Hillary or Condaleeza - who would you vote for president?

[Lady18wheels]

Hypothetical question, but I can see this happening one day. If the two were running against each other for president of the US, who would you vote for? Condaleeza Rice or Hillary Clinton?

[bluebeetle]

I don't think the Republican conservatives will EVER nominate a female for the office of the presidency. Just don't think it would happen.

Now the next election you might see Hillary as the front runner for the Demotree huggers. Which initself will be rather interesting.

[Lady18wheels]

I don't think the Republican conservatives will EVER nominate a female for the office of the presidency.
You're probably right, but I have such respect for Rice - I'd vote for her in a heartbeat. She's the only woman I'd ever consider putting into office. I wish I had just half her brains and class....

I think it would be more likely that the Republicans would put Rice in as Vice President...... would be interesting to watch

[Littlepete]

Who do the Republicans have as President material?

[Uturn2001]

You fogot an option. None of the above.

While I have nothing against a woman ghold the office of POTUS, I would not want either one of them any higher in govt than they already are. IMHO they already are too high now.

[Lady18wheels]

I would not want either one of them any higher in govt than they already are. IMHO they already are too high now.
Hillary maybe. Not Condaleeza.

[littleman2]

Who do the Republicans have as President material?
no one at this time even who is sitting in office right now. Oh btw i am a republican.

I am a registered Republican but my opinion on the Democratic ticket would be Kerry For President and Hillary at Vice President would be a sure win..... or at least I think it would. On second thought as galvanized as this country became during this election it might be even more so with that particular Democratic ticket..... what do you think???

[Lady18wheels]

On second thought as galvanized as this country became during this election it might be even more so with that particular Democratic ticket..... This is what I think. If the Democraps want an ill-fated ticket, put Hillary and Kerry together.

I reluctanly have to say that little by little, ever so slowly, I'm gaining more respect for Hillary. Wouldn't put her in office, but I've got a lot more confidence in her than I do Kerry.

[crankbait]

Why not Hillary? See ran the country for 4 years anyway?? I am a Democrat! Her as President is a scary thought. I can't see her on the ticket as Pres. maybe Vi. But yes Kerry and Hillary would be hard to beat. I think that is why Bill jumped on the Kerry band wagon. He knows Hillary will be on the ticket soon. They don't call him slick Willie for nothing.

Ok call me dense but who is Condaleeza Rice. And my picks are still George Carlin and Gallahger.

[yoopr]

One Clinton was One too many Clinton's for President

[Uturn2001]

Ok call me dense but who is Condaleeza Rice. And my picks are still George Carlin and Gallahger.

Dense :wink: :wink: :wink:

Rice was G W Bush's national security advisor last term who has since been "promoted" to Sec of State to replace Colin Powell.

[bluebeetle]

Just a thought, Kerry looked good just because who he was running against.

Edwards/Clinton might be interesting for the Democrats.

Republicans will probably run with Powell (Long shot), Arnie (If he can get the rules changed), a governor/senator who is still running under the radar.

[Twilight Flyer]

Arnie for POTUSator. :) What about Rudy Guliani? I've heard his name batted around now and then.

[Lady18wheels]

Arnie for POTUSator He'd probably be Arnie 1term-inator :D

Ru-dy! Ru-dy! Ru-dy! YEAH!

Arnie gets in for president and i am going to russia. :evil:

does it really matter who would win?!

they all screw up the same, just some more than others!
:)

or is it a matter of figuring out who would screw up the least? oh wait, thats how we vote in canada, lol

[Doctor Who]

Ok call me dense but who is Condaleeza Rice.

What??????

Ms Rice is the Shrubs "back up the L.I.E." person.

Actually Ms Rice would make a good Vice something or other, the Gobs Of Puke still have a long way to go before the idea of a very well educated female obtaining the rank of president will ever come to pass.

Just ask Rush....

[Lady18wheels]

Who do the Republicans have as President material?
My Mother is a news/political junkie. I asked her about this last night. The front-runners at this point in time are:

Bill Frist (http://frist.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=AboutSenatorFrist.Biography/) Senator from TN (He's also a heart surgeon)
Rick Santorum (http://santorum.senate.gov/public/) Senator from PA (Put a mustache on this guy and mess up his hair a little and he'd be GORGEOUS)
Rudy Giuliani (http://www.biography.com/search/article.jsp?aid=9312674&search=/) Former Mayor of NYC (in office when 9/11 happened)
Newt Gingrich (http://www.newt.org/) Former Speaker of the House
George Pataki (http://georgepataki.com/) Current Governor of NY
And Arnie (http://www.schwarzenegger.com/) - if the laws are changed Arnie's Bio (http://www.biography.com/search/article.jsp?aid=9476355&page=4&search=Arnold+Schwartzenngaer/)

[Uturn2001]

Powell is definately a long shot for President. He has been approached so many times already and has repeatedly said that he does not want the job. The only reason he came out of retirement to be the Sec of State was as a big favor to George Bush (Daddy Bush).

As far as Arnold S. goes, if the constitution does get ammended to allow him a chance at the Presidency he might not be a bad choice. He is far from stupid.

On the democratic ticket there has been a lot of early talk about a Hilary/Obama ticket. One thing here. If Hillary does run in the top slot and is elected she will be the 1st woman president and the first 1st term president who has experience at running the oval office. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[MACK]

If Hilary gets into ofice I will move to Austraila. Hillary as president scarry :shock:

[RockyMtnProDriver]

A few comments from a Canadian.

I have heard that Calgary, Alberta is the largest city of Americans, outside of the US.

There are more Canadians living in LA than Americans living in Calgary. (this one I am not sure of either, but it sounds right)

50% of Canada's GNP is directly related to trade with the USA.
5% of US trade is with Canada.

You guys sneeze, and we get pneumonia.

I will not comment on who I think POTUS should be, except to say, please elect someone who actully KNOWS where Canada is.

And our Prime Ministers name is not Poutein, it is Martin.

How many Canadians does it take to screw in a light bulb?

Three, One to see how they do it in New York, One to see how they do it in Los Angeles, and one to do it.

[yoopr]

Ok call me dense but who is Condaleeza Rice.

What??????

Ms Rice is the Shrubs "back up the L.I.E." person.

Actually Ms Rice would make a good Vice something or other, the Gobs Of Puke still have a long way to go before the idea of a very well educated female obtaining the rank of president will ever come to pass.

Just ask Rush....

What has he Lied about?

[RockyMtnProDriver]

I am not going to vote for either one of them.

[daycab]

Ok call me dense but who is Condaleeza Rice.

What??????

Ms Rice is the Shrubs "back up the L.I.E." person.

Actually Ms Rice would make a good Vice something or other, the Gobs Of Puke still have a long way to go before the idea of a very well educated female obtaining the rank of president will ever come to pass.

Just ask Rush....




More hate from the "tolerant" left.

Personally, I'd like to see a Newt/Condy ticket.

[Useless]

I thought that it might be a good idea to re-visit this thread, given that the U.S. mid-term elections are behind us.

First, I think that Condi Rice has one of the most gifted (male of female) minds in Washington. Unfortunately, I think that she chose to become a politician instead of a stateswoman.

By and large, the American voters have stated their opposition to the way that the war in Iraq has been executed. Rice has aligned herself too closely with Bush, and so I think that her chances of becoming the first woman POTUS have now been significantly reduced.

As for HRC, I'm no fan of hers, but I think that she does have the makings of a successful Presidential candidate, in that she has the Democratic party's support, and she has proved herself to be an extremely successful fundraiser. Her (sort of Ex-)Husband, but convenient bed-fellow, (that is, when he's not in bed with someone else) Bill Clinton, also has enormous power as a powerful fund raiser as well.

[Rev.Vassago]

Arnie for POTUSator. :) What about Rudy Guliani? I've heard his name batted around now and then.

Rudy said he will announce in the next few months whether or not he will run. I, for one, hope he does. I would love to see Rudy vs. Hillary. Rudy would obliterate her.

[Useless]

Rudy said he will announce in the next few months whether or not he will run. I, for one, hope he does. I would love to see Rudy vs. Hillary. Rudy would obliterate her.

Well, Rev.,

If Giuliani had been able to complete his bid for the Senate back in 2000, I think that he would have gone on to defeat HRC. I also think that he would be on a solid path for a run for POUTS. Sadly for Giuliani, cancer is an equal opportunity employer. Unfortunately, while I believe that he has the makings of a good candidate, I'm afraid that due to his battle with Cancer, he is now too far behind the curve in terms of fund raising abilities.

Now, after the mid-term elections last week, it has clear that the dynamics of political power have shifted, but at this point, no one knows how the Republican party will deal with the changing political atmosphere.

One problem is that HRC has now established herself as a formidable political force, and when you combine her fund raising abilities with those of her husband, and add their political base to the equation, the possibilities of her running as either a Presidential candidate, or as a running mate have to be viewed as quite strong.

Another problem that I see is that unless the Republican party adopts a more centrist, moderate tone, then Giuliani's chances of being able to get the Republican nomination will be severely compromised. The Ultra Conservative, hard right factions of The Republican party, and particularly the more fundamentalist Christian right, are not going to suddenly become silent, and they will remain as a substantial economic force within the party.

Consequently, the Republicans seem poised for some serious trouble. Unless the Republican party is willing to moderate many of it's positions, and allow the more moderate Repbublican voices to speak freely, then it is unlikely that the voters who turned them out of office less than a week ago will suddenly embrace them and return them to office two years from now. At the same time, given that The Republican party relies so heavily on the extreme right for financial support, the prospects of The GOP being able to moderate it's tones and positions for the run in 2008 are reduced before they even make it out of the gate.

The Democrats are now showing significant signs of allowing more centrist positions. This was shown when several conservative Democrats were elected, but even more so by the fact that The Democratic Party realized that they were going to have to fund and support them in order to recapture Capitol Hill. For that reason, like it or not, agree or disagree, for better or for worse, I think that the Democrats will be left with a very strong upper hand going into the race for the Oval Office.

Speaking for myself, I think that Ret. Gen. Colon Powell and former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani would make an awesome ticket. Both would make excellent choices for President or Vice President. Sadly, as it now stands, I don't believe that the Republican Party will allow it to happen.

One good thing that has happened is that John Kerry has irrevocably flushed his own prospects for The White House down the toilet!!

[Rev.Vassago]

If Giuliani had been able to complete his bid for the Senate back in 2000, I think that he would have gone on to defeat HRC. I also think that he would be on a solid path for a run for POUTS. Sadly for Giuliani, cancer is an equal opportunity employer. Unfortunately, while I believe that he has the makings of a good candidate, I'm afraid that due to his battle with Cancer, he is now too far behind the curve in terms of fund raising abilities.

I disagree with this. I think the fact that he was still mayor in September of 2001 brought his name to the general public, many of whom did not know who he was. That is his greatest asset for the uninformed - people know him.

Now, after the mid-term elections last week, it has clear that the dynamics of political power have shifted, but at this point, no one knows how the Republican party will deal with the changing political atmosphere.

I agree, but the fact that Arnold won yet again in California shows that the Republican VOTERS are demanding a more "centered" party.

[qutoe]One problem is that HRC has now established herself as a formidable political force, and when you combine her fund raising abilities with those of her husband, and add their political base to the equation, the possibilities of her running as either a Presidential candidate, or as a running mate have to be viewed as quite strong.[/quote]

While I could agree with this "in principle", I think she has a serious strike against her just because of the fact that she is a woman. I believe there are many in the Democratic party (particularily the more conservative side) that are not ready to elect a woman as POTUS. Also, she is pretty far to the left of the Democratic party, which also is a strike against her. Even with a strong running mate, that doesn't necessarily mean she will be able to win. Look at Kerry/Edwards. Edwards was a strong running mate, and yet it wasn't enough to get Kerry elected. I think most voters who follow politics realize that the VP is not going to make or break a candidate. I think if HRC was on a ticket as a VP, she would have a better chance. But that will never happen.

Another problem that I see is that unless the Republican party adopts a more centrist, moderate tone, then Giuliani's chances of being able to get the Republican nomination will be severely compromised. The Ultra Conservative, hard right factions of The Republican party, and particularly the more fundamentalist Christian right, are not going to suddenly become silent, and they will remain as a substantial economic force within the party.

I think this last election has shown even the far right that they do not control the party as well as they thought they did. I expect them to slip into the shadows over the next 2 years.

Consequently, the Republicans seem poised for some serious trouble. Unless the Republican party is willing to moderate many of it's positions, and allow the more moderate Repbublican voices to speak freely, then it is unlikely that the voters who turned them out of office less than a week ago will suddenly embrace them and return them to office two years from now.

I agree, and in some cases, I think it would be a good thing.

At the same time, given that The Republican party relies so heavily on the extreme right for financial support, the prospects of The GOP being able to moderate it's tones and positions for the run in 2008 are reduced before they even make it out of the gate.

I disagree, just because I am sure the extreme right would rather have SOME Republican in office than not.

The Democrats are now showing significant signs of allowing more centrist positions. This was shown when several conservative Democrats were elected, but even more so by the fact that The Democratic Party realized that they were going to have to fund and support them in order to recapture Capitol Hill. For that reason, like it or not, agree or disagree, for better or for worse, I think that the Democrats will be left with a very strong upper hand going into the race for the Oval Office.

While the Democrats ran on the idea of working together with the Republicans, their actions since last Tuesday have shown otherwise. I think you will find that the Democrats are going to get power hungry over the next 2 years (not unlike what happened within the Republican party), and they will end up shooting themselves in the foot. Given the fact that many Democrats are "fiscally conservative", I don't think they will be able to obtain control of both the Congress and the Presidency. A good portion of their constituency will not allow this.

The other problem is that they Democrats did not run on any legitimate issues. They used a lot of "catch phrases", and didn't have a lot of substance. On top of that, they used the "perceived" disdain for Bush and the war to edge their way into office.

Speaking for myself, I think that Ret. Gen. Colon Powell and former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani would make an awesome ticket. Both would make excellent choices for President or Vice President. Sadly, as it now stands, I don't believe that the Republican Party will allow it to happen.

I don't think Powell is a good choice, only because of his involvement in the war. The Democrats will use that to their advantage. I personally think a Giuliani/McCain ticket would be better. Nice and "centered", yet they still support traditional Republican issues.

One good thing that has happened is that John Kerry has irrevocably flushed his own prospects for The White House down the toilet!!

Thank goodness. :wink:

[Useless]

If Giuliani had been able to complete his bid for the Senate back in 2000, I think that he would have gone on to defeat HRC. I also think that he would be on a solid path for a run for POUTS. Sadly for Giuliani, cancer is an equal opportunity employer. Unfortunately, while I believe that he has the makings of a good candidate, I'm afraid that due to his battle with Cancer, he is now too far behind the curve in terms of fund raising abilities.

The Rev.:

I disagree with this. I think the fact that he was still mayor in September of 2001 brought his name to the general public, many of whom did not know who he was. That is his greatest asset for the uninformed - people know him.

Useless:

In terms of his leadership abilities, particularly on 9-11 and the days and weeks that followed, I agree whole heartedly with you. I think we saw one of New York's finest men at his finest hour. But can he translate that into cash in his political war chest?? I'm not saying that it can not be done, but I'm not so sure here, either. I'd love to think that you are correct on this point!!

The fact is that HRC already has a sizeable war chest amassed, and, IMO, a party that would back her solidly. She also has Bill Clinton on her side as well. Now, love Bill Clinton or hate him, the fact is that he is an extremely powerful fundraiser. In that respect, Guliani, or any other Republican, faces a fairly serious financial handicap.

Useless:

[color=darkblue]One good thing that has happened is that John Kerry has irrevocably flushed his own prospects for The White House down the toilet!!

The Rev:

Thank goodness. :wink:[/quote]

[Useless]

Speaking for myself, I think that Ret. Gen. Colon Powell and former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani would make an awesome ticket. Both would make excellent choices for President or Vice President. Sadly, as it now stands, I don't believe that the Republican Party will allow it to happen.

The Rev:

I don't think Powell is a good choice, only because of his involvement in the war. The Democrats will use that to their advantage. I personally think a Giuliani/McCain ticket would be better. Nice and "centered", yet they still support traditional Republican issues.

Useless:

Well, Rev, there I see things differently. I think that history has shown us that Powell was an effective military leader, and when you look at his roll as Secretary of State, I think that he has shown himself to be on the right side of that issue as well.

The very reason that he is no longer Secretary of State is because he tried to Tell Bush that Rumsfeld's strategies would lead us into a situation where we would have no exit strategy. Ultimately, as we all know, Bush sided with Rumsfeld, and Powell's standing as secretary of State was marginalized.

In the end, I personally believe that we should have listened to Gen. Powell, and I think that many other voters would agree with me here.

Consequently, I think that Powell's chances are better than you think, except for one major problem: HE WON'T RUN!!

Useless:

One good thing that has happened is that John Kerry has irrevocably flushed his own prospects for The White House down the toilet!!

The Rev.:

Thank goodness. :wink:

[Useless]

Rev.,

To address a couple of other point that you made:

I think that you MAY BE right on about the idea of a McCain/Giuliani ticket, or a Giuliani/McCain ticket, but that can only happen if the hard right factions of the G.O.P. are willing to accede to the moderate voices in the party.

Even if they are, I think that they would face a very tough challenge from HRC.

As far as the V.P. running mate is concerned, I think that both HRC or Giuliani would, in fact, provide strength to their respective party's ticket. New York is a very heavy player in the Electoral College, and either party could stand to benefit from this.

The biggest drawback I see for McCain is his age; he is now 70 y/o, would be 72 y/o by the time Nov. '08 rolls around. That would make him the oldest President ever elected to office.

[One]

OBAMA FOR PREZ AND HILLARY AS VP!!!!

[Useless]

OBAMA FOR PREZ AND HILLARY AS VP!!!!

On one hand, I'm not so sure about Obama; many people had never heard of him until about a month ago. He's only 45 y/o, probably too young for most people's preference. He's only been in the Senate for about two years, so he really can't be classified as a "hard hitter".

On the other hand, back in Nov. of 1991, many people across the nation had never heard of a Governor from Arkansas named Bill Clinton either!!

I do think that Obama is certainly a rising star, though!!

[Rev.Vassago]

The REAL winner in 08:

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k15/revvassago1/walken-illuminati.jpg

[Useless]

OOHH-KAY!!

And now, back to our regularly scheduled programming!!

[kreeper01]

Just what we need is more Democracy running rampant on this country. While those Jacka*#es have the majority of seating in the house, good gravy, before long WW3 might start if it hasn't started already.

[ken_o]

none of the above, its time for a change and not one with a R or a D before the name. this 2 party circus is old allready.
how about a libertarian with a little common sense.

[Useless]

none of the above, its time for a change and not one with a R or a D before the name. this 2 party circus is old allready.
how about a libertarian with a little common sense.

Nice idea, but who is going to fund his/her candidacy?? Like it or not, (and I Don't!!) the fact is it takes a whole lot of dinero to run an effective presidential campaign!!

Let's say for a moment, that by some wild chance the Libertarian candidate WAS elected.

What political base would this new Libertarian President have on Capitol Hill??

Hey, I'd like to see a third party as much as anyone; I think that we need it. Nonetheless, there are some very difficult realities that come into play here.

[ken_o]

okay useless ill chip in a few bucksand for me the fewer the better now lets all chip in a few bucks.
just because their r some very difficult realities here, is not a valid reason to vote for the lesser of two evils or too throw your vote to another political party just to c that the other party doesnt get in.
people of this country have been duped into believing only r/d have a chance.
useless on what libertarian stances do you agree with?

[Rev.Vassago]

Giuliani has begun fundraising for a presidential run. Unless he really screws up in the next 2 years, he is likely going to be the nominee. I would still love to see a Giuliani/McCain ticket.

[Useless]

Guliani/McCain would make a good ticket, but I am stil hard pressed to envision them as a winning ticket. Without the "Christian Fundamentalist" right to back them (and, I do not think they will back either one of them enthusiastically) I just don't see either one of them, or both of then together as being able to out perform the well oiled Clinton fundraising machinery.

[Rev.Vassago]

Guliani/McCain would make a good ticket, but I am stil hard pressed to envision them as a winning ticket. Without the "Christian Fundamentalist" right to back them (and, I do not think they will back either one of them enthusiastically) I just don't see either one of them, or both of then together as being able to out perform the well oiled Clinton fundraising machinery.

I still contend that Hillary is not as loved as you (or she, for that matter) believe.

A Guiliani/McCain ticket crosses party lines, and would provide the Republicans with a much-needed boost.

[Useless]

I still contend that Hillary is not as loved as you (or she, for that matter) believe.

Rev.:

I am NO lover of HRC or Bill Clinton; my personal opinion of them does not change the fact that the two of them make a very formidable political machine, especially in the fund raising arena.

A Giuliani/McCain ticket crosses party lines, and would provide the Republicans with a much-needed boost.


To a certain degree, there is some truth to what you are saying here; yet, with the Democrats in control of The House and The Senate, at this point in time, I see this race as the Democrat's race to win or lose.

I do believe that the only way people will cross party lines will be if, and only if, the Democrats give them sufficient reason to do so. The answer to that remains to be seen.

Right now, there are too many unanswered questions. What will the next two years hold??

How will Bush's policies and actions in handling the war in Iraq evolve or change??

Will Nancy Pelosi lead the house from more of a centrist position than she would like, or will she vector the Democrat's agenda too far to the left??

Will The Republicans embrace a centrist ticket, or will they line up behind Mitt Romney?? (My guess is that the money powers of the Right will be very unenthusiastic about supporting Giuliani/McCain, and the Christian Right will demand a "like minded" candidate, even if it means losing the election.)

A BIG wild card in all of this mix is Bill Clinton; will another one of his tawdry escapades rise to the surface?? After eight years of Bush, The American People may be willing to stomach him, or maybe not!!

It will be interesting watching developments!!

[Rev.Vassago]

Rev.:[/b]

I am NO lover of HRC or Bill Clinton; my personal opinion of them does not change the fact that the two of them make a very formidable political machine, especially in the fund raising arena.

I didn't say you were a lover of the Clintons - I said that you believed they were loved.

While they may be a formidable opponent, I think there is too much of the country that resents them, and they have no chance of actually winning. I wouldn't even be surprised if she doesn't get the nomination.


To a certain degree, there is some truth to what you are saying here; yet, with the Democrats in control of The House and The Senate, at this point in time, I see this race as the Democrat's race to win or lose.

2 years is an eternity in politics. GWB is already considered a lame-duck president, and the Dems are going to prevent him from making any major mistakes, as they are going to try and block EVERYTHING the Republicans attempt to do.

[Useless]

2 years is an eternity in politics. GWB is already considered a lame-duck president, and the Dems are going to prevent him from making any major mistakes, as they are going to try and block EVERYTHING the Republicans attempt to do.

And, therein lies the rub, Rev.!!

If the Dem's are successful in preventing Bush from making any major mistakes, then they will be perceived as the party of leadership. Hence, there won't be any groundswell movement to replace Democratic leadership with Republican leadership, and their won't be much in the way of momentum to carry the next Republican candidate into The White House!!

As it stands right now, the Democrats have an arsenal of political ammunition to base a campaign upon the repudiation of Bush's policies; so, we would expect them to seek the White House by, in effect, campaigning against Bush, even though he won't be running for another term!!

At the same time, as it now stands, the only hope that thew Republicans have of holding on to The Oval Office is if they ALSO, in effect, run against Bush as well!! By the time Ronald Regan had completed his sixth year in office, was obviously midway into his second term, but he was by no means a "lame duck" President.

Bush, however, is not only a "lame duck" President, he has been very severely crippled by the war in Iraq, and there are absolutely NO indications that he can somehow turn that situation around.

Consequently, I don't see how he can possibly bring much strength to The Republican Ticket in 2008.

It will be interesting to see what happens over the next two years. As you so correctly pointed out, in political terms, that really is an eternity!!

[Rev.Vassago]

If the Dem's are successful in preventing Bush from making any major mistakes, then they will be perceived as the party of leadership. Hence, there won't be any groundswell movement to replace Democratic leadership with Republican leadership, and their won't be much in the way of momentum to carry the next Republican candidate into The White House!!

You give the public too much credit. :wink:

[Useless]

Not meaning to engage in mindless or pointless bantering with you, Rev., but I do NOT think that I give them too much credit....

If I tried to argue that the voters in 2008 would hearken back to The Clinton Era, and before filling out a ballot, stop to remember that President Elect Clinton, who pledged that his administration "Would avoid the mere appearance of impropriety" wound up giving us one tawdry spectacle after another, I think that THAT would be giving people too much credit. By the time Nov.'08 rolls around, through selective memory, they will have also forgotten that Co-President HRC had her numerous episodes of ethical lapses as well!!!

The memory of the average American voter is all too short.... in a way, I think that reflects the correctness of your observation that "two years is an eternity" in the world of politics.

[Rev.Vassago]

When the next election comes around, and Hillary doesn't even come close to winning, can I say "I told you so"? :wink:

[Useless]

When the next election comes around, and Hillary doesn't even come close to winning, can I say "I told you so"? :wink:

Sure!!! :D

But if it isn't HRC, I don't know who it will be, because I don't think that it will be Giuliani/McCain!!.....Although I do think that they would make a good team!! 8)

[mikey4069]

When the next election comes around, and Hillary doesn't even come close to winning, can I say "I told you so"? :wink: I hope your right because that's a scary thought.

[Useless]

I hope your right because that's a scary thought.

What is even more frightening is how the close ties between The Clinton's and Bush 41 have become!!!

[nightprwlr]

Not because of gender, they are both puppets of greed and corruption.