I’m just curious- what is it that people have against Hillary? I wasn’t really paying attention when she was first lady, so I need someone to fill me in (the informative way, not the molesting way).
DrS,
I think there are many reasons folks don’t like Hillary, but to be frank, a lot do support her. For those that don’t, I’d offer:
-
Thought that being First Lady meant that she was Co-President. A lot of folks were put off by her ambition when Bill first got into office. I think it was a combination of wanting a traditional First Lady and not liking someone taking such a strong policy approach in what is a symbolic, enelected position.
-
She has an Clintonian untrustworthiness about her. Whatever her past dealings, she comes across as ambitious for all the wrong reasons. Think a female Commodus from the movie ‘Gladiator’.
-
She is a liberal woman. I just don’t think America is comfortable with a liberal woman in power. A conservative one, perhaps, like an American Thatcher (Condi?), but I just feel that Hillary as ‘commander in chief’ of the world’s most powerful nation is an uneasy fit.
-
Generally not a great personality. She comes across as self-absorbed (read as much of her recent book that you can stand, and the self-adulation is unbearable).
Everyone has their own particular reasons, but I think these are a few that would earn her a defeat in 2008.
Hilary Duff for President!
Let’s not forget Arnold. If the law is changed (and it will be before the Senate in 2005) I think he will make a run at it. California offers up the most electoral votes at 55. He has as good a shot as anyone under the right conditions.
Naturally he would need a more conservative VP, perhaps Jeb Bush from Fla, another state that offers up plenty of electoral votes (27). Put them together and you have 82 electoral votes out of the gate! Thats almost 31% of the 270 needed to win.
Personally, I would love to see the democrats run Hillary in 2008. Let me think when is the last time a Northeastern liberal Senator won the White House? (We know it wasn’t this year) Oh yes…that would be John Kennedy, and he would be considered moderate to conservative by todays standards.
Fun to speculate…
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Let’s not forget Arnold. If the law is changed (and it will be before the Senate in 2005) I think he will make a run at it.
[/quote]
God, I hope the law isn’t changed before real immigration reform is passed and the borders are locked down.
doogie keep in mind that the law will probably state that you must be a citizen (in good standing) for 25 years. Something on that order.
Another possibility is Gov. George Pataki from NY a fairly moderate democrat. Team him with a conservative like Jeb Bush and you now have a another winning combo…I think.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Another possibility is Gov. George Pataki from NY a fairly moderate democrat. Team him with a conservative like Jeb Bush and you now have a another winning combo…I think.[/quote]
Isn’t Pataki a republican? Maybe I’m missing the sarcasm. Crap!!! Am I turning into vroom?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
doogie keep in mind that the law will probably state that you must be a citizen (in good standing) for 25 years. Something on that order.[/quote]
I’m more worried about an influx of “voters” from the south.
President Henry Cisneros scares the crap out of me.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Another possibility is Gov. George Pataki from NY a fairly moderate democrat. Team him with a conservative like Jeb Bush and you now have a another winning combo…I think.
Isn’t Pataki a republican? Maybe I’m missing the sarcasm. Crap!!! Am I turning into vroom?
[/quote]
rainjack:
Can you, or anyone tell me why in the world I would call Pataki a democrat? Ha, (shaking head). He is the republican Governor of NY. Now he has to turn into a democrat in order to make my above post correct. I don’t think he will go along with it…Ha.
Oh…and please never be so hard on yourself that you claim you are turning into…vroom.