Chilly Posted June 10, 2005 Posted June 10, 2005 Hillary's trying to get more centralized in case she does run, though. Notice that she voted in the confirmation on Priscilla Owen.
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted June 10, 2005 Posted June 10, 2005 I think the rumbling and speculation is due to the lack of any new names to bat around yet. We're only eight months removed from the last one. As a hardcore Democrat, I don't believe she will run, nor is it a good time for her to run. Not being qualified for the job doesn't seem to be a factor anymore, anyway, so that would be moot. 354536[/snapback] Since there are now "red states" and "blue states": 1. What red states could Hillary win that Kerry couldn't? 2. What candidate could win red states?
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 10, 2005 Posted June 10, 2005 We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us 354732[/snapback] There you go with that ludicrous Picard-trek stuff again...
/dev/null Posted June 10, 2005 Posted June 10, 2005 There you go with that ludicrous Picard-trek stuff again... 355273[/snapback] i saw in the local paper (Virginian Pilot) that Picard was coming to Williamsburg to perform Shakespeare. Admission is abit too pricey for me, but i'd pay that much to see Kirk try Shakespeare To...BE! or......NOT to be THAT! is...THE QUESTION! i ASK...of he!
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 10, 2005 Posted June 10, 2005 i saw in the local paper (Virginian Pilot) that Picard was coming to Williamsburg to perform Shakespeare. Admission is abit too pricey for me, but i'd pay that much to see Kirk try Shakespeare To...BE! or......NOT to be THAT! is...THE QUESTION! i ASK...of he! 355496[/snapback] Shatner was actually a well thought of Shakespearean actor before doing Star Trek. As was Patrick Stewart, for that matter...
Ghost of BiB Posted June 10, 2005 Author Posted June 10, 2005 Shatner was actually a well thought of Shakespearean actor before doing Star Trek. As was Patrick Stewart, for that matter... 355530[/snapback] Made a lousy Ahab, IMO.
Alaska Darin Posted June 10, 2005 Posted June 10, 2005 Made a lousy Ahab, IMO. 355596[/snapback] Plus, he tried to kipe my doobage.
Kelly the Dog Posted June 12, 2005 Posted June 12, 2005 Here and there amongst the threads. This is a SERIOUS question. Still hearing all this rumble about Hill being the Dem nomination for President. Can ANYONE explain to me what she has done to show that she is capable or qualified? 354529[/snapback] Capable, I am not sure. And I do not think she is going to run, nor do i think she would win, although it is possible. But there is hardly better experience anywhere than she had being in the White House four years with Bill, seeing how things actually work, meeting all the world leaders, actively participating in policy (whether that is good or bad), being there on a daily basis. As far as practical experience goes, she's probably one of the most qualified persons in the country.
Ghost of BiB Posted June 12, 2005 Author Posted June 12, 2005 Capable, I am not sure. And I do not think she is going to run, nor do i think she would win, although it is possible. But there is hardly better experience anywhere than she had being in the White House four years with Bill, seeing how things actually work, meeting all the world leaders, actively participating in policy (whether that is good or bad), being there on a daily basis. As far as practical experience goes, she's probably one of the most qualified persons in the country. 356182[/snapback] You scare me sometimes.
Kelly the Dog Posted June 12, 2005 Posted June 12, 2005 You scare me sometimes. 356191[/snapback] And why might that be? Because you're not used to people making sense? I did, of course, say I wasn't sure she was capable, nor could win.
Ghost of BiB Posted June 12, 2005 Author Posted June 12, 2005 I kind of zeroed in on the "most capable in the country" thingy. Granted, I understand the cynical part...but you have now given independant credence to "I have heard of her". There are people here who consider that research. 1. They have heard of her. 2. Somebody else besides them did. 3. COOL! (Fill in your own distracting shiny thing) 4. Somebody else heard of them in the same conversation. must be important. 5. That is how America chooses to determine it's future. Those over 30, don't apply. Those that are? Keep your mouth shut and let "LOST" tell you how to live and think. Ask your kids, if you have none, ask your nieces and nephews what is the bomb today. Gotta keep up. 6. Thanks to 1-5, it's gonna get real ugly before it ever even thinks about getting better.
Kelly the Dog Posted June 12, 2005 Posted June 12, 2005 You asked what she has done to make her capable or qualified. I said I wasn't sure she was capable, but she is very qualified, because she has unique experience that no one in the country has had. She grew up in Chicago, went to yale law school in the north east, was a hands on first lady to the governor of a southern state for 12 years and then spent 8 years on the heel of one of the best politicians in our lifetime. Note I didnt say great guy or great American or great President or great anything other than politician. You cannot get better experience than that. And it is not the same as Laura Bush got or Jackie kennedy got, it's hands on policy stuff on a daily basis, talking to guy who cannot shut up about domestic and world politics. Then she will have spent six years as a senator and on the armed forces committee and environmental committees. Again, again, again, I'm NOT saying she would make a great candidate or that she is great in any way, I am saying she's extremely qualified for the position in relation to her rivals of either party. IMO, you simply cannot get better experience at the job at hand than sitting with and traveling with and arguing with and bantering with a sitting president for eight years.
Ghost of BiB Posted June 12, 2005 Author Posted June 12, 2005 You asked what she has done to make her capable or qualified. I said I wasn't sure she was capable, but she is very qualified, because she has unique experience that no one in the country has had. She grew up in Chicago, went to yale law school in the north east, was a hands on first lady to the governor of a southern state for 12 years and then spent 8 years on the heel of one of the best politicians in our lifetime. Note I didnt say great guy or great American or great President or great anything other than politician. You cannot get better experience than that. And it is not the same as Laura Bush got or Jackie kennedy got, it's hands on policy stuff on a daily basis, talking to guy who cannot shut up about domestic and world politics. Then she will have spent six years as a senator and on the armed forces committee and environmental committees. Again, again, again, I'm NOT saying she would make a great candidate or that she is great in any way, I am saying she's extremely qualified for the position in relation to her rivals of either party. IMO, you simply cannot get better experience at the job at hand than sitting with and traveling with and arguing with and bantering with a sitting president for eight years. 356273[/snapback] You scare me sometimes.
Kelly the Dog Posted June 12, 2005 Posted June 12, 2005 You scare me sometimes. 356274[/snapback] Apparently, ghosts scare easily.
VABills Posted June 12, 2005 Posted June 12, 2005 You asked what she has done to make her capable or qualified. I said I wasn't sure she was capable, but she is very qualified, because she has unique experience that no one in the country has had. She grew up in Chicago, went to yale law school in the north east, was a hands on first lady to the governor of a southern state for 12 years and then spent 8 years on the heel of one of the best politicians in our lifetime. Note I didnt say great guy or great American or great President or great anything other than politician. You cannot get better experience than that. And it is not the same as Laura Bush got or Jackie kennedy got, it's hands on policy stuff on a daily basis, talking to guy who cannot shut up about domestic and world politics. Then she will have spent six years as a senator and on the armed forces committee and environmental committees. Again, again, again, I'm NOT saying she would make a great candidate or that she is great in any way, I am saying she's extremely qualified for the position in relation to her rivals of either party. IMO, you simply cannot get better experience at the job at hand than sitting with and traveling with and arguing with and bantering with a sitting president for eight years. 356273[/snapback] How do you know what Jackie or Laura have done. It is my understand that Laura has been very involved in leading efforts on education reform, some woman health issues, stated an association for abused Afghan women, and has been very instrumental recently in some mideast talks. She maybe not as noticable, and surely not as vocal about her deeds but she is doing them. This also doesn't make Laura qualified either, but unlike Hilary she has a master in education, been a teacher for a long time and is probably more in tune with the common American's needs.
Alaska Darin Posted June 12, 2005 Posted June 12, 2005 And it is not the same as Laura Bush got or Jackie kennedy got, it's hands on policy stuff on a daily basis, talking to guy who cannot shut up about domestic and world politics. 356273[/snapback] And she certainly has the failure part down.
Kelly the Dog Posted June 12, 2005 Posted June 12, 2005 How do you know what Jackie or Laura have done. It is my understand that Laura has been very involved in leading efforts on education reform, some woman health issues, stated an association for abused Afghan women, and has been very instrumental recently in some mideast talks. She maybe not as noticable, and surely not as vocal about her deeds but she is doing them. This also doesn't make Laura qualified either, but unlike Hilary she has a master in education, been a teacher for a long time and is probably more in tune with the common American's needs. 356281[/snapback] It is irrelevant how much she has done or how nice she is or smart she is or all the wonderful things she has done as first lady (and I mean that). She isn't involved in policy and has no political background or ambition or anything of the sort that Clinton has. I'm not arguing who is nicer or better or smarter or in touch with America, I only meant that no other first lady in our lifetime got the same experience as a first lady that Hilary did when it comes to preparing herself for a political career or the presdiency itself. It is inarguable.
VABills Posted June 12, 2005 Posted June 12, 2005 It is irrelevant how much she has done or how nice she is or smart she is or all the wonderful things she has done as first lady (and I mean that). She isn't involved in policy and has no political background or ambition or anything of the sort that Clinton has. I'm not arguing who is nicer or better or smarter or in touch with America, I only meant that no other first lady in our lifetime got the same experience as a first lady that Hilary did when it comes to preparing herself for a political career or the presdiency itself. It is inarguable. 356286[/snapback] That's my point, Laura has been involved in policy, and foreign politics. But she doesn't push her self on the front page demanding recognition. Some people like to do things without the recognition, becuase it is the right thing to do. However, most people don't, and want the spotlight, even if it is unearned. Like Hilary and her wonderful healthcare program that she pushed through while "they" were the president. What you don't remember that program? Me neither. Of course like it or not, we do have a new education program, NCLB. Again whther you like it or not, the program did get passed and implemented , and guess what. Laura had a lot to do with it, along with the lady who was just named to head Dept of Ed.
Kelly the Dog Posted June 12, 2005 Posted June 12, 2005 That's my point, Laura has been involved in policy, and foreign politics. But she doesn't push her self on the front page demanding recognition. Some people like to do things without the recognition, becuase it is the right thing to do. However, most people don't, and want the spotlight, even if it is unearned. Like Hilary and her wonderful healthcare program that she pushed through while "they" were the president. What you don't remember that program? Me neither. Of course like it or not, we do have a new education program, NCLB. Again whther you like it or not, the program did get passed and implemented , and guess what. Laura had a lot to do with it, along with the lady who was just named to head Dept of Ed. 356287[/snapback] Ask 100 honest people, including yourself, who got much more practical experience during her years in the White House on politics and politicans and domestic and foreign policy, who had the presdient's ear on issues, who sat in on more meetings, who read more internal documents, who would be better prepared to be president (not counting their politics) Laura Bush or Hilary Clinton. It would be 100 to zero.
VABills Posted June 12, 2005 Posted June 12, 2005 Ask 100 honest people, including yourself, who got much more practical experience during her years in the White House on politics and politicans and domestic and foreign policy, who had the presdient's ear on issues, who sat in on more meetings, who read more internal documents, Laura Bush or Hilary Clinton. 356291[/snapback] The honest answer is none of us knows for sure. Hilary got a lot of press, but Laura if you really pay attention is doing a lot. Little fact, did you know Laura Bush is the ONLY 1st lady to deliver the Presidents weekly radio address? Oh and I can assure you that you are wrong. You need to go back to polling 101.
Recommended Posts