race against Huckabee and Obama would probably be very tight.

Please list them, as usual, this sounds more like your opinion than an objective debate based upon fact. I might be incorrect, but I'd be very surprised.

Go for it.

Secondly, what exactly does Bill Clinton have to do with Hillary? Are you saying that Bill will really run the White House?

The biggest problem with Hillary's position is that she doesn't have one. Consider what the spin machine did to Kerry in the last election, and how many skeletons Hillary has in her closet. Furthermore, she has no stance.

How on earth can someone support someone who has nothing to say? Seriously. It's like voting for her based upon brand name. We might as well elect McDonald's or one of the Walton boys.

Hillary Clinton, in effect, has little political experience, has TONS of skeletons to make known to the general public, and has no ideas that she'll stick to. I can't wait to see how this turns out. It'll say a TON about the voting public in the US. I can't figure out at all why anyone would vote for her.

Positive. She makes a few mistakes here and there, but the spotlight is really on her all the time, so the press catches every misstep. But I think she's a very good politician, and I would trust her with both domestic and foreign issues. America's international credibility would skyrocket immediately upon her election.


I think it's about 50/50. I think Obama has plenty of time to catch up. Also, about 49% of our population was crazy enough to vote for Bush twice, so there really is no predicting what the lower half of America will do for an encore.


I think she would be a fine president, but the sheer hatred she brings out in the Limbaugh types really worries me. The last thing this country needs is another 8 years of polarization. I just don't see the NASCAR crowd ever giving her a chance. But politically, I think she would be just fine. I think she would work with both Democrats and Republicans in Congress.

But I'd rather see Obama get elected. I haven't found anything about that guy I don't like - he's smart, he's presidential, and he's cordial. He'd be a welcome change.



I'm guessing that CR was referring to the federal deficits under Reagan, Bush, and Junior versus the budget surplus under Clinton. http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm (And if you credit Clinton's economic success to Bush Sr.'s economic policies finally coming to fruition, I'm going to puke on the Japanese Prime Minister.)



Hey, Bush got elected. Twice. DUI, coke, booze, embarassing cheerleader pictures. He had nothing to say, except that America had no business meddling in other countries' business. He was, and is, a total boob, yet he got elected. On the Bush brand name, not on his many accomplishments. So don't count her out.

1) It might have been negative, but after the last 7 years even an autistic eggplant with Tourette's would seem like a positive candidate. Hillary leans heavily corporate, which means we aren't going to see much improvement on the field of corporate giants freely gouging the people at will. I think our foreign and domestic policy might improve, but again... after these last several years improvement is the onlyoption. I'd say she's a 'neutral' while I hope to be pleasantly surprised.

2) The Corporate Media is all but shoving her down our throats. I'm not sure 'We the People' have as much say as we think we do. Edwards or Kucinich are much more on the side of the people than she is, but the media is telling us she's already the candidate. After the nomination, the only way she could lose in the general election is if California instates the ballot initiative to divide up their electoral votes by precinct... effectively robbing whoever wins the state of a significant number of electoral votes.

3) Can't speculate. At least she won't be giving foreign leaders unsolicited massages.



I'd much rather vote for someone with nothing to say rather than someone who says everything wrong.


"Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country."

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."

Hunter Rose


Well who are you comparing her to Bush? Both Bush and Hillary seem to be equally unlikable, just for different reasons. I consider Bush to have policies that I agree with, well at least 60% of the time, but flat out being poor at executing and promoting his policies. He just lacks leadership skills, and communication skills.

Hillary is unlikable to so many primarily because not many are confident about where she stands, as some members are pointing out. I see this playing out a number of possible ways.

For the Democrats the worst thing they can do is elect there current front runner "Hillary Clinton"

For the Republicans the worst thing they can do is elect there current front runner "Rudy Giuliani"

Sounds a bit Ironic but I feel like both these people will hurt their parties chances for winning for practically the same reasons. Rudy is a strong leader and has proved his leadership skills when faced with a terrorist threat. This he uses to his advantage and has a large percentage of the republican base on his side for this reason. What many don't realize is that he will never appeal to the left at all and will not appeal to most swing voters either. Our country is considerably anti war at the moment and most of the ones who support it are within the republican base. If this is the foundation of his campaign as it seems to be, it will only get him where he needs to be with republicans. However I strongly believe he would lose the general election by not appealing to enough people outside the republican party. Plus he has dirt that can be brought up on him, more than most other candidates, apart from Hillary.

Now with Hillary its basically the same, she tries harder than any candidate to appeal to all voters, yet she is one of the most disliked candidates running once you look outside the democratic party, and even with democrats she seems in many cases to just be acceptable and better than a republican alternative. Her numbers have began to drop faster than I had expected, and for good reason. In the general election she will get hit hard for flip flopping and countless other things that will be used against her. If it were her and Guliani in the general election I believe Hillary would win, primarily because of the war, although I'm convinced she would end the war later than most other democrats so why shes upfront in the democratic race is beyond me, must be her money and promoting abilities.

Now I only consider 7 candidates to even have a chance of winning the primary for their party On the democratic end you have (Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards) With the Republicans its (Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee) I think John McCain, and Ron Paul are out at this point. IMO looking at all the top candidates, id say the that Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee would be most likely to win for their parties although for the democrats my favorite candidate is Senator Joe Biden, but he doesn't seem to have much of a chance at this point.

The Republicans are in a particuarly sticky spot, wining this election will not be easy. What we need is a candidate that can do 2 things, one thing being appeal to the republican base, which means support for this war and strength in foreign policy. I say this by observing Ron Paul, he has taken a position on Iraq that is non supportive and as a result has gotten more attention nationally than some of the front runners, yet cant get anywhere with the republican base. Unfortunately those who do support the war run into a bit of a catch 22, because they have appealed to the republican base but not the nation as a whole. This brings me to the 2nd thing a republican would have to do, and thats appeal to the swing voters and to some extend to the left. Now thats not exactly easy to accomplish if you do support the war so you would really have to make up for that in other areas.

Now appealing to the nation IMO doesn't mean becoming Hillary Clinton and trying to appeal to everyone by changing positions, I think the best way any candidate can appeal to the masses is to come off as being a genuine leader, and the only way to that is if you are. Its not something that can be easily faked.
If your interest goes beyond your campaign and you truly interested in making a difference, it will show in your words and in your actions. So in other words Personality cannot be overlooked. I agree with almost all the Republicans on what they say as far as policy goes, but the one who has convinced me most that they will be best to make their policy a reality in Mike Huckabee, Ive said this before when talking to Nightimer.

Huckabee seems to have something that no other Republican has and thats appeal. Therefore I think he is the only Republican candidate that is likely to win in the general election. If it were Mike and Hillary his chances would be high, it would be close but I think he would win and I cant say that with confidence with any other candidate amongst republicans. Now if it were Mike and Barack I couldn't say for sure who I believe would win in that, it would probably be as close as the 2004 Bush/Kerry election.

Mike Huckabee is what I was looking for in Fred Thompson, but Fred was a bit of a disappointment. Huckabee I believe may have come in just in time to give our party a fighting chance, and winning a 3rd straight term while fighting an unpopular war wont be easy.

So you expect her to be elected? You are a Republican and you see no better candidate in their ranks?

Sure Hillary is more conservative than the other tax and spend crews but that does not make the change she would bring “better”.

I imagine that, much like the "Reagan Democrats," there are many Republicans fed up with the current state of their party. And though she often gets demonized as a lefty, she is a pretty centrist candidate. Judging by the issues and the history, rather than the media soundbites, Republicans looking for a change would probably be more drawn to her than to the other Democratic candidates. Not everyone is blinded by party loyalty. Many centrists, both Democrat and Republican, swing from party to party depending on the times, the issues, and the candidates.

You are right – if you had to pick between “Democrats” she would definitely be my choice. Fortunately there are several very good Republican alternatives.

I actually somewhat disagree, just judging from my own personal perspective and experience. Having lived abroad, I think that America's credibility would improve in Europe. In Europe alone.

I've had random Londoners, strangers, somehow smelling that I'm American, lean over to me and start talking to me about Hillary Clinton on the tube. It's happened to me multiple times, and it's actually really obnoxious-- if anyone who reads this is from London, please don't do that... I recognize it as a somewhat congenial gesture, I know you guys love her and Gore, but it's kind of stereotyping... used to make me feel like I don't belong or something.

Anyway, Africa is a different story. Strictly speaking as someone whose lived in a heavily muslim African nation (Ghana), I don't think Hillary has anywhere near the good will that Bill has, and if we're going to put this in the context of the race, I think there are other candidates who would be even better. Like Obama, obviously, but also given how evangelical certain developing nations can be, from Latin America to Africa and Asia, I think you could argue that Mike Huckabee could even be good for our reputation abroad, at least in non-Muslim nations. But rewinding for a sec:

Bill Clinton's popularity among West African muslim communities -- again speaking from my own personal observations -- is nothing to call mama bout. He did, after all, bomb Afghanistan and Iraq. You may remember he was nearly crushed by teeming, adulatory mobs during one visit to Africa, but I think that popularity has stronger roots in the Christian and pro-American sectors.

And even that popularity might not translate to Hillary. I've read several things and had a lot of people tell me that he's well liked because 1.) how he apologized after Rwanda at a time when so many other African leaders were trying to distance themselves from the tragedy, and push off genocide as some embarrassing habit of the poor and uneducated. (Desmond Tutu actually gave a horrendously belittling speech in Kigali, the repeated line of which was, "are we Africans stupid?"). Bill's ability to empathize with pain and poverty plays as well abroad as it does in the US, and I also suspect his rags-to-riches story inspires a lot of people on the rags side of that transition. Hillary has none of that: no rags-to-riches story, no transcendent ability to emote empathy, and I don't know how she'll react if and when Darfur settles down.

On the other side of the coin, women's issue are serious all over the world, especially, sadly, in the rural, poorer parts of the world, and in that aspect I think Hillary would improve our soft power alongside the rights of women worldwide... then again, she could also upset a lot of power structures that rely on patriarchal leadership, and in turn that could maybe agitate a lot of angry young men against us. Don't know. I have no idea how a female president would play to Muslim communities, and I'm interested if anyone has any detailed opinions (or has red anything) addressing that hypothetical. I'm surprised that Osama Bin Laden hasn't released a tape addressing Hillary (or for that matter Barack or his competition for the Time man of the year 2001 award, Rudy.) He is after all, a starving consumer of American political gossip, and wherever he is, he seems to have internet. Maybe one of you is him.

These thoughts are just me thinking out loud and if anyone wants to take them further, I'm interested. I might even go make a thread right now. Cheers.

1. What type of opinion do you have on Hilary Clinton? Positive, Negative, or Neutral? (please explain)
Negative, I disagree with her policies entirely.

2. Do you believe she will become president of the U.S.?
No, she is not amiable, and is a lousy speaker.
3. Do you believe she should become president, and that she will make a good one if she does?

No and no.

Who did you have in mind?

If one examines voting records, it is apparent that Republicans tend to support legislation that favors corporations over consumers. I have been watching the disparity in wealth grow in this country mostly at the hands of Republicans. There was a time when Republicans were about protecting the working class from rampant profiteering because where working people could make a decent living, prosperity took care of itself. We are now at a point that Eisenhower warned us about; the corporate control of government is largely a reality. Corporate profits are being written into laws despite the welfare of the people. I would like to know who is most likely to stand up for the people in this race.

Hillary is not high on my list. Who do you think, among the Republican candidates, would bring prosperity back to the American working class?

Actually, that was more of a dig at Bush than anything else. Any competent politician we elect will make our international credibility skyrocket. Just as long as the new president doesn't quote the Bible constantly or try to put us back on the gold standard, he/she will look great in comparison.

1. What type of opinion do you have on Hilary Clinton? Positive, Negative, or Neutral? (please explain)
If she had voted against war authorization as actually a majority of the democratic representatives did I would give a definite positive and be comfortable supporting her. Her vote for the war and her subsequent hardly believable rationalizations leave me in a quandary as to how I'm going to vote in the primary. I give her a neutral over all.

2. Do you believe she will become president of the U.S.?
If she doesn't shoot herself in the foot or some past skulduggery doesn't come back to haunt her(Rose Law Firm stuff for instance), probably. She's got the war, the economy, support of her husband and worry about the direction of the Supreme Court as 4 potentially large allies on her side.

3. Do you believe she should become president, and that she will make a good one if she does?
I think she is the most experienced of the bunch. She also appears to be a strange mixture of passionate principled commitment and ends-justifies-the-means political opportunist. She's a hard read frankly. I don't think her screwups will be the pigheaded thoughtless ones that you find from the present occupant. Beyond doing the politically correct thing I think she'll bring her experience, toughness, work ethic, and principles to bear in a generally positive way. The 8 years she partnered with her husband weren't bad if not great.

1. What type of opinion do you have on Hilary Clinton? Positive, Negative, or Neutral? (please explain)

Negative. I don't like the win at all costs tactics of her and her family. I don't like the monarchal and truly elite nature of her candidacy. I don't like her New York power grab. I don't like what she stands for as a human and I don't trust her. Some of this is not exactly her fault. She can't help that her husband was president, but I think her designs on the presidency go against some unique American cultural history. An egalitarian nation in heart (not in practice), who inherently wants the president who came about from the unlikely path. We always pick our great celebrities, but her path is just so blatant and seemingly unearned....almost smug. Though I avoid judging candidates based on their supporters (as an Obama fan, I can't help but be annoyed by his follwers who give him some sort of messianic standing), but the charge that sexism is downing her campaign, by some of her supporters, angers me. The suggestion that a female president is more historic than a black president is wrong and ignorant. The suggested equal standing of historical racial discrimination and sex discrimination annoys me. I see little comparison, except for maybe a few years in the late 60's and early 70's where both were about equally disparaged and discriminated against. At any other point in US History...I would have much rather to have been a woman. The fact that she is willing to rip her party apart, subvert clear consensus and her own signed pledge,....makes me not respect her and shows me that this is about power and power alone. She signed the pledge recognizing the DNC ruling as it concerned Florida and Michigan delegates. She said on NH radio that the Michigan vote was meaningless because of the very DNC sanctions against the state which she agreed with. She now demands those votes (where Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan and people obviously stayed home In Florida) to override what will be a clear popular vote majority for Obama, national poll one on one matchups, that clarly show Obama stacks better against McCain, the clear majority of pledged delegates, and the consensus of the grand majority of states. She wants to steal the nomination bys using the Michigan/Florida delegates and by asking super-delegates to vote against clear consensus. The very act of that would fracture the party and make her unelectable anyway. It would be defeat by nomination. In case any Hillary supporters/barack haters want to jump on me...I think Barack looks bad and would make a potentially huge mistake in backing out of his campaign financial pledge with McCain. It will hurt Obama to take it (as he would outraise him huge), but he made the promise and should absolutely stick to it.

2. Do you believe she will become president of the U.S.?

Impossible. She has a 30% chance of winning the democratic nomination, but her only chance at doing that is by somewhat stealing it, or circumventing consensus. The fallout of her nomination by such a process, with only two months to campaign after convention (the only place she can get the nod)? Suicide. Obama supporters stay home in large margins and vote McCain in significant margins I think. I might even vote McCain, just to make sure something so power ravenous does not get the office. Survey USA and Rasmussen polls show her in trouble against McCain in Oregon, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, Virginia, Michigan, Ohio, Florida and i think Washington as well. She starts low now, absent of shady dealings (with a built in low ceiling anyway) and can only get the nom through superdelegates and Mich/Fla. So, her campaign has no chance McCain, and I think a win would be terribly unlikely even if she won outright, because McCain stacks so well on the electoral mao and Hillary adds nothing that Kerry didn't have. In fact she would be in far more trouble than Kerry, even under optimal circumstances....which she has no chances of getting.

3. Do you believe she should become president, and that she will make a good one if she does

Oddly enough, possibly. On basic skills, intelligence, cunning and manipulation? She would do well. A dirty president is not necessarily a bad thing when a level of competence is apparent. However, the only two things I have ever seen her in control of? (1) Health Care in 1994? A Busted failure that many democrats didn't think was realistic. (2) Her presidential campaign. What has she done in her campaign? Blown a 140 million dollar war chest in the span of about a month. Blew a 20 point national lead. Blew the presumtive frontrunner status and inevitable tag she has worn since November of 2004. Her organization has been in chaos. She had no structure after Super Tuesday. Her campaign has been a massive failure and on every level. She couldn't even properly use her popular husband's standing within his own party or with black voters. Contrast that with Obama and his well-oiled machine and organizational skills. A machine that has collapsed everything and beaten back the dynamic two-head figure of the 90's.

4. Has she flipped on the war? No, not really. However, she uses language often applied to different standpoints as a way to muddle her unpopular stances and confuse voters. When she says things like "If I know then what i know now, I would have not voted for war authorization", the implication to the average voter, is that she realizes that Saddam was not a threat to world interests and that Iraq was a foreign policy blunder, and that we should have never went in on it regardless....but that IS NOT what she means, which explains why she doesn't apologize. She thinks ideologically that the war is a good idea. She has no problem with invading Iraq on the evidence that existed at the time we went in. Her opposition to the war is based on the fact that Bush blew it and ruined it. When she says "If I knew then what I knew now" she is saying "If I knew Bush was going to blow it like this, I wouldn't have given him clearance". This is why she does not apologize for voting for the war, because she doesn't think a war with Iraq is a bad idea. This is why she says things like thisabout Saddam and Iraq and the invasion. She said that Saddam was a "megalomaniac, knowing he would not want to compete for attention with Osama bin Laden, there were legitimate concerns about what he might do," . She called her support a "reasoned judgment". This is why she doesn't apologize, because in her head, invading Iraq was a great idea, but sadly executed poorly, so we must go. She further muddles her stances to confuse voters by saying she "didn't know" her vote for authorization was a vote for authorization. Again, this implies that she was duped into the war to the average person, but she is trying to literally suggest that that vote wasn't a clear endorsement from her end, not that she wasn't going to inevitably endorse. Her concept of the war was staked out when she rejected the Levin Amendment that would have required Bush to come back to congress after further fact finding. The Levin amendment was a last ditch effort to stall and inevitably avoid war, but she wanted and believed in war from a philosophical standpoint and still does.

She doesn't flip, she masks her positions with semantics as much as possible, as a means to stay vague and not tick off anti-war democrats. She says what others say, but personally means something else without making it totally clear