I will not vote for her. My guess is that she is likely to be our next president.

Is that subject line even remotely possible? Maybe someone could explain why they'd want what you are suggesting to happen. Those who'd vote for MORE of what the Clinton's have to offer must have short memory syndrome! Just say NO! to more of the Same Old, Same Old. When it comes to political commentary, I agree with VK! :bigthumbsup:

...that I recently adopted for a candidate for any federal office to get my vote. Those requirements were...
[br]

• Be the candidaqte with the least possible experience in Washington, DC. among those running for an office
• And that I will never vote for any candidate for a second term in federal office

[br]
While Hillary has only held elected office for a couple of years, she's been part of the Washington infrastructure for more than a decade, by my count. Disqualified for my vote.

Similarly, if we consider that she was part of the Clinton administration, she'll be running for a fourth term in office if she runs for President. Disqualified for my vote.

I'm hoping for a race between candidates like Obama and Bloomberg, Romney or Giluliani. None of them has ever been elected to federal office. Maybe they'd actually get something done in Washington rather than just spending all their time figuring out what their "base" wants and trying to get elected to a second term.

Hillary would not be my first choice, but if she is nominated--depending who she runs against, she may have my vote. I agree with her on many issues. My first choice would be Barack Obama--that is at this moment in time.

Originally Posted by Talk Host

I will not vote for her. My guess is that she is likely to be our next president.

Surely you jest! :joke:
Don' even get me started on the reasons Hillary and Obama would be horrible Leaders
Any candidate who thinks we should "open discussion" with a terrorist and alienate our allies, to me is disastrous.
Trust me I don't want to be a Muslim by force (my knees are bad) :bow:
Please folks get real :chillout:
Handie

How about a legitimate third party comprised of Blue Dog Democrats and Conservative Republicans? The two party system would be OK if we really did have two parties. What we have now is one big happy family of cousins who fight too much among themselves. They don't care what the neighbors (citizens) think; they just want to get their share of the pie. Our bridges and roads are crumbling and our borders are porous. Why? because our taxes are being used to rebuild other countries and our National Guard troops are guarding other nations. We live in a world that is so small now that isolation is NOT the answer. But it's HIGH time that other nations do their fair share along with Great Britain and the United States.

Not familiar with the Blue Dogs? Check out the website at www.house.gov/ross/BlueDogs/

Oh, and while you're there at the website check out how much YOU owe in our National budget deficit. Isn't it time to ask Congress to give us back the blank check we mistakenly gave to them?

Well I've been embroiled in some blood boiling give and take on this thread, so I'll just add an additional two cents of my opinion. I would like to see both sides of the congress kicked out and sent home. This will surprise some of the readers. The current crop of politicos on both sides have only one objective and that's to get reelected. I believe this is at the root of the illegal immigration problem. Both sides are afraid of alienating the hispanic vote and will do nothing about the border because it might cost them some votes. Another pet peeve is the politician that changes his/her stripes because of the polls. There are some republicans who originally backed Bush and now that the media has us believing that's an unpopular stance, they switch their stance. I feel strongly that you either stand on principal or you don't. You don't check which way the wind is blowing and fly with the breeze. These people are on both sides of the aisle and they sicken me. I think Joe Lieberman stands tall in congress. He holds his principals and doesn't waver. The current crop of what I consider failures at what they were (I should say should have been) elected for politicize everything. Today, they're politicizing the bridge collapse in Minnesota. How disgusting. We're in a war that threatens us like no other war in our lifetimes, and the leader of the senate states the war is lost. Washington is a mess. Where is a politician who has the country's interst at heart? Can anyone name one? I think and I repeat I think Newt does, but I'm not sure. I don't believe any of the others do. It's a sad state of affairs.

Will it really make any difference?

...throw 'em all out and start over. That's the basis of my new personal rules, first to vote of the least experienced candidate and then never vote for him/her again (for a second term).

On that basis, maybe I'd like to see Michael Bloomberg get in the race and win. He's so rich he wouldn't have to accept any campaign contributions from anyone (and therefore not be beholden to any special interest). Unfortunately, for that reason he'd have every lobbyist in Washington throwing money to his opponent(s) to make sure they get someone in office that they could control.

Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Gingrich, Thompson, Guiliani, Romney.....

For me the concern is not who's going to be president, but who are going to be the 7,000+ political appointees who will fill every position from Secretary of State to assistant-anything within the Federal (whatever) Commission.

If you really want a shock, google the term "Plum Book" to see where all of these positions are. The President, winning party, and a bunch "select" folk will determine who actually is involved in the day-to-day activities of all levels of federal government - and the qualifications for a large number of these folk to hold these positions seems in direct proportion to the number of hours committed to the winning campaign or monetary contribution to the party or both.

So, I'm hoping the day will come a Presidential candidate will have the guts to state DURING THE CAMPAIGN who s/he plans to appoint to the key positions listed in the Plum Book. That action would really demonstrate which promises will be kept, which platform planks will be followed, and what kind of administration will actually happen. Until that time, I keep my eyes on who supports whom, because that's the only way I can have an idea who will be in the key government positions after the inauguration.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research is an extremely important issue as far as I am concerned. I would find it extremely difficult to vote for a candidate who did not support this. I have respect for those who disagree, but would not like them stopping research for the rest of us.

Disagree. I think the government SHOULD pay for this research.

Originally Posted by SteveZ

Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Gingrich, Thompson, Guiliani, Romney.....

For me the concern is not who's going to be president, but who are going to be the 7,000+ political appointees who will fill every position from Secretary of State to assistant-anything within the Federal (whatever) Commission.

If you really want a shock, google the term "Plum Book" to see where all of these positions are. The President, winning party, and a bunch "select" folk will determine who actually is involved in the day-to-day activities of all levels of federal government - and the qualifications for a large number of these folk to hold these positions seems in direct proportion to the number of hours committed to the winning campaign or monetary contribution to the party or both.

So, I'm hoping the day will come a Presidential candidate will have the guts to state DURING THE CAMPAIGN who s/he plans to appoint to the key positions listed in the Plum Book. That action would really demonstrate which promises will be kept, which platform planks will be followed, and what kind of administration will actually happen. Until that time, I keep my eyes on who supports whom, because that's the only way I can have an idea who will be in the key government positions after the inauguration.

WELL... The current IDIOT in charge has really made a lot of BAD choices... I think Obahma might just be a change agent ... GOD KNOWS who ever is elected is a million times better than who is running our country ( CHENEY / BUSH and of course the Supreme Conservative Court).

SEE YOU ALL AT THE POLLS.. no chads or supreme court this time...

You get Hillary, you get Bill again, :yikes: I really don't want that, do you.

Originally Posted by mackbeth

You get Hillary, you get Bill again, :yikes: I really don't want that, do you.

YES I would love to have a budget surplus, Health Care, and someone who can articulate well.

Bill Clinton only screwed one person... BUSH has screwed us all and continues to do so.

BIG business CEO's CONTINUE TO MAKE huge sums of money from the benefits of the Republicans and BUSH and his Cronies.. Were in a war we can't win.. Gas is $3 , the dollar is sliding fast, China owns a lot of our debt, the trade deficit SUCKS, 40 MILLION PEOPLE HAVE NO INSURANCE, the pharmaceutical companies have blocked all attempts to lower drug cost, our legislators are getting rich from lobbyist, and were are going down the tubes, were losing more and more jobs... YOU BETCHA I WANT A CHANGE....