Will Secretary of State Clinton run in 2016? She has said that she is retiring from public life after January 2013 and will not run in 2016. But do you think she really means it?
No other person in the nation is better qualified and experienced to lead than Hillary. She has made mistakes in her political life and learned from them, starting with her stint as First Lady in 1993. She knows the inner workings of the White House, served in the Senate, and has become one of the best Secretaries of State that the nation has produced. And she knows what makes Republicans in Congress tick and how they operate.
Hillary leaving her post after Obama’s second term is a very astute decision. Presidents’ second terms are often marred by turmoil or scandal, and Obama’s might not be an exception. By leaving with a high reputation, she protects herself from being associated with a potentially unpopular Obama 2nd term.
Many Republicans express nostalgia toward the Clinton years, and how her husband worked with them to produce a balanced budget and thus surpluses. She is a realist centrist compared to Obama’s liberalism.
Considering these factors, Hillary will be a formidable candidate in 2016 if she runs. She will receive strong support from women, minorities, white working class men, young voters, moderates and independents, and even considerable support from conservative Republicans. Hillary may be the Republicans’ candidate to win back the White House in the absence of a transformative candidate.
[quote=“reztrop”]Will Secretary of State Clinton run in 2016? She has said that she is retiring from public life after January 2013 and will not run in 2016. But do you think she really means it?
No other person in the nation is better qualified and experienced to lead than Hillary. She has made mistakes in her political life and learned from them, starting with her stint as First Lady in 1993. She knows the inner workings of the White House, served in the Senate, and has become one of the best Secretaries of State that the nation has produced. And she knows what makes Republicans in Congress tick and how they operate.
Hillary leaving her post after Obama’s second term is a very astute decision. Presidents’ second terms are often marred by turmoil or scandal, and Obama’s might not be an exception. By leaving with a high reputation, she protects herself from being associated with a potentially unpopular Obama 2nd term.
Many Republicans express nostalgia toward the Clinton years, and how her husband worked with them to produce a balanced budget and thus surpluses. She is a realist centrist compared to Obama’s liberalism.
Considering these factors, Hillary will be a formidable candidate in 2016 if she runs. She will receive strong support from women, minorities, white working class men, young voters, moderates and independents, and even considerable support from conservative Republicans. Hillary may be the Republicans’ candidate to win back the White House in the absence of a transformative candidate.
What do you think?[/quote]
Really? Do we have to start talking about this already!? In 2012?!
Ok, I’ll bite: She will be too old. She would be nearly the same age as Reagan, and he was only lucid sometimes for most of his presidency. Plus, I really don’t think she wants it.
Many Republicans express nostalgia toward the Clinton years, and how her husband worked with them to produce a balanced budget and thus surpluses. She is a realist centrist compared to Obama’s liberalism.
What do you think?[/quote]
agree with most of what you said, but how is Hilary, someone who fought for a federal run universal health care system, any less of a liberal than Obama? I think the real centrists here is Obama, at least he tries really hard to be.
Yah, I remember how that went. “I do not recall.”
I don’t think in this media age, where candidates are followed day and night in a media circus via 24 hour infotainment, that we can expect another oldie. Reagan became senile, and it was obvious. His staff didn’t even allow him in front of cameras over the last two years of his presidency. I know it is blasphemy to criticize the republican messiah, but Reagan was :loco: at the end.
I, for one, as a Republican, would not only vote for her but also I would volunteer to be on her campaign. She is that good. We will need her in 2016. I look forward to her serving eight years.
I’d love to see her in, but after what I saw and heard from the Republicans during this last campaign regarding women, it’s hard to believe a woman could get in. I would assume that not all Dems who voted Obama would go for “a woman”. And that’s what it would come down to. I’m not sure the time has come yet. I wish it had – I agree she is superqualified – but I’m just not sure if it would happen.
I still remember the hatred heaped upon Hillary by the Republicans back in the 90s for no reason whatsoever. I am concerned that the Republican rumor-mongers will dig up all those old false accusations (“murder of Vince Foster” and all that) and make the campaign another circus of distraction.
If the Dems can just avoid reliving their 2008 primary war, or anything resembling the hari kiri primary the Republicans foisted upon themselves this election, then I think she can survive Vince Foster. I really think the GOP won’t go there, and will strongly prefer a reality-based political attack next election. They got burned badly, horribly, traumatically last week, after all.
What exactly did you hear from Republicans about women during this last campaign? from REPUBLICANS not Obama talking heads… care to share? I can think of only the Missouri senate candidate who made a notorious statement during his discussion on abortion in the case of rape and perhaps another anti-abortion candidate for house of representatives who also said abortion should not be allowed even in the case of rape but since many women in the US are also anti-abortion, I wonder how these two statements would lead you to think that Republicans are anti-women. Are all women pro-abortion? Are you defining political views based on gender? In which case, you are a sexist, are you not? and you assume that all women think and act alike which makes you…er the very thing that you are criticizing about Republicans and their supposed (please feel free to prove it) stance on women…
What exactly did you hear from Republicans about women during this last campaign? from REPUBLICANS not Obama talking heads… care to share? I can think of only the Missouri senate candidate who made a notorious statement during his discussion on abortion in the case of rape and perhaps another anti-abortion candidate for house of representatives who also said abortion should not be allowed even in the case of rape but since many women in the US are also anti-abortion[/quote]
but you’ve just mentioned them.
and if you think those two statement were only anti-abortion and not anti-women in anyway, please encourage your republican politicians to keep making them.
the whole thing about abortion is arguing over something based on religion and no one can proof. That being life start at conception. That is a belief, not a fact, and frankly can never be proven. But people are using their belief to suppress women’s right to determine for themselves whether or not the experience that they went through or are going to go through with the conception is going to be too difficult for them to live with. And saying pregnancy from rape is also God’s will is just horrible. The other statement about a woman’s body can shut the whole process down is just willful ignorance.
Seriously, let the Christian right extremists out of the party. Or not, just keep this up and have your politicians talk about abortion and rape every month, it’s up to the republicans.
Two and only two? That’s it? and the former person and his views were totally repudiated by the entire Republican establishment and all funding from Republican National Party headquarters ceased immediately.
Many women also believe that abortion should not be allowed in the case of rape. Are you saying these women don’t understand their own best interests or that they are not smart or that all women must agree that abortion is acceptable?
There is a moral question here. It is too complex for me to hazard an opinion. I respect the rights of others to feel differently.
It is life but not life that is capable of being independent.
Yes, but in politics and government there are a great many laws that result in discomfort to others, not just this one but I sense that you are talking about pregnancy as the result of rape or incest here and I am COMPLETELY sympathetic but the conditions involved do not necessarily give you the right to object to other people feeling differently about the subject.
It is not how I would phrase it but the point being is that regardless of how the pregnancy came about, it is still life. This euphemism or comfort for the condition is not one that rings beautifully in your ears but in the ears of someone more religiously inclined, it might sound different.
yes, which is why he was unanimously repudiated by the entire Republican leadership so… what again is your point about Republicans and women? Shall we now take the opportunity to find every Democrat who sexually harrassed women or even raped them (Clinton, Kennedy et al?) or those who have made notoriously awful comments about women? Think of all the statements made about the women who accused Clinton of sexual harassment and rape. Do you want to go there?
Republicans do not have a problem with Christianity. Republicans do not have a problem with fundamental and evangelical Christianity. Republicans (some) do have a problem with abortion; others, including myself, prefer to defer to the woman but recognize that for many it remains a moral issue. No Republicans support rape. The comment regarding legitimate rape not causing pregnancies was ignorant. BUT if you want to engage in a debate about all ignorance and not just that of one person in the Republican Party, I would be happy to engage in research on any party that you want including all of those in Europe.
And if you would be so kind as to look over to the other thread on Europeans prefering Obama… you will find that abortion is a serious issue in Europe where three countries (Malta, Ireland, Poland) ban it entirely. You can have an abortion in any US state. AND there are many similar matters involving rape and abortion. Remember that the Catholic countries of Europe and even in some ways in Germany (in many cases) have more restrictive laws on abortion than the US. Numerous countries have had very high-profile cases involving a great deal of controversy over rape victims and their right to have abortions when they become pregnant. This is not just an issue in the US. You just choose to make it one because it is unfortunately a typical European, particularly German, tendency to want to paint all Americans as religious barbarians bent on war… the pscyhological implications of this projection of Will (deliberate) are most interesting. Gunther Grass was very insightful into the conditions in the German psyche that have so often led to this dismissal and caricaturization of the Other. Do we need to go there?
Yah, I remember how that went. “I do not recall.”
I don’t think in this media age, where candidates are followed day and night in a media circus via 24 hour infotainment, that we can expect another oldie. Reagan became senile, and it was obvious. His staff didn’t even allow him in front of cameras over the last two years of his presidency. I know it is blasphemy to criticize the republican messiah, but Reagan was :loco: at the end.[/quote]
Plus his wife brought a fucking soothsayer into the White House. That’s something I’d expect some hick out in Jiayi to do when organising a wedding, not the leader of the free world.
Also, a general comment to several posters: why would Clinton run as a Republican candidate? Aren’t people missing the fact that she (and her husband) have been intimately involved with the Democrats for a very long time?
How many of you check your horoscope every day? Quite a few I would expect…[/quote]
I most certainly do not!
Speaking of hicks from Jiayi… Clinton IS a Democrat. I, as a Republican, would still vote for and support her… understand?[/quote]
You’re missing the point that she couldn’t be voted for as a Republican candidate (not whether you, a Republican, would vote for her as a Democratic candidate) if she didn’t run as a Republican and she seems highly unlikely to run as a Republican.
No, by saying you know better than the person who has to live through the situation, you are not respecting the rights of how others fee, doesn’t matter if you are male or female.
Those many women you’ve mentioned believe that other women or themselves have to give birth to child resulted from rape because they believe in life began at conception, due to religious reason or not ( though mostly likely religion). It is absolutely fine if that is the choice they make for themselves. But to make it into a law is not respecting how others feel. And it is letting religion suppress personal freedom.
