Who would you vote for, Hillary or Elizebeth?

Actually, I do understand.

I have my issues with Hillary Clinton as well. I worry about her hawkish foreign policy attitudes and her tendancy to be overly pragmatic. And I worry about her arrogance.

On the other hand, she'll have a very deep well of very experienced people to draw from.

She's head and shoulders above any of the GOP candidates, including Jeb Bush. (I would have given him more cred until his disasterous foreign policy speech last week, and the fact that he has brought on a bunch of his brother's neo con fools).

- - - Updated - - -

I didn't vote for Barack Obama because a talk radio show host or cable TV new blowviator told me to.

 

So thought Clinton.And especially Geraldo Rivera { Slick Willy's biggest fan }.
Geraldo at his own primetime hour at CNBC { 9 pm }.
Virtually every show at the end Geraldo made bets that His Idol,
Bill Clinton would never be Impeached.His guests included Clinton's
notorious spin doctors. Doug Hattaway.Julien Epstein. Ann Lewis { Barney Franks sister }
Lonnie Davis and Professor Alan Dershowitz.
Impeachment is a process. The Impeachment Process.
The House Impeached Clinton and the Senate could not muster a majority vote of
Impeachment.

 

Which means you voted for Barack Obama based on his ability to
brainwash with Lies and fabrication.Which means you were played like
a used set of playing cards from some greasy spoon.

 

After watching all the democratic debates in 2008 I actually liked Biden the best out of all the democratic candidates. All presidents get advised on every single issue they have to make a decision on and I have a feeling that Biden would be more willing to listen to advice then people like an Obama or Clinton who have their own agendas. Biden seems a lot like Bush which could be a bad thing or good thing depending on who is giving you the advice.

That would be the key, who he surrounds himself with. Of course, Biden will never get it but I think Hillary has way too much baggage to win at this point, I think the voters are simply too tired of the liberal democrats running things and are ready for a switch.

 

Humm, a choice between Hillary or Warren? Can I just gouge my eyes out with a sharp stick instead?

 

No you cannot.It's like a choice between a Giant Squid or a Great White.
If there's moving they a Dimocrat. Even when doing number 2 { taking a poop }
a toilet should not feel burdened { needed }.

 

Wowzah! We are in complete agreement. I am always shocked when that happens. I think I need to go rest for a period and let my mind settle . . .

 

Indeed, that is exactly what happened. Before the 'elevation' of Barack Obama in 2008 Hillary Clinton was (just as she is today) going to BE the Left's Anointed One with the primaries being nothing more than a necessary formality. The DNC powers that be had collectively decided along with most leftwing organizations that it was going to be the Year of the Woman and that Hillary would become the nation's first woman president and lead the damaged nations out of the conservative generated ideological wasteland of G.W. Bush politics and policies.

But then Barack stood up with his even more PC desired skin tone and a golden orator's voice and with a cut-throat team of political operatives who made some behind the scenes deal with the more radical or at least corruptible members of the DNC (never all that difficult to find). Also those experienced stealth operatives -- some of whom were Clinton campaign insiders at the time -- knew that since the Clintons were NOT expecting a shiv in the kidneys from their own side of the political divide they could take down Hillary and the Big Dawg simply by sliding in some vital caucus rules changes that the Clintons did not realize could be used against them and then by later on down the line slamming the Clintons with the charge of racism via sly intimations and with pundits like Chris Matthews (whose legs tingled whenever Obama spoke) who phrased questions along the race baiting lines of "Have you ceased beating your wife yet?" where the pair were concerned.

So suddenly it was out with Hillary and the year of the woman and in with Barack and the year of the -- um -- deliciously dark toned . . . oh . . . and anyone asking about necessary national level experience in order to become president -- well -- that's just racism.

So the Left and the far Left got what they wanted and the nation -- and arguably the Dem Party itself in the long run -- got the shaft.

So is it going to be Hillary in 2016? I dunno, but although I voted for her in the primaries back in 2008 and even though I left the Democratic Party after hordes of otherwise nominally sane Democrats went for Image over Substance I shan't be voting for her at the end of next year and that's because after eight straight years of Dem Party incompetence in foreign and domestic affairs and horribly hurtful policies I think that we are going to need a GOP president to put Humpty Dumpty together again.

 

Yeah but Obama also claimed to be against lobbying and wanted to help the middle class and we all see how that turned out. All politicians lie whether they are on the Left or the Right.

 

As Jack Nicholson once said... "... I'd rather stick needles in my eyes...."

 

Touche'!!

 

Talk about two lying, communist suck bags.

poor america

 

Nader is probably nuts but his opinion that there is a coming left/right American populist coalition in the making would be a nice thing to see happen; a Nader or Warren/ Buchanan ticket would be an interesting election cycle for once, instead of the last few cycles of clueless neo-liberal versus clueless idiot choices.

 

The Democrat Party should concentrate the electoral efforts on a figure able to win and with already a high popularity, since, statistics say that, after a not exceptional President who has remained to the White House for two mandates there is the not little possibility that the "wind of change" can affect the electoral result. And sure there is no member of Obama's staff who could do like Bush Senior [who enjoyed the popularity of being Vice President with Reagan ... not a little advantage!].

No, the last 3 long Presidencies [two concluded, one still in progress] have showed that the second mandate is usually less "epic" than the first one, generating in the "mobile electorate" a certain interest in changing side.

So that the candidate of the same party of the exiting President has to be a great candidate.

Hillary, no way.

 

They should run Elizabeth because Hillary can't win. I think it's adorable you think so though

 

Out of the two, probably Warren. I like Sanders more than either though.

 

Hillary has already proven she is not responsible enough even to be secretary of state.

 

I would vote for Hillary.