Posted by Guest (Post 1076259)

Liberal or Conservative? I haven't seen this much anger since the McCarthy era.
I personally think that a moderate Republican will be the next President. In a democracy the candidate has to appeal to the electorate not just the true believers who are often blinded by passion and ideology.

Posted by Guest (Post 1076259)

Liberal or Conservative? I haven't seen this much anger since the McCarthy era.
I personally think that a moderate Republican will be the next President. In a democracy the candidate has to appeal to the electorate not just the true believers who are often blinded by passion and ideology.

Posted by Guest (Post 1076290)

Who would that moderate Republican be? It would not be Cruz, Walker, Jindahl, Trump, Santorum, or Perry. None of them are moderate.

Bush has too much baggage from the family name he is trying to escape.

Carson has no political experience and starting at the very top will not work.

Fiorina is the same as Carson with no political experience. Neither Carson nor Firoina could work effectively in Washington.

Rubio? I do not think the old line Republicans are ready for a young Hispanic as President. He has qualifications but ...

Posted by Guest (Post 1076300)

Gov John Kasich is trying to position himself as the Jeb Bush alternative.

Posted by Guest (Post 1076308)

In my personal opinion, those who would discount a candidate for lack of political experience are making a significant mistake.

A well educated, common sense, proven executive, with an ability to establish goals, plans and execution thereof is substantially ahead of anybody who knows and continues to work a broken, ineffective, useless, self serving system.

I'll take a proven track record of accomplishment over hot air politicians who are be holding to special interest groups, races or religions.

Clinton to me is the poster politician representing everything we all detest about politicians and how they operate. She has absolutely no capability or ability to bring anything new to any position......especially POTUS.

Posted by Guest (Post 1076244)

Stop with the name calling and hatred.

Posted by Guest (Post 1076308)

In my personal opinion, those who would discount a candidate for lack of political experience are making a significant mistake.

A well educated, common sense, proven executive, with an ability to establish goals, plans and execution thereof is substantially ahead of anybody who knows and continues to work a broken, ineffective, useless, self serving system.

I'll take a proven track record of accomplishment over hot air politicians who are be holding to special interest groups, races or religions.

Clinton to me is the poster politician representing everything we all detest about politicians and how they operate. She has absolutely no capability or ability to bring anything new to any position......especially POTUS.

Posted by Guest (Post 1076290)

Who would that moderate Republican be? It would not be Cruz, Walker, Jindahl, Trump, Santorum, or Perry. None of them are moderate.

Bush has too much baggage from the family name he is trying to escape.

Carson has no political experience and starting at the very top will not work.

Fiorina is the same as Carson with no political experience. Neither Carson nor Firoina could work effectively in Washington.

Rubio? I do not think the old line Republicans are ready for a young Hispanic as President. He has qualifications but ...

Posted by Guest (Post 1076290)

Who would that moderate Republican be? It would not be Cruz, Walker, Jindahl, Trump, Santorum, or Perry. None of them are moderate.

Bush has too much baggage from the family name he is trying to escape.

Carson has no political experience and starting at the very top will not work.

Fiorina is the same as Carson with no political experience. Neither Carson nor Firoina could work effectively in Washington.

Rubio? I do not think the old line Republicans are ready for a young Hispanic as President. He has qualifications but ...

Posted by Guest (Post 1076353)

I'm not so sure it necessarily has to be a moderate in either case, but definitely someone who is willing to consider both sides of an argument, knows how to bring people together to a compromise if necessary, and has the guts to follow through. Haven't seen that in quite some time.......

Posted by Guest (Post 1083188)

GUEST believes the SNIPER FIRE fable? Incredible. How many gallons of Kool Aid do you have to drink to get that demented?

Posted by Guest (Post 1083237)

Demented? Stop with the childish name calling.

Posted by Guest (Post 1083304)

Hillary has three things going for her. She's female (I'd vote for that, there's too much testosterone in Govt), She's a Clinton (Not a bad brand, but I'd say the first one was simply in the right place at the right time, ie. the economic Tech Bubble period), and finally she has a lot of energy and worked very hard as Secretary, millions of miles of travel and she often looked haggard. I don't know about accomplishments and the world is too complex for me now. But I know Hillary gave her life to the job of Secretary of State and I give her credit in any case.

That said, I'm anti-dynasty. No Bush, No Clinton. I'm excited about Bernie Sanders. I feel the folks in our community tend to be conservation and opposed to change, so I don't fit in well. But I see Bernie as very similar to Obama 2008. I backed Obama and he disappointing (in fairness, it wasn't him as much as the opposition that wanted nothing but divisiveness). No matter, Bernie represents another opportunity for tomorrow and he's drawing the young people of tomorrow. My peers won't do it for him. Tomorrow belongs to the young and I hope they come through.

Posted by Guest (Post 1076352)

Totally agree with you. When I listed some general traits about the experience and character of Romney, that was the one that I would put the least emphasis on. Political experience to me has become more of a stumbling block than an attribute. Just get someone in there with the fortitude to get this country back on track and the people working together for the common good of the country as a whole, not just for special interest groups. In other words, get politics out of the equation! It has done nothing so far but to keep us at a standstill, or worse yet, pushing us down a hole we may eventually not be able to climb out of. Either way, we are setting ourselves up to become an easy target for our enemies if something doesn't change.

Posted by Guest (Post 1083371)

The allegations concerning Clinton and her Foundation have a loud ring of truth. The Benghazi allegations have a loud ring of truth, The personal server and destruction of hundreds of e-mails have another loud ring of truth. so what is preventing the truth for being told? Where are the great newspaper investigators of the past that unraveled Watergate? Nixon's antics were small potatoes next to Hillary's illegal acts? and , Hillary was on the prosecutors team. Where is the moral outrage?

Her husband also an attorney lied under oath never admitted wrong doing and we can be sure that Hillary will go to her grave denying any impropriety

Personal Best Regards:

Posted by Guest (Post 1083371)

The allegations concerning Clinton and her Foundation have a loud ring of truth. The Benghazi allegations have a loud ring of truth, The personal server and destruction of hundreds of e-mails have another loud ring of truth. so what is preventing the truth for being told? Where are the great newspaper investigators of the past that unraveled Watergate? Nixon's antics were small potatoes next to Hillary's illegal acts? and , Hillary was on the prosecutors team. Where is the moral outrage?

Her husband also an attorney lied under oath never admitted wrong doing and we can be sure that Hillary will go to her grave denying any impropriety

Personal Best Regards:

Posted by Guest (Post 1083435)

This is just the same old ultra-conservative hash that is rehashed one more time. There is no need for moral outrage because there is no wrong doing. Admit it, the conservatives are terrified of Mrs. Clinton because she is a strong and competent woman. She is a smart person and is heads and shoulders above ANY Republican candidate.

Once again, remember the demographics of the Democratic Party and of the Republican Party. The demographics are totally in place for Mrs. Clinton to win the presidency. Can you dispute that? NO, you cannot.

Posted by Guest (Post 1083450)

Relative to the demographics that you mention. President Obama received 93% of the African American vote, which based on turnout figures equates to a lot of votes. There were about 2 million EXTRA BLACK VOTERS in 2012, and assumption is that was because of President Obama. President Obama won by 5 million.

She will need that turnout PLUS need to carry that same percentage to maintain the plurality advantage.

Same thing applies to the Hispanic vote. 71% of the over 11 million who voted were voting for Obama. That is another approx 8 million votes, so unless she is able to duplicate or increase the black turnout and margin as well as the Hispanic turnout and margin, I really do not see the demographic advantage you speak of. Fact is,without the dramatic increase in the black and Hispanic vote, President Obama does not win.

And perhaps it is nothing but rehash on her many many clouds. Time will tell, and time is one thing there is an abundance of in the 2016 cycle.

To speak on a more positive vein relative to your hopes I see where George Soros is throwing a few more million out ther to get out that vote, as I think professionals are also aware that if the blacks and Hispanics do not come out in record numbers, and vote as they did in 2012, it will not pan out so well.

Another thing to look out for. The crowds with Bernie Sanders may, and that is a big may, convince him he has a following that suggests a 3rd party run, especially on the socialist party. That would further inroad on Ms. Clinton.

Posted by Guest (Post 1083435)

This is just the same old ultra-conservative hash that is rehashed one more time. There is no need for moral outrage because there is no wrong doing. Admit it, the conservatives are terrified of Mrs. Clinton because she is a strong and competent woman. She is a smart person and is heads and shoulders above ANY Republican candidate.

Once again, remember the demographics of the Democratic Party and of the Republican Party. The demographics are totally in place for Mrs. Clinton to win the presidency. Can you dispute that? NO, you cannot.

Posted by Guest (Post 1083463)

The Bernie Sanders third party split is what the Republicans are hoping for. That is why the Republicans are putting up all the chatter they can at this point. You will recall the chatter from Republican forum members a month or two ago trying to push for O'Malley. Same thing.

Even though I identify as Socialist/Progressive myself, a political ticket with either of those party names would drive voters away. Same way with Independent.

Nope, you will see that the demographics are all favoring Mrs. Clinton and a Democratic victory.

Posted by Guest (Post 1083450)

Relative to the demographics that you mention. President Obama received 93% of the African American vote, which based on turnout figures equates to a lot of votes. There were about 2 million EXTRA BLACK VOTERS in 2012, and assumption is that was because of President Obama. President Obama won by 5 million.

She will need that turnout PLUS need to carry that same percentage to maintain the plurality advantage.

Same thing applies to the Hispanic vote. 71% of the over 11 million who voted were voting for Obama. That is another approx 8 million votes, so unless she is able to duplicate or increase the black turnout and margin as well as the Hispanic turnout and margin, I really do not see the demographic advantage you speak of. Fact is,without the dramatic increase in the black and Hispanic vote, President Obama does not win.

And perhaps it is nothing but rehash on her many many clouds. Time will tell, and time is one thing there is an abundance of in the 2016 cycle.

To speak on a more positive vein relative to your hopes I see where George Soros is throwing a few more million out ther to get out that vote, as I think professionals are also aware that if the blacks and Hispanics do not come out in record numbers, and vote as they did in 2012, it will not pan out so well.

Another thing to look out for. The crowds with Bernie Sanders may, and that is a big may, convince him he has a following that suggests a 3rd party run, especially on the socialist party. That would further inroad on Ms. Clinton.

Posted by Guest (Post 1083472)

You carefully omitted the women's vote which Obama won by 20 points. How much more or less of the women's vote will go to Hillary Clinton, and what is there in the republican platform that would appeal to any woman?

Posted by Guest (Post 1083463)

The Bernie Sanders third party split is what the Republicans are hoping for. That is why the Republicans are putting up all the chatter they can at this point. You will recall the chatter from Republican forum members a month or two ago trying to push for O'Malley. Same thing.

Even though I identify as Socialist/Progressive myself, a political ticket with either of those party names would drive voters away. Same way with Independent.

Nope, you will see that the demographics are all favoring Mrs. Clinton and a Democratic victory.

Posted by Guest (Post 1083435)

This is just the same old ultra-conservative hash that is rehashed one more time. There is no need for moral outrage because there is no wrong doing. Admit it, the conservatives are terrified of Mrs. Clinton because she is a strong and competent woman. She is a smart person and is heads and shoulders above ANY Republican candidate.

Once again, remember the demographics of the Democratic Party and of the Republican Party. The demographics are totally in place for Mrs. Clinton to win the presidency. Can you dispute that? NO, you cannot.

Posted by Guest (Post 1083535)

In my view Bernie Sanders is getting a lot of attention to make it look like the democrats are open to other candidates but they are not. clinton has only one major factor in her favor "name recognition Admitting her Name recognition as an asset is for me to say painful but factually most voters can't get past name because they are either stupid or lazy.

In 2008 it was so readily apparent that Obama based on his lack of bona fides and radical associations was going to be a disaster. But the strategically placed progressives sought vindication for their affirmative action policies and what better way then elect a black president.

the progressives want a woman president and they will go to any lengths to get her elected.

If they win its a continuation of the radical left who have no idea how to lead


All I can say is this is the sleaziest administration ever to have represented this country and I include Clinton's participation to fostering our decline

Posted by Guest (Post 1083682)

Hillary will finish what Obama started, elect her and the revolution starts.

Posted by Guest (Post 1013321)

And others here expect nothing to be posted to counter the credentials described by the OP Guest.

Posted by Guest (Post 1083690)

Once knew of Hillary walking toward a support staff in the East Wing. The young military service member, said, "Good Morning, Mrs. Clinton". She spun around walked over to him and said, "You do not need to address me when you meet me in the hall. My time is valuable and I don't have time to say hello to everyone I meet in the hallway. You can go back to your work section and tell your other pukes not to address me either or I will have all of you shipped to Afghanistan tomorrow. This is the last time you will ever have to speak to me!"

Posted by Guest (Post 1013293)

Some on this board have asked for a summary of why Hillary Clinton is clearly the best qualified person in the Democrat Party to become President of the US. I accept the challenge.

Hillary has many qualifications… too numerous to list. I will simply give you five. No doubt others can provide many more.

1. People Skills. A President must be able to relate to people, especially the “little people”. Hillary’s skills are unsurpassed. Many examples can be found from people who know her best and as reported in Ron Kessler’s book “First Family Detail.” “She is so nasty to agents that being assigned to her detail is considered a form of punishment,” “She claims to be a champion of the little people, and she's going to help the middle class. And, in fact, she treats these people around her, [who] would lay down their lives for her like sub-humans; and I think voters need to consider that.” She also apparently shouts a lot, throws dishes when angry, and can not stand to see anyone in a military uniform around her.

2. Courage Under Fire. Hillary came under heavy sniper fire as First Lady, but she showed courage and was an inspiration to those who were with her. Here’s a video which captured the moment.
Hillary Clinton dodges sniper fire in Bosnia - raw footage - Video Clinton says she 'misspoke' about sniper fire - CNN.com

3. Foreign Policy. Any President must be able to defend the Country. As Secretary of State, Hillary excelled. She managed to get an Ambassador killed during a predictable terrorist attack, and then through a series of further bungles, caused the formation of ISIS (with some credit to her boss at the time.) which increasingly dominates the Middle East. In any event, even Rube Republicans will quickly agree the world is a much safer place thanks to her service.

4. Feminist. Hillary sets the bar high for young girls to emulate. She is loathe to benefit from a “man’s” (such as a husband) power or reputation, and we all know she would still be a contender even if she had never married Bill Clinton. Hillary loves her fellow women which is why she hunted down and destroyed scores of women who slept with her husband … all of whom were put up to it by Right Wing fanatics.

5. Anti-Wall Street. It’s important to keep the big money out of the White House, and Hillary is a known foe of the bankers on Wall Street, even putting Elizabeth Warren to shame in this regard. She is also loathe to profit off the Clinton name and refuses to accept extortionate fees for speaking at universities or engage in unseemly campaign fund raising. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/op...dogs.html?_r=0