Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hillary Clinton is an intelligent woman, to be sure, but she is also a liar (recall the corkscrew landing?), devoid of charm, and carrying all the baggage of her husband. And many of us have serious ethical conflicts with the same family in the White House for 16 years. I clearly remember Bill saying you get two for the price of one in 1992, so this would be double-dipping. Why do democrats keep putting her up as the only option?
If we have Hillary at the top of the ticket, a number of people, like myself, will either stay home, or write in an alternative.
Why are the party gurus so blind to this sentiment?
Hillary Clinton is an intelligent woman, to be sure, but she is also a liar (recall the corkscrew landing?), devoid of charm, and carrying all the baggage of her husband. And many of us have serious ethical conflicts with the same family in the White House for 16 years. I clearly remember Bill saying you get two for the price of one in 1992, so this would be double-dipping. Why do democrats keep putting her up as the only option?
If we have Hillary at the top of the ticket, a number of people, like myself, will either stay home, or write in an alternative.
Why are the party gurus so blind to this sentiment?
It is the pwogs obsession with 'firsts'. While I am not saying any party's candidates have been sterling over the past 20 or so years, I am saying there does seem to be a preternatural obsession with 'firsts', beyond any reason, within the progressive movement. First for the sake of being first.
Tis part of the celebrity and reality culture that has replaced sober thought and faith-based principles. This replacement of traditional society has spawned Snooky, the Kardashians, Duck Dynasty, Honey Boo Boo, rapper and hip hop, twerking, among others.
It is the pwogs obsession with 'firsts'. While I am not saying any party's candidates have been sterling over the past 20 or so years, I am saying there does seem to be a preternatural obsession with 'firsts', beyond any reason, within the progressive movement. First for the sake of being first.
Tis part of the celebrity and reality culture that has replaced sober thought and faith-based principles. This replacement of traditional society has spawned Snooky, the Kardashians, Duck Dynasty, Honey Boo Boo, rapper and hip hop, twerking, among others.
Well lets hope Hillary does not start any twerking I can see that on MTV with their idiot crowd.
Hillary Clinton is an intelligent woman, to be sure, but she is also a liar (recall the corkscrew landing?), devoid of charm, and carrying all the baggage of her husband. And many of us have serious ethical conflicts with the same family in the White House for 16 years. I clearly remember Bill saying you get two for the price of one in 1992, so this would be double-dipping. Why do democrats keep putting her up as the only option?
If we have Hillary at the top of the ticket, a number of people, like myself, will either stay home, or write in an alternative.
Why are the party gurus so blind to this sentiment?
I doubt many Democrats will sit out if Hillary is the nominee. As of right now she is dominating opinion polls, that said though a lot can change until the first votes in Iowa are cast.
Hillary won't have any trouble keeping Obama's coalition together and she will expand that coalition with women voters and white working class voters. That's why "party gurus" think she would be a smart choice as the Democratic nominee.
I doubt many Democrats will sit out if Hillary is the nominee. As of right now she is dominating opinion polls, that said though a lot can change until the first votes in Iowa are cast.
Hillary won't have any trouble keeping Obama's coalition together and she will expand that coalition with women voters and white working class voters. That's why "party gurus" think she would be a smart choice as the Democratic nominee.
The party gurus are wrong, IMO. They are drinking their own kool aid. America needs fresh blood. I don't want to see a Clinton or a Bush in the Oval Office for the rest of my days. We have 300 million people in this country, we don't need to recycle politicians. These are just my opinions, but I suspect I am not the only one who holds them. To quote Bill Clinton, Democrats don't fall in line, they fall in love. I think Hillary Clinton would be the Romney of the left. A seemingly practical choice, but voters would lack conviction.
I would love to see a woman president, but I think it will be a moderate republican.
The party gurus are wrong, IMO. They are drinking their own kool aid. America needs fresh blood. I don't want to see a Clinton or a Bush in the Oval Office for the rest of my days. We have 300 million people in this country, we don't need to recycle politicians. These are just my opinions, but I suspect I am not the only one who holds them. To quote Bill Clinton, Democrats don't fall in line, they fall in love. I think Hillary Clinton would be the Romney of the left. A seemingly practical choice, but voters would lack conviction.
I would love to see a woman president, but I think it will be a moderate republican.
I fail to see how Hillary is the "Romney of the left." Romney had to disavow just about everything he did or said as Massachusetts' governor. Hillary is comfortable running nationally as a Democrat. Romney wasn't comfortable running nationally as a Republican.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.