Anyone Else fear That Hillary Has No Chance?

[babygrl1234 6]

I feel that she would bring nothing new to the White House, other than her vagina.

And even that's already been there once.

[luluc 6]

And even that's already been there once.

That's cute babygrl!! I'd take her vagina over Romney or Huckabee's pecker.

Bush did wonderful things for TX, the country...not so good.

[transformer 1]

I just don't trust Hillary and I would be very disappointed if the Clintons returned to the White House. We've already been there, did that, and bought the t-shirt. I want the country to move forward, not backward. It's time for different leadership!

I would never vote for anyone just because the candidate was a woman, a certain race, or a specific religion. Some folks seem to be jumping all over that bandwagon, but there really ought to be a more substantive reason for voting for someone. This isn't supposed to be the same as voting for prom king or queen or class president in high school. It's a serious decision.

In any case, I haven't decided who I'm going to support yet, but at least I have until the February 12th primary to make up my mind!

[steph_co 9]

Anyone Else fear That Hillary Has No Chance?

I can only hope and pray. And I'm agnostic.

[DerickM 1]

Shrillary is so obviously over her head, you almost want to throw her a rope. Sorry, Shrillary: The 1990s are over, and so are you.

[BJean 16]

Over the past 28 years there have been Repubicans in the White House 20 of those. The best 8 years economically and in nearly every other way were the 8 years of Democratic control. I'm voting for a change and the only way to get that is to vote Democrat.

When the Repubicans are in control we always seem to have huge problems that they fix in such a way that it winds up causing recessions, huge government budget deficits, gas prices out of control, insurance companies out of control, less attention to anything having to do with preserving the environment, education problems getting some kind of ineffective bandaide, mortgage companies and other lending institutions and banks getting into trouble, and the list goes on ad naseum.

I know you'll argue with me, but that is what I have experienced. Now go ahead and shoot me down - and please use specifics.

[DerickM 1]

remember a seriously bad economy, under a guy called Jimmy Carter. I don't need to cite polls about how people "think" things were, we had the "triple doubles" to look at -- unemployment, interest rates, and inflation all above 10%. THOSE, folks, are how you demonstrate an economy is in the toilet, not simply saying that "it must be bad if they keep saying it's good"

People aren't ready to admit that the late 90's economic boom was a facade marked by an super inflated stock market (Can anybody explain Yahoo! stock selling at close to $400 a share?), dot.coms that were employing numerous people, many of which were drowning in red ink, and companies that reporting profit margins held up by fancy pyramid schemes.

All of that came crashing down in 2000 and it will take awhile for it to recover.

[Chelle B 0]

Over the past 28 years there have been Repubicans in the White House 20 of those. The best 8 years economically and in nearly every other way were the 8 years of Democratic control. I'm voting for a change and the only way to get that is to vote Democrat.

When the Repubicans are in control we always seem to have huge problems that they fix in such a way that it winds up causing recessions, huge government budget deficits, gas prices out of control, insurance companies out of control, less attention to anything having to do with preserving the environment, education problems getting some kind of ineffective bandaide, mortgage companies and other lending institutions and banks getting into trouble, and the list goes on ad naseum.

I know you'll argue with me, but that is what I have experienced. Now go ahead and shoot me down - and please use specifics.

ROCK ON! The facts speak for themselves.

[blahblahblah 4]

amen to that, trixie...too funny!!!

Rain

[new_me_2008 1]

Im with Trixie!

[Jennie1976 1]

I honestly hope NONE of the democrats and a few of the republicans have no chance at the white house. I'm hoping for Huckabee, but, assuming he is too conservative, my next choice is Romney. However, the democrats have ALWAYS been better campaigners. It's unfortunate that republican candidates in the last several years have won on luck, rather than campaigns. I'm hoping that will change, but I"m not holding my breath!

[~Trixie~ 0]

I honestly hope NONE of the democrats and a few of the republicans have no chance at the white house. I'm hoping for Huckabee, but, assuming he is too conservative, my next choice is Romney. However, the democrats have ALWAYS been better campaigners. It's unfortunate that republican candidates in the last several years have won on luck, rather than campaigns. I'm hoping that will change, but I"m not holding my breath!

Jennie, I respect your opinion, but I just ask that you check into Huckabee a little more. Although he is a Christian, his past is a little shady, including infractions such as dipping into state funds to pay for trivial and personal items like Taco Bell and pantyhose, to not allowing a mentally retarded girl who was raped by her stepfather to have an abortion (something that under the laws of Arkansas is legal).

I just think that because someone is a Christian, that doesn't necessarily make them a good person and worthy of becoming president...heck look at Bush and how he has completely disregarded the Constitution by illegally suspending habeas corpus, and basically has "disappeared" hundreds of people down in Guantanamo. Doesn't sound like a Christian thing to do to me.

[transformer 1]

I guess the only statistics that really matter to me are how my own finances have been throughout the years. I suffered the most during the mid to late 1990s...they totally sucked. The bottom fell out of the housing market, so we lost a house because it wouldn't sell when I got divorced. That was an enormous financial hit that took years to overcome. I had to drive a lousy, rolling tin can car for years. Those were some of the worst years of my entire life. :hurray:

Myself (and my extended family) have fared the best during the 80s/early 90s and especially during the post-Clinton period. I've been consistently moving from barely making ends meet to almost thriving in the last 5 years or so (I don't want to jinx myself by saying that too loud). Everyone in my family has gotten a new, higher-paying job in the past 2 years (one sibling is earning $60,000 more than before!). Four out of five of us have bought a larger home in the past 4 years (I don't need a larger home, so I haven't had the itch to move). Everyone has a car that is less than 3 years old and in good working order.

Keep in mind of course that all of us actually work our butts off, pay for our own education in order to advance, and don't rely on government handouts to survive. When we were dirt poor years ago, all of us walked to work if we had to, worked multiple lower-paying jobs while going to school, etc. Anyone can get ahead if they are determined enough and are willing to work hard. The bottom line is that I don't want anyone in the government to take my money and give it to others who refuse to do the same (although I definitely don't object to TEMPORARY public assistance for people who are in crisis or truly disabled and unable to work). It's the zillions of frauds collecting government assistance that I have an issue with. Public assistance should not be a career goal!

I also don't think the government is responsible for bailing out idiots who took out mortgages they couldn't afford or who were too ignorant to understand the terms of their adjustable rate home loans. It's called personal responsibility--you crap in your bed, you clean it up! Natural consequences rock!

Those are the only facts I care about at this point because after all, it's all about me! LOL!

[~Trixie~ 0]

All the Clintons can speak of on THEIR campaign trail is a return to the way of life American's had in the 90s. Well, guess what? We can't return. The 90s are long dead along with the world that existed at that time thanks in part to the short-sighted treaties signed by the then Clinton administration.

BTW, Transformer, you're not alone in the struggles that you faced in the 90's. My parents had to work their asses off to support us, sometimes having to work two or three jobs. And guess what, they were skilled, white collar members of the workforce. What kills me is that while we had to go without, the kids who lived in the welfare development down the road were riding new bikes and wearing new shoes paid for by the taxes that came off the sweat of my parents' aching backs.

Recently, when Hillary proposed giving people $5000 for each child born, I almost lost my sh*t. I was transported right back to my childhood where the welfare mothers would keep spitting out kids for more money in their checks. That is when I was certain that if Hillary were to be elected to the presidency, disaster would ensue.

[faithmd 14]

Hillary's model for government, for health care, and for the economy, is not what -MY- choice is. And I do NOT want another Clinton era for many reasons..... I had been a basic clueless liberal democrat-leaning poltroon since the 60s.....

It was the performance of the first Clinton administration that showed me the error of my ways....

Jack, I was a flaming, tree-hugging, granola eating, skate board riding liberal...until the Clintons.

i was such a liberal that I even skipped school in the 1980's to go to a Mondale-Ferraro rally. And when I discovered my mother voted for Reagan, I didn't speak to her for two solid months, not a word. My father didn't speak to her for almost a month.

I finally woke up. It was a serious haze I was in, that liberal smoke. And I DID inhale.

I would never call myself a conservative, nor would I ever say I was a liberal. I think there are pieces of both platforms I agree with. For me it is a question of issues. And who will "scare" the world into acting right.

Let's face it, the role of President of the United States is a figurehead position, it's a high-stakes game of poker, and if the President doesn't have the best hand, s/he better be intimidating enough to bluff their way out of it, or ready to stand behind their words. (Though Hill has some balls that are probably harder and bigger than most of the men she's running against-save McCain.)

The biggest issues globally right now for us seem to be this "War on Terror" and to be realistic, radical Muslims think less of blacks, and even less of women. While the US may finally be ready for a woman or black male as President of the United States (I am talking about leading the US, not a smaller country), I am sorry to say I don't think the world is.

The world is rife with conflict, and while it would be soooo nice to say we can sit down and talk about our differences and work them out, it WON'T happen. That is NOT human nature. Being that the world is full of wars and skirmishes and "military actions" I am of a firm belief that our President, nee our COMMANDER IN CHIEF absolutely MUST have military service in their past. And not the fake crap they passed off on us with W. Of the group running today, the only one that fits the bill of all the above for me is McCain.

Bob Dole would have kicked butt as President, but I couldn't stand his wife.

Colin Powell would have made an excellent President as well, and should never have been made Sec'y of State, he should have been Sec'y of Defense.