Here Today... Gone To Hell!

The Democratic Candidates:

Hillary Clinton-Obvious front-runner, but not a shoe-in.
Al Gore- I honestly think he could make a comeback.
Bill Richardson- Wildcard

The Republican Candidates:

McCain- Obvious first choice, but not a shoe-in.
Ruddy- Middle-of-the-road republican, a possibility
Cheney- Yes, I think he may run in the last minute
Condi- see above.

It's still a lonnnnng way off, but here's my prediction.

Clinton/Richardson against McCain/Ruddy or Ruddy/McCain.

Oh no...not another thread on US politics

We all know Arnie will win anyway :D

Arnie is disqualified from running at this point since he was born in Austria.

Think Hillary is definitely going to get the nomination for the dems.

Probrally McCain for the republicans.

oh no not again...how boring can people get?

the democratic side is a no-brainer in my opinion. it's hillary. no one else has a prayer. not sure about her running mate though. richardson would be a brilliant move.

republican side is a little more wide open. i don't think mccain can pull it off. he'll be 72 in 2008. rudi is a possibility. but my guess is condi. no idea who she would pick for running mate.

condi vs. hillary.

that would be major history. and one hell of a nasty race!

Yeah, Hillary Clinton is the obvious frontrunner for Democrats.? Richardson is also a possibility and a strong V.P. candidate.? Al Gore has insisted that he wont run, but could be a solid contendor if he changed his mind.? Wesley Clark is another solid possibility and V.P. candidate.? John Edwards is a far shot, unfortunately, as is John Kerry.? Joe Biden doesnt stand a chance despite making his ambitions very clear.? Evan Bayh is unlikely.?

Virgina senator George Allen is the current frontrunner for Republicans.? Other hopefuls include Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee.? John McCain is a possibility I guess...hes probably unbeatable in a general election, but unlikely to make it through primaries.? Romney would probably be the favorite if he werent Mormon.? We all know that Frist is finished.? :hihi:? Newt Gingrich is a far shot.? So its my guess that Allen is the establishment favorite.? However, Ronald Reagans General Secretary of the Navy, James Webb, is considering running against him as a Democrat next year.? With credentials like that, he could be a real problem for Allen.?

I know Arnold was born abroad USA, but, I d like him to have th chance  to be the president hehe

my thoughts are on the bitch...never know :-\

Hillary Clinton

America's first female president.

Americas first female democatic nominee.  :yes:

I think Hillary will win the dems nomination.? I also think she's as polarizing a candidate as Bush has been, and she may have a tough time getting elected because of that.? I'm not sure I'd vote for her, simply because I was so completely opposed to her health care plan when Bill was in office.? I'd be afraid of more of the same (and make no mistake about it, the Repubs will have a field day bringing it up during the campaign).

I think Gore is done.  I think the party has told him he's done, as far as presidential runs go.

Richardson is a decent possibility, but I just don't think he has the firepower to unseat Hillary. 

I'm HOPING McCain decides to run (age is certainly a factor).? He's very bipartisan, and does a good job of "uniting" the different ideologies.? After 8 years of having the country ripped apart by GW, I think McCain would go a long way toward healing some of the wounds.? I'd vote for him, I think, over anyone else.

Allen doesn't thrill me.? He's more centrist, for sure, than the current administration, but he has some skeletons in his closet.? In addition, he doesn't have the political clout, on both sides of the aisle, that McCaine has.? He's certainly more of a "Regan-ite" than the current president, and that's to his benefit.? I'd have to hear lots more from him before I could throw my vote his way.

I don't think Condi has a shot in hell of winning the Repub nom for '08.? There's too many people in front of her in the line.

why not president?

I thought Hillary was president already from 1993-2000.  ???

All kidding aside, what about Barack Obama?  A hot political commodity in 2004, he already seems to have fallen out of most peoples' minds as a potential VP nominee.

I like Barack Obama but he's a relative newcomer. Maybe in a few years. As for Hillary Clinton being too far to the left or polarizing, I don't get it. She's really a middle-of-the-road Democrat, Barbara Boxer or Ted Kennedy is more to the left.

Anyway, the map in 2008 will look like 2000, 2004. The Democrat, whoever it is, will get all of New England, California, and Washington. The Republican will get almost everything else. As usual, it's up to Florida and Ohio, and PA.

Hed be a great candidate one day...But as a young senator 99th in seniority, hes got quite a way to go.  Im also not so confident in our countrys present racial acceptance to believe hed be elected in '08. 

i think he'd be a nice choice for hillary's running mate. a little risky, but one that i think would pay off big time. not sure if hillary would take that risk, however.

if she runs against rice, it would take away the race factor, since either way there would be a minority in the white house. that would be important since rice could steal away alot of minority votes.

currently, the polls on the republican side look like this:

1. rudi
2. mccain
3. condi

Could Arnold run for VP? Is there a rule against that? If the President died/resigns, couldn't they skip over to the speaker of the house?

I was waiting for someone to mention Rudolph Giuliani...The idea of him winning the Republican nomination is almost absurd.? A Catholic, pro-choice, pro-gun control New Yorker with questionable personal issues leading the modern-day Republican party?  Id say its unlikely.


Nope.? The Vice President must be a natural-born citizen.

Yeah I want Hilary Clinton to win, something new for this country to experience.

More importantly perhaps, I wouldnt mind seeing Bill Clinton back in the White House.  ;D

Remember the good 'ol days. ;D :crying:

Yah, back when perjury and obstruction of justice weren't crimes.

yeah when the president had to lie about a blowjob, not weapons of mass destruction :)
that was helluva time ;)

Well, if they're a crime now Bush should be on trial. For misleading congress and the American public, for the loss of 2000 men and women in the armed services, for 30,000+ Iraqi civilians dead, for who knows how many broken lives and families.

Really?  Well, you do realize that there is a mens rea requirement to these laws.  As much as you wish to think that Bush deliberately misled people to go to war for oil, there is not a scintilla amount of proof for this theory.

Well lets remind ourselves of the differences: a partisan, out-of-control, overreaching prosecutor investigated personal conduct that was really irrelevant to the initial case and was ultimately determined to embarass the president politically...unless you want to pretend that Clintons conduct had any relevant consequence, and I hope that you dont.  And Clinton was impeached and acquitted on both charges.  Current officials lied about the outing of a classified CIA agent (you know, stuff thats actually important) to a prosecutor thats revered by nearly everyone as fair and non-partisan. 

Of course you completely dismiss the fact that Star was appointed as the special prosecutor by Janet Reno, Clinton's Attorney General.  I know people that clerked for Star back when he was on the DC Circuit.  He is hardly the partisan that you make him out to be.

He lied in a sexual harrassment case about other relationships that he had while working.  Quite relevant.  Especially considering the low standard for relevance under the Federal Rules.

He was not acquitted on the charges.  The Senate votes for removal, not acquittal.  He was never formally charged once he left office.

I agree its important.  Although, it will be interesting to see if there is an investigation to determine who leaked the information about the secret CIA prisons.

Are you sure of that?  It was my understanding that Starr was appointed by David Sentelles (a conservative Rehnquist appointee) Special Division after they fired the original prosecutor, Robert Fiske, who also happened to be a Republican.  Starrs bias against Clinton was apparent before he was even appointed by Sentelles panel. 

I stand corrected.

I would also point out that its my understanding that Clinton was in fact acquitted (http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/).

After hearing all of the evidence and closing arguments, the Senate deliberates behind closed doors then votes in open session on whether to convict or acquit the President. The vote to convict must be by a two thirds majority, or 67 Senators. If this occurs, the President is removed from office and is succeeded by the Vice President. The Senate's verdict is final and there is no right of appeal.

I think our disagreement is a matter of semantics.? I guess you can argue that he was acquitted from being convicted by the Senate (as in not being removed).? However, he is not being acquitted of the crime, in the sense that he can't be indicted for the crime again.? The Senate is voting whether he should be removed from office, which is different than his actual guilt for the crime.  I definately don't think the Senators were voting on whether or not he actually committed the crime, but whether or not he should be removed from office for what he did.  I guess I would just point out that difference.


The Constitution doesn't use the word acquit.  I think that word is a bit misleading because he not acquitted of all charges.
Clause 7: Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

 :rofl: :rofl:  Bitches are great!  :hihi:

I was a lock to vote for Hillary unless McCain throws his hat into the ring, I really do dig John McCain.

I dont wanna sound sexist, but I think a lot of people would vote for Hillary, simply cause they would think it would be like having Bill back as president.

I would like to have Bill Clinton for 8 more years so I think that would really factor into it.

Once Hillary becomes President, she will then invoke a new bill that eliminates 2 terms, that way when she finishes, bill can run again.

I love Bill Clinton, I thought he was amazing, he seemed like such a real person and a real guy.

Our Country I felt was in great hands with him.

So I definitely would like Hillary to be president if that means it would be like having Bill back.

Bill was guilty of cheating on his wife, who gives a fuck that he lied about it, I mean who wouldnt????


I personally think He was one of the best presidents we have ever had, i really dont care that he was getting blowjobs, Fuck it, He's human.

Imagine being the president and having some chick give you a blow job in the oval office while on the phone with foreigner leaders, with one hand on a cigar and the other on the button. Damn, life can't get much better than that!

I'd like to see and learn more about Wesley Clark maybe getting back in the presidential run in 2008.

I like McCain a lot. Don't really agree with him, but a good, authentic man.

A lot better than the current bozo.

I agree, but I think some folks give him too much praise for simply being better than the rest of his party.? His "moderate" label has been slightly exaggerated and heavily perpetuated.? Make no mistake, McCain is a solid conservative.? I admire his occassional independence and hes certainly better than the modern-day Republican, but hes not as moderate as some seem to think.?

Hes a strong supporter of the Iraq War.? He strongly supported Bush last year.  Hes with Bush on homophobic legislature (http://www.pamspaulding.com/weblog/2005/08/mccain-beds-down-with-az-taliban.html).? Hes explicitly anti-choice.? He supports privatization.  Hes pushing for intelligent design in public school.? And despite half-heartedly criticizing the religious right in 2000 (http://www.slate.com/id/76369/), hes currently taking meetings with Jerry Falwell (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/articles/051114/14whisplead_2.htm), assumedly for leverage in 2008.? Like I said, I respect him and his occassional independence, but hes obviously hellbent on being president and with the realization that 2008 is his last chance, I wonder to what extent hell undermine his own principles to fulfill that ambition.

I saw him on Stewart the other night. I liked him up til the part of the interview where he lied about "the entire world" thinking that Iraq had WMD. Just another crony after that comment.

Funny even when people say every American wanted to go to war...

Im definitely voting for Hillary, Even If I have to write her in.  Some say that she ran the country instead of Bill, which would be a great thing.

Clinton made some personal mistakes but U cannot argue with all he got accomplished.

Look at that Surplus he had, I mean WOW.

Am I being naive when i say that I dont think 9/11 wouldve happened if Clinton were still president?

or is that a dumb assumption?

I just felt he had such a great relationship with everyone, that it might not have happened or was it inevitable?

I'm not sure about that one D. But wasn't Clinton in office or just about to be in office when the first attack on the World Trade Center happened?

Yes, he was in office for a month when the '93 attacks occurred. 

Im inclined to believe the 2001 attacks woud have happened even if Gore (or Clinton) were in office.  Im also inclined to believe that the Bush administration didnt give much attention to Al Qaeda and terrorism in those first 8 months, whereas Gore/Clinton would have been picking up where he left off and might have handled certain information differently, such as the infamous August 6th PDB stating "Bin Laden determined to strike in US." 


Absolutely untrue.  Bill Clinton has a reputation for being a hands-on policy wonk, and while she probably had some influence on some decisions, it was mostly Bill.  I strongly doubt thats the case with the current president.

Anybody who sits on tv and says "The entire world believed Saddam had weapons" is a crony. Since that is a lie-period.

???

Thats just not true.  You can say theyre wrong, but that belief doesnt make them a "crony."

Might as well be one, to continue to lie in such a way. Why lie in such an outright way? America is tired of the dishonesty. His statement put him in the same column as Bush and Co. as far as I'm concerned.

I saw on the news today where they said that Kerry and other democrats supported the war only because they didnt think they could get elected otherwise.

Forgive me if im wrong but thats pretty fucked up.

U help send people to war for fear over your political career?


My only problem is the fact that people like Kerry didnt stand up before the war, its easy to stand up after everything has went to shit, but He voted for the war and that cant be excused either.

I know Bush had the final say but still, everyone who voted for the war should share in some of the blame as well.

Uh...I'd like to see a link for that one.

Who said?

It was real early, I was flippin around tryin to find news on Eddie Guerrero's death and it was a commentary person *not FoxNews* i know that much, either MSNBC or CNN, I didnt mean to insinuate that was 100 percent true cause Im sure it was an opinion and not necessarily a fact.


I do like what Bush fired back though in his Asia speech and it does seem to me like some, not all are playing politics now.

But its who u want to believe.

I just have a hard time believing that Bush is so evil, he'd manipulate intelligence just to go to war.

If he did, that is unforgivable, but Id have to have solid proof before condeming someone of something that attrocious.

Dont you think you should approach a claim like that just a bit more critically? ?Do you realize that you watched some talking head speculate and have accepted it as fact?

How anybodys presidential ambitions figured into their vote cannot be known. ?Its more likely that they actually believed what they were being told by the administration at the time, which was still a huge mistake and youre right about one thing: they deserve some of the blame. ?


Despite the Republican talking point, Congress members were not privy to the same intelligence as the administration (http://www.slate.com/id/2130295/). ?They werent aware that vital intelligence was disputed because the administration obviously chose not to share them - it wasnt in their interest. ?So most of Congress are guilty of being suckers, some may be guilty of worse, and they share blame for this disaster...but its really nothing compared to the administrations part.

This is a very important statement.

When you watch "news", see who is saying it. And ask if it is honestly news at all. The format of many cable "news" channels is to talk about the news. That way, they can put their opinions in it, without lying about what happened (they can fall back on that as an excuse-if called for accountability), shaping public opinion of the people that just flipping the channel.

And if they disagree with your point of view disregard it.  Right SLC :hihi:

Hillary's move to the right continues....


N.Y. Times:
Hillary 'panderer in chief'?
Newspaper scorches Sen. Clinton for grabbing torch on flag-burning

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: December 8, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

? 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., is being blasted by the New York Times for co-sponsoring a bill to criminalize the burning of the American flag, as the paper suggests she's pandering on the issue.

In an editorial titled "Senator Clinton, in Pander Mode," the Times notes the Democrat says she opposes a constitutional amendment to outlaw flag-burning, yet looks to make it a federal crime to scorch Old Glory.

In public statements on the matter, Mrs. Clinton has said, "I support federal legislation that would outlaw flag-desecration, much like laws that currently prohibit the burning of crosses, but I don't believe a constitutional amendment is the answer."


"It looks to us more like a simple attempt to have it both ways," the Times writes. "It's hard to see this as anything but pandering ? there certainly isn't any urgent need to resolve the issue. Flag-burning hasn't been in fashion since college students used slide rules in math class and went to pay phones at the student union to call their friends. Even then, it was a rarity that certainly never put the nation's security in peril.

"The bill attempts to equate flag-burning with cross-burning, which the Supreme Court, in a sensible and carefully considered 2003 decision, said could be prosecuted under certain circumstances as a violation of civil rights law. It's a ridiculous comparison. Burning a cross is a unique act because of its inextricable connection to the Ku Klux Klan and to anti-black violence and intimidation. A black American who wakes up to see a cross burning on the front lawn has every right to feel personally, and physically, threatened. Flag-burning has no such history. It has, in fact, no history of being directed against any target but the government."

The Times ends its opinion by noting "the whole point of the First Amendment is to protect expressions of political opinion that a majority of Americans find disturbing or unacceptable. As a lawyer, the senator presumably already knows that."

In recent days, Sen. Clinton has been coming under fire from the political left for stances appearing to be on both sides of the fence when it comes to the Iraq war.

As WorldNetDaily reported, a scathing attack came from Newsday columnist Jimmy Breslin who wrote, "Hillary Clinton today holds the new North American record for fakery. She copies. She sneaks and slithers past you with her opinion on a war that kills every day."

It is one thing to disagree.

It is yet another to lie (something your camp is good at GNRNIGHTTRAIN  ;D)

O'Reilly was sayin one night how it appears that Hillary is tryin to win the RIGHT vote while Bill stays on the LEFT to win their vote.

Great strategy if its true.

interesting point. in fact, hillary has been acting like a full blown republican for months now (i can't believe the flag burning bill).

AND bill recently came out and made some very critical comments of our mission in iraq (while he was in the middle east).

seems like they are playing both sides of the fence.

hillary's strategy is risky though. many liberals don't want her to run cause they don't think she has a prayer of winning. and moving to the right is gonna piss these people off.

and warner (if he decides to run) has the moderate position covered already - cause he actually is a moderate and won't have to lie about his beliefs to "appear" moderate the way hillary is. he will try to show he's liberal enough, which i think is an easier move to make.

Yeah, I agree. Although I don't really think Bill is courting the left-wing of the party, more like the mid-center.