|
13 Feb 07 - 07:33 PM (#1966697) Subject: BS: Hats In The Ring Thoughts From: Bill Hahn//\\ A comment on another thread put me in mind of this question---HILLARY. Many nations have already had female leaders---India, UK, Israel, and more. So, is it so far fetched that we, who are supposedly so advanced, reject such an idea? Would Bill Clinton have influence if Hillary were Pres.? Would that be any different than the influence of wives on male Presidents? Would his influence be negative or positive? Just a few questions I am throwing out. I am sure to give my opinion later---but remember that we live in historic times---A Bush Dynasty (unheard of since the days of the Adams family). On another note---A Bush Dynasty speaks well for birth control. Bill Hahn. |
|
13 Feb 07 - 07:38 PM (#1966705) Subject: RE: BS: Hats In The Ring Thoughts From: number 6 I enthusiastically thought this thread was going to be about hats. biLL |
|
13 Feb 07 - 07:50 PM (#1966717) Subject: RE: BS: Hats In The Ring Thoughts From: The Fooles Troupe I thought it was a call for a real punch up... |
|
13 Feb 07 - 08:03 PM (#1966733) Subject: RE: BS: Hats In The Ring Thoughts From: John O'L As with any new leader, the influence of the spouse is unknown at the time of election and may be unknown forever. Suck it & see. (?) |
|
13 Feb 07 - 08:11 PM (#1966745) Subject: RE: BS: Hats In The Ring Thoughts From: The Fooles Troupe "A Bush Dynasty (unheard of since the days of the Adams family). " So, just who is "Thing"? :-) |
|
13 Feb 07 - 08:15 PM (#1966748) Subject: RE: BS: Hats In The Ring Thoughts From: number 6 "Thing" maybe Michael Chertoff? biLL |
|
13 Feb 07 - 09:56 PM (#1966857) Subject: RE: BS: Hats In The Ring Thoughts From: Bill D Of course Hillary would consult with Bill!...but they would keep it mostly quiet and he'd never be seen in any 'official' position. The man simply knows too much to not be helpful.....(and you can bet that Hillary talked to Bill during that 8 years!) The Democrats are gonna find it hard, with so many running, to act united, and still conduct campaigns on positive issues. It will be sad if they start sniping at each other. Right now, I truly do not know what I hope for.... |
|
14 Feb 07 - 04:48 AM (#1967093) Subject: RE: BS: Hats In The Ring Thoughts From: fat B****rd Yes, Foolestroupe. I was off to blather on about bare-knuckle fighting etc. But I won't. I'll get me Belcher. |
|
14 Feb 07 - 06:14 AM (#1967146) Subject: RE: BS: Hats In The Ring Thoughts From: John Hardly We "fought the bloody British" so that we could have a nation without royalty. And somehow, despite a population of more than 200 million, we can't find a president more qualified than a Bush or a Clinton for 28 YEARS. ...might as well bring back royalty. |
|
14 Feb 07 - 06:23 AM (#1967155) Subject: RE: BS: Hats In The Ring Thoughts From: The Fooles Troupe That's because of the Partisan process that obsessively scrutinises too closely... |
|
14 Feb 07 - 07:58 AM (#1967223) Subject: RE: BS: Hats In The Ring Thoughts From: John Hardly I think it's because with an undereducated populace, name recognition plays FAR to important a role. |
|
14 Feb 07 - 09:00 AM (#1967290) Subject: RE: BS: Hats In The Ring Thoughts From: able You better hope and pray that Hillary doesn't make it. Remember the number of times the state dep't had to disavow statements made by her and make it clear her statements were not the policy of the gov't. She wrote a book, it takes a village to raise a child and almost made enough to pay Bill's legal bills, talk about idiotic crap, the women loved it. Sorry girls, the fireman, policeman, lawyer, garbageman are too damned busy trying to raise their own kids to raise yours. You had them, you raise them. As a first lady, she was brighter than most, but she sure as hell isn't an intelligent person as I understand the definition. How is it that a woman who is in favour of abortion would be so opposed to killing girl babies would make official sounding statements on China's doorstep. In a country that doesn't have social security, boys are all that the parents have. If she ever became president, America would likely be at war with every other nation in the world, that woman is absolutely DANGEROUS. Consider her to be an unexploded idiot bomb that is booby trapped. |
|
14 Feb 07 - 09:37 AM (#1967333) Subject: RE: BS: Hats In The Ring Thoughts From: Ron Davies The US "at war with every other nation in the world" under Hillary. Sorry, that just doesn't hold water. What it does is point up the visceral anti-Hillary sentiment, based on no logic whatsoever, that does exist. Interestingly enough, I'm not at all enthusiastic about Hillary either--for entirely different reasons. It seems she's so desperate to be president that she's trying to straddle too many issues. Her refusal to admit she was wrong in voting to give Bush authority for the Iraq war rubs me the wrong way. In contrast to John Edwards' straightforward mea culpa. And the recent statement "we must keep all options on the table" in reference to Iran does not help the situation. As an intelligent woman, she knows precisely what she's saying--and, by saying that, she is supporting the Bush regime in its sabre-rattling. Pretty obviously trying to position herself as what she imagines as a "moderate" in foreign policy. Sorry, supporting Bush in that way does not indicate "moderation". I wouldn't think any thinking person would believe she would attack Iran as president--but she is now giving aid and comfort to the same loose cannons who just brought us the Iraq war. |
|
14 Feb 07 - 11:20 AM (#1967467) Subject: RE: BS: Hats In The Ring Thoughts From: Wesley S "You had them, you raise them." That has to be one of the silliest opinions I've ever heard on the Mudcat. C'mon Able - do you really believe that? Do you ever express that opinion around women in person? How do they react? With a frying pan to your noggin? Tell us you're kidding - please! |
|
14 Feb 07 - 12:12 PM (#1967533) Subject: RE: BS: Hats In The Ring Thoughts From: Bill D I am totally puzzled why Hillary....and Kerry before her...has problems with explaining that "vote FOR the war". Why should anyone need to "apologize" or make some awkward statement like "I was wrong."? They voted to authorize entering Iraq because even folks like Colin Powell were saying it should be done. All they need to say is, "In matters like that, one must assume the president had the correct information, and thus, although I was not happy with it, I gave him the benefit of the doubt! If I had known how flimsy his evidence was, I would never have voted that way." I think politicians get hung up on wording and can't think of better ways to explain. |
|
14 Feb 07 - 12:31 PM (#1967559) Subject: RE: BS: Hats In The Ring Thoughts From: John Hardly Bill, That is essentially the well-reasoned response that Ms Clinton has given -- over and over. It shows how rabid the anti-war crowd has become that that is not a good enough answer. |
|
14 Feb 07 - 03:08 PM (#1967696) Subject: RE: BS: Hats In The Ring Thoughts From: Ebbie A slight segue here- did you see that Al Franken is entering politics? He has announced that in 2008 he will seek Minnesota's representative seat. |
|
14 Feb 07 - 03:56 PM (#1967739) Subject: RE: BS: Hats In The Ring Thoughts From: Bee "Sorry girls, the fireman, policeman, lawyer, garbageman are too damned busy trying to raise their own kids to raise yours. You had them, you raise them." - Able Able, you scare me, and I'm not even an American. What's your point? "Git back in the kitchen, woman"? Oh, wait, we're not women, we're 'girls', and certainly 'girls' don't work as firefighters, police officers, lawyers or sanitation workers, and maybe need a little help looking after the kids. Because no woman ever needed to work at a job, for, you know, money to raise the kids. And of course, the rest of the population has no stake at all in how the next generation might turn out as adults. I actually don't know one solitary man who thinks like that. |
|
14 Feb 07 - 04:20 PM (#1967763) Subject: RE: BS: Hats In The Ring Thoughts From: Ron Davies Bill D-- I disagree. The evidence was not clearly in favor of voting for the war. Not everybody did--quite a few people with far fewer sources than Congress--many Mudcatters, for instance-- felt the case had not been made. Some politicians also realized this--look at Hillary's rival from Illinois. It is certainly clear now that the evidence presented by the Bush regime was cooked. Apologies for voting for the tragically criminal war are definitely in order--or at the very least, apologies for trusting the "judgment" of G W Bush. Hillary is trying so hard to be "viable" that she refuses to take a clear stand--she's been all over the map-- on this--and other-- issues. |
|
14 Feb 07 - 06:35 PM (#1967901) Subject: RE: BS: Hats In The Ring Thoughts From: The Fooles Troupe I was right. It's the good old US PPP (Pseudo-Politics-Punchup) again. |
|
15 Feb 07 - 10:31 PM (#1969308) Subject: RE: BS: Hats In The Ring Thoughts From: Ron Davies Just by coincidence, happened to pick up (in a library) the latest issue of Time. Hillary in Iowa recently, talking with a man whose son had a type of epilepsy. Hillary had pushed the hardest of anyone in Congress to find funding to beat this type of epilepsy. Will the father vote for Hillary? Says he; "We're going to reach a point in time when she says the war was a real mistake." She's not ready to say the words many voters want to hear: "I was wrong". Implication: he's not yet ready to say he'll vote for her. She'd best do it soon. |