Hillary Clinton has impressed me

Somebody must be giving her charisma lessons, because in the course of the past few weeks, my perception of her has gone from wooden, scripted, phony to thoughtful, intelligent leader. She has developed a certain poise and confidence that wasn't really there before.

I guess this is what money can buy a person. I hold no illusions about Ms. Clinton. She is not nearly as liberal as I would prefer, and she has enormous corporate interests and the DLC right behind her every move. Though let's be honest, she is no George W. Bush and I think she'd make a fine president. (At this point, anyone who doesn't call him/herself a Republican would be better than the current).

I think everyone better prepare themselves for a Clinton victory. Whether you love her or hate her, she is working on her image very well, and the mountain of cash she's sitting on will only improve it even more. In a perfect world, Dennis Kucinich would win handily. In this world of ignorant, apolitical masses, a brainwashing media machine, and the apathetic, uncaring non-voter, Ms. Clinton is looking more and more like the sure bet.

To anyone who thinks "she can't win", just wait and see. My Crystal Ball says otherwise. I'm going to bookmark this post and link back to it on November 4, 2008, when Hillary Clinton, in all probability, will become the next President-elect.

I have long maintained, since the Clintons emerged to national prominence in the early 90s', that they are never, *ever* to be underestimated.

She is married to the best campaigner of our times, and is learning some lessons well.

Too soon to tell what will happen, but never underestimate the Clintons.

she isn't stupid.

Last 3 Presidents...Bush, Clinton, Bush..don't want the 4th to be Clinton. Then what comes next? Jenna or not Jenna? Maybe Chelsea? Enough is enough already!

It seems to me if she were to win, it's because the people want her.

its because the american dream is based on the idea of equal opportunity, also with such differences in socio economic classes, we already have untitled royalty.

if Kennedy hadn't got shot, he would have been president for 8 years, followed by Bobby, and then in all likelihood, Teddy.

but dont actually want to acknowledge it.

:shrug:

getting brainwashed


bad good good bad bad good bad good

Are you going to throw out all the good with the bad?

accurately... Whether or not one wants this is up to the individual..

Please do not say it is MSM as it is the truth... The facts are what they are...

Now, whether people want to continue the Presidential lineage as it has been, or change to another name... It is up to the vote of the people...

Then Roger Clinton, followed by Laura Bush, and then Chelsea Clinton, followed by Barbara Bush, then...

Unfortunately, she's also one of our most compromised by Big Money. I'll still take her over any Republican, but can't we do better?

who would go through the Clenis scrutiny again if they didn't have to? As a wife -- that has to be painful.

Whoever wins will be beholden to big money for the win. The only question is whether or not that person will have the experience to handle the big money and the debts the donors think you owe them. This is one reason experience means so much to me. Obama is taking big money, Edwards is taking big money, anyone else who emerges will be taking big money--do they have the political experience to understand when they are being played, and to understand where to compromise and where not to?

Not saying Hillary does or doesn't, just that I have more trust in her experience than in the others' lack of it. So far. Wishing Big Money was not involved in politics is like wishing Gravity wasn't involved in sky diving. The wishing won't do any good, you just have to trust the parachute.

...for as long. Hillary's a money-making machine. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but she been so good at it for so long that I can't expect any really progressive initiatives out of her. I don't think she has the courage anymore, and that's a shame.

We can do better, I think, with an Obama who's not so comfortably settled, or with an Edwards or Gore who have most recently worked outside the DC game, or with a Kucinich, who has demonstrated courage and principles (and whom Big Money hasn't tried so hard to bribe.

I see significant differences among the Dems in this respect.

I've seen too many inexperienced idealists elected, only to not know when they are being played. I just don't trust them. Someone offers them a compromise that seems like 90% of what they want and only 10% negative, but the negative is a foothold in an area where the politician has vowed not to go. Then the next bill gives him 90% of what he wants and 10% of what he doesn't, and that 10% adds to the first 10%, and soon the candidate has laid the groundwork for his enemies to do exactly the opposite of what he thought he was doing, all the while he thinks he's winning.

It takes a hell of a lot of experience to see that coming, or else it takes a rare mind, especially at the national level, where the sharpest criminal minds to have ever existed are sitting up all day and night plotting nothing else. The problem is, those rare minds are impossible to detect unless you've seen them in action for a while. I haven't seen Obama enough to know. I have seen Edwards, and he's already failed that test. Maybe he's learned, maybe not, but my only experience with him is that he's failed. Clinton has done very well at it, though she gets smeared a lot by people who don't see what she's doing (like over the flag burning issue, for instance). I haven't seen anything in Kucinich's history to even suggest he could be effective in any way. Maybe Richardson--he's bright and experienced. I don't trust Biden, and don't know Dodd enough.

So I'm leaning Clinton, considering Richardson, watching Obama for promising signs, and wondering if Gore will jump in the race. It's a shame Kerry is out. Beyond that, I don't have a lot of hope. Politics is not a game you get good at playing except by playing it.

She'd make a decent President if she could get elected, but she is unelectable.

People won't turn out to vote for Hillary Clinton in the numbers they did for Gore or Kerry.
There just isn't that kind of enthusiasm for her among Democrats.
The repiggies will turn out by the busload to vote against her because they hate her so much.
She is the perfect Democratic candidate -- for the Repiglicans to run against.
*'s low popularity won 't help us at all in such a race.

Just because she has high numbers doesn't mean she is doing things right

:crazy: :rofl:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Of course some love living in opposite world

Kudos to them

I think she has that certain indefinable "it" that's needed for the job. That said, it's almost certainly between Hillary and Gore (if he runs).

They bother themselves with questions like, "Is he/she presidential?"

But they don't look at the record.

Clinton and Obama are corporate Democrats. The kind of people who sold out the party in the 90s.

until recently, my mom was only supporting Hillary lukewarmly (because she's a woman, etc.), but after Sunday's debate, she's been pumped for Hillary and has been gushing to all her friends about how wonderful Hillary is.