May 22, 2003 3:52 PM
|Hillary wants to run for an open seat in 2008. Therefore, she doesn't want a demo to win in 2004. Since Hillary and her comrades control the party, they won't let a demo win in 2004. Not even going to seriously try. Make sense?
PS: While lamenting for the country, Rush Limbaugh would probably double his audience if Hillary were President. Ooh, makes me ill to even type that. ;-)
|Which part? The part about Rush or the part .........||Live Steam|
May 22, 2003 5:01 PM
|President Hillary Clinton? Ugh! Now I'm sick! :o( Do you think Rush and the other conservative talking heads will secretly fund her campaign so they can triple their money on all the "politalk" they'll be doing if she does get elected? :O)|
|In the Byzantine world of politics, this sort of calculus||OldEdScott|
May 23, 2003 5:22 AM
|pops up all the time. I'm sure you're right about Hillary's preference for 2008, and that she and her people are dancing on a bit of a thin wire -- she has to LOOK like she's working to get a Dem elected in 2004, while actually hoping we nominate a weak candidate who gets his ass whipped, thereby catapaulting her into clear leadership of the party (and the presumptive next nominee.
Actually, it's not that big a deal right now, since we don't HAVE a strong candidate and it's almost inconceivable that Bush can be beat. So all she has to do is look like a trouper and a team player and make the right noise in favor of whoever, while not laying tons of her political prestige and capital on the line. If terrible things happen and Bush is weakened and we nominate someone formidable like Dean, she'd REALLY have to scramble. Unlikely.
May 23, 2003 6:55 AM
|What do you think she'd look like as a VP candidate for someone?
I realize I'm very biased, but I think her on any ticket would kill it. Lots of people really, really, dislike her (dare I say "hate"?). I have no idea whether she could get a nomination, but I think middle/rural Americans who have never even voted would crawl out from under rocks to help defeat her.
May 23, 2003 7:10 AM
|My opinion only, but I think she needs four more years of seperation from her husband's legacy to be viable. Americans have a very short term memory, and I could see that by 2008, a lot of people could be nostalgic for 1998. The further she gets from Bill's legacy, the closer she gets to establishing her own.|
|good point, but||DougSloan|
May 23, 2003 7:17 AM
|I think the longer the better for her, but it will never be long enough. She has her own legacy -- her leading the charge in an attempt to socialize health care, darn near earning her modern "communist" title, didn't play well with most of the country. On the other hand, she might actually derive some sympathy factor for putting up with Willy.
Ted Kennedy could never live down his notariety, I think, even now 30 years later. (meaningless to me, but seemed to be a public problem for him)
|good point, but||TJeanloz|
May 23, 2003 7:26 AM
|I think the health care fiasco is practically forgotten, and if it came up in a campaign I'm not sure it would hurt her. She can reasonably argue that she tried to fix the health care system, and was shot down by the vast right wing conspiricy. I think that's a net positive for Democratic voters - and let's face it, she's not trying to woo the far right, just the push the center to the left a little bit.
Ted Kennedy's notariety has more to do with off-the-field behavior than political mistakes - which is different all together.
|By 2008, Hillary's health plan is going to be||OldEdScott|
May 23, 2003 8:07 AM
|looking pretty good. I'm assuming Medicare and Social Security will be 'withering on the vine' (Newt's felicitous phrase) by then, right? We'll be in the last year of Big Dick Cheney's second term as president, when all the real agenda will have been unleashed.|
|You know 'em all, don't you?||DJB|
May 23, 2003 8:48 AM
|"withering on the vine"
You don't miss a chance to toss out every hoary, misleading Dem. smear in the book, do you?
"That's just dishonest. What Gingrich really said was that the Republicans believed the Medicare bureaucracy would wither on the vine -- not Medicare benefits."
You must love your work.
May 23, 2003 9:05 AM
|Not sure where Newt says here that it's the bureaucracy, not Medicare itself, that will wither on the vine. He says people will leave 'it' voluntarily, causing 'it' to wither on the vine. Now, you and Newt and your chums know very well that pointy headed overpaid bureaucrats NEVER leave 'it' (the bureaucracy) voluntarily. Why would they abandon their gravy train? You gotta pry 'em out with a crowbar.
Besides, it's nonsensical. There's going to be a voluntary flight of bureaucrats from Washington, ending the Medicare bureaucracy, but Medicare itself will survive, the benefits presumably mailing themselves out deus ex machina without without human intervention?
No, my reactionary friend, Newt meant Medicare. No other way to read it. Sorry.
|Here's the quote.||DJB|
May 23, 2003 9:12 AM
|Here's the full quote: "What do you think the health care financing administration is?" Gingrich asked. "It's a centralized command bureaucracy. It's everything we're telling Boris Yeltsin to get rid of. Now we don't get rid of it in round one because we don't think that's politically smart and we don't think that's the right way to go through a transition. But we believe it's going to wither on the vine because we think people are going to voluntarily leave it. Voluntarily."
Health Care Financing Administration = HCFA
Hey, they renamed it. I guess it did wither on the vine!
|Oh, I forgot...||DJB|
May 23, 2003 9:16 AM
|Gingrich wasn't talking about the bureaucrats leaving, but Medicare recipients. Because of the options people would have been offered.|
|Could you imagine this guy olded worked for you?||No_sprint|
May 23, 2003 10:54 AM
|LOL Production rate of nada, posting rate that beats everyone in this place. Talkin' on deaf ears too. Waste.|
|Oh, I don't know.||DJB|
May 23, 2003 11:33 AM
|Even though I don't post on that many discussions, I'm out here more than I should be. You know the rule about those who live in glass houses...
Besides, I always appreciate what Ed has to say.
|At her level you don't run for VP. nm||OldEdScott|
May 23, 2003 7:42 AM
|So why do folks dislike/hate Hillary so much?||PdxMark|
May 23, 2003 9:12 AM
|Her one step into politics was working on a Commission to try to provide universal healthcare. An evil thing, to be sure, but is that the source of all the hate for her? (A researcher friend who grew up in Czechoslovokia recently said "Communists did only two things well - education and heathcare.")
She didn't play the sexual games Willy did, so it can't be that? Why the strong dislike for her? She's bright and she's liberal... oh, and a woman. What else is there to dislike about her?
|My opinion? She's an actress...||TJeanloz|
May 23, 2003 9:43 AM
|I'm not completely anti-Hillary, as many people are, but I think she's too focused on working the system. Remember, if you will, during the first campaign (1992) we were initially fed the line that we were electing a husband and wife "team". That didn't play well in the heartland, so suddenly she was the stay-at-home mom baking cookies for her daughter's friends. Then her husband was elected and she decided that her name was Hillary Rodham(sp?). She's an extension of what some people didn't like about her husband - she sticks her finger in the air to see what way the wind is blowing before she moves, and isn't afraid to change course if it is politically convenient. Furthermore, I don't believe she acts in the best interest of the nation as Senator from New York.
Let it be said now that I'm not prepared to back any of this up - these are my impressions and opinions, and are not necessarily grounded in fact - but I'm not a fan based on this (perhaps false) impression.
|well put, but I think she is ideological||DougSloan|
May 23, 2003 10:08 AM
|I think she does the acting thing to further her ends, but her ends extend beyond merely getting elected and weilding power. I think she's an ideological socialist. I detest socialism, as do many Americans. What's insidious about her is that I think she would say and do whatever it takes to get elected, and only then would she reveal her real agenda.
|well put, but I think she is ideological||PdxMark|
May 23, 2003 10:10 AM
|Ahh... I could see that you wouldn't like that! :)|
|please take notice...||DougSloan|
May 23, 2003 10:14 AM
|I did use the politically correct term "socialist," and not the pejorative, but possibly more accurate, term "communist." ;-)
May 23, 2003 10:17 AM
|I don't think she'd actually nationalize much more that the oil industry... so socialist is probably more correct...|
|God. If you think the mildly liberal Hillary is a||OldEdScott|
May 23, 2003 10:25 AM
|Communist, I'd best keep you away from my friends. You'd probably be apoplexic even BEFORE we got around to singing the Internationale.|
May 23, 2003 10:34 AM
|"Mildly Liberal? I'm busting a gut here.
I have no problems with Liberals whatsoever, as long as they are running my life. Much more fun than debating conservatives, and usually more fun to party with.
|well put, but I think she is ideological||TJeanloz|
May 23, 2003 10:11 AM
|I would agree to some extent, and say that the logical conclusion is that when choosing to elect her, I don't feel confident that she is representing her real adgenda. At this point it's the evil you know or the one you don't; and I don't have ANY idea what's up her sleeve.|
|well put, but I think she is ideological||rufus|
May 23, 2003 12:37 PM
|What's insidious about her is that I think she would say and do whatever it takes to get elected, and only then would she reveal her real agenda.
gee imagine that!
.i would never tolerate that from any politician.
|My opinion? She's an actress...||PdxMark|
May 23, 2003 10:09 AM
|I see that... Her identity back then was constantly evolving... I assumed that was like other things during the Clinton I administration.. drifting about for awhile to find a package that will fly... I attributed that more to the Clinton I administration's political machinery than to her...
But on her own terms now... not being a brainy partner in the Bill & Hill package without a politically acceptable way to participate in government... is she such a bad person? Thinking back, it seems that she became the lightning post for the healthcare reform issue without any substantive criticism of her abilities/character/etc.
|My opinion? She's an actress...||TJeanloz|
May 23, 2003 10:14 AM
|Is she such a bad person? I can't comment, I don't know her. But she seems damn smart, and my preference for a stupid President is well known. Anyway, I wouldn't want anybody with an "evolving" identity up for election - how do I know they aren't going to "evolve" out of the reason I elected them?|
May 23, 2003 10:19 AM
|There's something for me to consider... The one down side to stupid Presidents is that they have smart friends...|
|I see that as the upside...||TJeanloz|
May 23, 2003 10:30 AM
|The way I look at it is this:
The job of the Presidency is far too complex for any individual to comprehend. There is no way you could be well-versed in every issue to have a reasonable opinion. Somebody who knows that they aren't always right is more likely to delegate responsibility for some issues to experts in the field, who generally share similar ideologies. That way, you get experts in their fields making decisions, not some self-empowered genius. What terrified me about Al Gore, is that I could imagine a scenario where every expert in the field is saying: route A is the best way to go; and him saying: well, I'm a smart guy, and I think it would be better to go on route B, so we'll do that. And the car drives off a cliff...
May 23, 2003 10:56 AM
|I've known Jack Danforth (former US Senator from Missouri and all around great guy) for quite a while. He said that the best thing a politician can do is to surround yourself with people smarter than you. Makes sense.
|Right on. nm.||No_sprint|
May 23, 2003 10:57 AM
May 23, 2003 2:11 PM
|TJ's political mentor?||DougSloan|
May 23, 2003 2:11 PM
|TJ's political mentor?||PdxMark|
May 26, 2003 9:49 AM
|Keeping to his Gallic roots...|
|I hope her plan works.||No_sprint|
May 23, 2003 7:23 AM
|No chance in 2004 or 2008.|
|Actually, I'll clue you in ...||OldEdScott|
May 23, 2003 8:13 AM
|Our double-secret plan is to actually HELP the Bushies when they mount their certain attempt to repeal the 22nd Amendment. Because we WANT him to run for a third term, just so BILL can whip his ass in 2008!
HA! Talk about apoplexy on the Right!
|hittin the sauce a little early today, Ed? ;-) nm||DougSloan|
May 23, 2003 8:37 AM
|Just high on politics, man! nm||OldEdScott|
May 23, 2003 8:44 AM
|Shh! Don't say another word, Ed. Ashcroft is listening! (nm)||Dale Brigham|
May 23, 2003 10:31 AM
May 23, 2003 10:37 AM
|He's probably only listening to Arabic communications these days.
May 23, 2003 10:44 AM
|It's Cheney's lawyers who are listening to us.|
|LOL Nobody's listening in here. Continue on. nm.||No_sprint|
May 23, 2003 10:59 AM