[ghost_flash]

I'd love to see that one. Then, Bill could be the first lady!





again.

[Zimphire]

I HOPE she runs. I really do.

So when she fails, we wont have to see her for awhile.

She can have tea with Gore or something.

Discuss their loserdom.

[Nonsuch]

The right's continual obsessive fear of the Clintons never ceases to amaze and delight.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
The right's continual obsessive fear of the Clintons never ceases to amaze and delight.

You are confused I think. I would love to see her run for office, and it would be funnier if she made it in the office again.

I'm not kidding, it would be funny.
No fear here, and there never was.

Side note: I guess their [clinton's] boy Clark
is a crash and burn eh?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
The right's continual obsessive fear of the Clintons never ceases to amaze and delight.

People projecting emotions that weren't apparent in threads never ceases to amaze me.

Who showed any fear? No one.

I am speaking about PURE COMEDY here.

[davecom]

I agree, I would have comedy material again for 4 years.

[chalk_outline]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
The right's continual obsessive fear of the Clintons never ceases to amaze and delight.

I thought it was fear of a woman in power.

[OreoCookie]

I guess she didn't want to run this time, when the Democrats are struggling. She wants to run for 2008, I am pretty sure of that.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
I'd love to see that one. Then, Bill could be the first lady!





again.

yes, it would be funny indeed if she won. you'd see all the neocons grabing their guns and heading for the hills of montana again, screaming at the top of their lungs *i ain't pain' no god damned taxes to support unemployed homosexuals*

rofl

[Millennium]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
I'd love to see that one. Then, Bill could be the first lady!

Actually, my guess is that if she's elected, the first thing she'll do is divorce him. Either that, or she'll do it immediately after her election to a second term, when and if that happens. He'll have outlived his usefulness, which is frankly the only reason left to stay with him.

[Johnny Lydon]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
yes, it would be funny indeed if she won. you'd see all the neocons grabing their guns and heading for the hills of montana again, screaming at the top of their lungs *i ain't pain' no god damned taxes to support unemployed homosexuals*

rofl

Wow what a great thread topic. How full of wit and information. It took me a good half an hour to really get the jist of what ghost was saying.

Let me know if I am on the right track here. I think what ghost is talking about is that In all epochs of that history that is known to us, two forces are apparent that are in constant warfare. Their antagonism, open or veiled, results from the intrinsic differences between the forces themselves and between the activities in which they find expression... We are speaking here of the political and economic elements in history, which could also be called governmental and social elements. Every political form in history has its definite economic foundations which are especially marked in the later phases of social advancement. On the other hand, it is undeniable that the forms of politics are subject to the changes in the conditions of economic and general cultural life, and with them assume new aspects. But the inner character of all politics always remains the same, just as the inner character of each and every religion never changes, despite the alteration of its outward from.

This is a quote. I am not trying to sound all smart like some fancy college boy.

[voyageur]

Originally posted by chalk_outline:
I thought it was fear of a woman in power.

I do not understand the obsession with Hillary Clinton. Is it that smart women are acceptible to some as long as they keep their place?
BTW, that's a very interesting sig quote, chalk.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
People projecting emotions that weren't apparent in threads never ceases to amaze me.

Who showed any fear? No one.

I am speaking about PURE COMEDY here.

You admit you would take pleasure in her defeat — a woman who, let's recall, has espoused no presidential ambitions yet and hasn't even been in the news for months — yet you try to tell me there's no fear or anxiety there.

Whatever.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by davecom:
I agree, I would have comedy material again for 4 years.

True.

Bush stopped being funny a long time ago - unfortunately for the world, we found he was serious.

-s*

[SimeyTheLimey]

I think she will run. And from the ridiculously tenous vantage point of almost 5 years before the election, I think she could win. I also think that wouldn't be a terrible thing for the country. As much as she is vilified by the right, she's building up a solid reputation in the Senate. What the country needs is for the Democrats to have a sane centerist, and Hillary could end up being it.

Of course, this all assumes that Bush wins reelection, and that the Democratic nominee loses badly this year enough not to get a second shot at the White House in 2008. That's far from certain yet. Obviously, if a Democrat wins this year, Hillary is out in 2008 because that would be a reelection year. And if it's a squeaker for Bush, the same candidate might come back, which would also be bad for Hillary. She really needs the Dems to tank this year.

Equally uncertain is who the prospective Republican nominee would be. I don't see anyone obviously in line (please don't say Bush's brother). 2008 will be the most wide open election in decades. Even in 1988, 1968, and 1960 there were sitting VPs running. This time there will not. Nobody thinks Cheney will be running for president. So at the very least, I think we can expect a lively primary season in 2008.

[simonjames]

I think Hillary will win 2008 and by then the law stating that the President must be born in the USA will be removed to make way for Arnie. Hillary will have only one term whereas Arnie will have two.

And if you think I am joking you guys elected both Raygun and Dubya - Hillary (and Arnie) make them look like apes.

And my third gaze through the crystal ball has Hillary divorcing Bill after her term as President.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by simonjames:
I think Hillary will win 2008 and by then the law stating that the President must be born in the USA will be removed to make way for Arnie.

It's not a law, its part of the Constitution. It's no small thing to change. Also, someone will point out that amending it would allow Madeline Albright to run. That should put an end to it.

I'm surprised Hillary hasn't divorced Bill already. When was the last time they were seen together?

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

Equally uncertain is who the prospective Republican nominee would be. I don't see anyone obviously in line (please don't say Bush's brother). 2008 will be the most wide open election in decades. Even in 1988, 1968, and 1960 there were sitting VPs running. This time there will not. Nobody thinks Cheney will be running for president. So at the very least, I think we can expect a lively primary season in 2008.

I've said it before, you heard it here first. 2008 will be Hillary vs. Rudy Giuliani. Assuming a Dem doesn't win this year. Then all bets are off.

Do you know who was spending time in New Hampshire this week? Yep, Rudy. He's positioning himself just as much as Hillary is.

[Johnny Lydon]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
It's not a law, its part of the Constitution. It's no small thing to change. Also, someone will point out that amending it would allow Madeline Albright to run. That should put an end to it.

Excellent!

Madeline Albright = Henry Kissinger? Well no but...

[nredman]

Hillary For President...no thank you.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
I've said it before, you heard it here first. 2008 will be Hillary vs. Rudy Giuliani. Assuming a Dem doesn't win this year. Then all bets are off.

Do you know who was spending time in New Hampshire this week? Yep, Rudy. He's positioning himself just as much as Hillary is.

Good! I like Rudy. I've only seen him speak in person once, but I think He'd make a great president.

The only thing is I don't know how a pro-choice, pro-gay rights Republican would do in the primaries. Badly, I suspect. Also, can you imagine a presidential election where both the candidates are from New York?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The only thing is I don't know how a pro-choice, pro-gay rights Republican would do in the primaries. Badly, I suspect. Also, can you imagine a presidential election where both the candidates are from New York?

NY - Hillary's not quite "from" there, now is she?

As for abortions - I think the biggest sticking point with many Republicans was the idea that their 11- or 12-year-old daughters could just show up at a clinic and have surgery performed on them without their parental consent or notification.

With the ban on partial-birth procedures (1st trimester only, parental consent required), I think a large chunk of Republicans are OK with it.

[Lerkfish]

It is highly amusing what republicans are afraid of.

ooooh...an educated woman....scary...very scary.....



why she continues to be the "boogeyman" to you is just a constant source of entertainment for me. Speaks more to the nature of your insecurities than anything else.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
NY - Hillary's not quite "from" there, now is she?

She is as long as Dubya's "from" Texas.

-s*

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
With the ban on partial-birth procedures (1st trimester only, parental consent required), I think a large chunk of Republicans are OK with it.

A large chunk of Republican voters are OK with it. The same goes for gay rights. However, primary voters are not quite the same thing as general voters. The Republican Party has the same problem as the Democrats have. The primaries are dominated by single-issue voters who aren't quite representative of the general election. It makes it hard for moderates like Rudi.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
It is highly amusing what republicans are afraid of.

ooooh...an educated woman....scary...very scary.....

Right. I just HAS to be the educated part that worries us. It couldn't be that some of us actually respect her as a politician. I'd MUCH rather go up against Dean than Hillary. He isn't half as shrewd as she is.

[theolein]

I think that Hillary is a damn clever woman. I think her backing of Clark this year is a calculated move to make sure that no Democrat gets into the white house in the November elections. I'm pretty sure that she was aware that running against Bush this year is tantamount to political suicide, or at least not a wise thing to do.

The way Bush is polarising your country now, I'm pretty sure that she'll have an excellent chance of winning in 2008. That said, I'm pretty sure that the right wing hysteria over HC will rise to a deafening roar by 2008, given that they are even now sh1tting their pants over everything she does, even though I have no idea why. Perhaps because she's a woman, although I doubt it. I think the real reason the right wing hates her so much is because a)she's Bill's wife, and b)she's intelligent, and c)she makes the male insecurity complex of a lot of men when confronted with an intelligent woman come to the fore.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Right. I just HAS to be the educated part that worries us. It couldn't be that some of us actually respect her as a politician. I'd MUCH rather go up against Dean than Hillary. He isn't half as shrewd as she is.

um...if you say so.

[Joshua]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
It is highly amusing what republicans are afraid of.

ooooh...an educated woman....scary...very scary.....



why she continues to be the "boogeyman" to you is just a constant source of entertainment for me. Speaks more to the nature of your insecurities than anything else.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
You admit you would take pleasure in her defeat — a woman who, let's recall, has espoused no presidential ambitions yet and hasn't even been in the news for months — yet you try to tell me there's no fear or anxiety there.

Whatever.

Where did I say the word pleasure or defeat?
I really wouldn't care if she won or lost, as it would be a comedy either way.

Try not to insert words that do not exist when you read.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
It is highly amusing what republicans are afraid of.

ooooh...an educated woman....scary...very scary.....



why she continues to be the "boogeyman" to you is just a constant source of entertainment for me. Speaks more to the nature of your insecurities than anything else.

Do you often place imaginary meaning to what people write?

I will state, I believe her to be one of the smartest women in the world. She is also sly, sneaky, mean spirited, and untrustworthy.

I do not respect a person because he/she is smart alone, and again, I could care less if she ran in 2008 or not, won or lost, as it will still be just as funny.

If she loses in 2008, then it is ony a few months of humor, whereas if she wins, then that is a full 4 years of fun.

Either way, I win. It's all about enjoying the show baby.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
I guess she didn't want to run this time, when the Democrats are struggling. She wants to run for 2008, I am pretty sure of that.

She didn't want to go against Bush because she knew she'd LOoOoOOOooze.

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
You admit you would take pleasure in her defeat — a woman who, let's recall, has espoused no presidential ambitions yet and hasn't even been in the news for months — yet you try to tell me there's no fear or anxiety there.

Whatever.

Yes no fear or anxiety. She hasn't said anything. Of course she hasn't. She wouldn't. Others have.

This was a pure comedic thread. Why people feel the need to project emotions that are just not there is beyond me.

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
It is highly amusing what republicans are afraid of.

ooooh...an educated woman....scary...very scary.....



why she continues to be the "boogeyman" to you is just a constant source of entertainment for me. Speaks more to the nature of your insecurities than anything else.

Silly. There are quite a few women I would vote for. They'd probably do a better job. Hillary just isn't one of them.

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Do you often place imaginary meaning to what people write?

Yes, yes he does.

I will state, I believe her to be one of the smartest women in the world. She is also sly, sneaky, mean spirited, and untrustworthy.

I would agree with that as well.

I do not respect a person because he/she is smart alone, and again, I could care less if she ran in 2008 or not, won or lost, as it will still be just as funny.

If she loses in 2008, then it is ony a few months of humor, whereas if she wins, then that is a full 4 years of fun.

Either way, I win. It's all about enjoying the show baby.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Good! I like Rudy. I've only seen him speak in person once, but I think He'd make a great president.

The only thing is I don't know how a pro-choice, pro-gay rights Republican would do in the primaries. Badly, I suspect. Also, can you imagine a presidential election where both the candidates are from New York?

I agree. Primaries are for hard-core party loyalists but who's to say he doesn't run hard to the right during the primary and swerve to the middle for the general election. seems to be the strategy for everyone now.

Who else would there be? Powell doesn't seem interested. I guess that could change. Maybe Frist?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
I agree. Primaries are for hard-core party loyalists but who's to say he doesn't run hard to the right during the primary and swerve to the middle for the general election. seems to be the strategy for everyone now.

It would be hard for Rudi. There are all those pictures of him in drag.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Joshua:

care to point out any instance of me being afraid of Rice?

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
care to point out any instance of me being afraid of Rice?

Care to point out where he made that accusation? He posted a picture of an educated woman who Republicans openly admire. Your claim that Republicans are afraid of Hillary because she's educated is inoperative.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Care to point out where he made that accusation? He posted a picture of an educated woman who Republicans openly admire. Your claim that Republicans are afraid of Hillary because she's educated is inoperative.

ahhhh.. thanks.

I hadn't read it that way at first.

I read it as accusing me of being similarly in fear of Rice.


but at any rate, if you'll scan this thread, and countless instances over the last year, you have to admit the right wingers have an unnatural obsession with Hillary and downtrodding her at every opportunity, even when its unrelated to present things going on...and expressing dismay or concern about her career. To what would YOU attribute this irrational fear and loathing?

[Joshua]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
care to point out any instance of me being afraid of Rice?

That wasn't what I was suggesting.

It is highly amusing what republicans are afraid of.

ooooh...an educated woman....scary...very scary.....

Your assumption that Republicans dislike Hillary Clinton because they are afraid of "educated women" is vacuous and offensive. How would you explain Condi Rice or the numerous other well educated, intelligent, articulate female conservatives? The stereotyping of Republicans as misogynists and racists is about as tired and useless as the stereotyping of all Democrats being bedwetting closet Communists.

Maybe you should be more worried about your own insecurities?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Joshua:
That wasn't what I was suggesting.



Your assumption that Republicans dislike Hillary Clinton because they are afraid of "educated women" is vacuous and offensive. How would you explain Condi Rice or the numerous other well educated, intelligent, articulate female conservatives? The stereotyping of Republicans as misogynists and racists is about as tired and useless as the stereotyping of all Democrats being bedwetting closet Communists.

Maybe you should be more worried about your own insecurities?

maybe you should read the entire thread and the post immediately above yours.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Care to point out where he made that accusation? He posted a picture of an educated woman who Republicans openly admire. Your claim that Republicans are afraid of Hillary because she's educated is inoperative.

Actually Hillary running this country is pretty scary.

Not because she is a woman though

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
but at any rate, if you'll scan this thread, and countless instances over the last year, you have to admit the right wingers have an unnatural obsession with Hillary and downtrodding her at every opportunity, even when its unrelated to present things going on...and expressing dismay or concern about her career. To what would YOU attribute this irrational fear and loathing?

I attribute her being a loathsome person.

Lerk and here is a reality check. It's just not the pubs that dislike her.

[eklipse]

So, what exactly is the problem with Hillary Clinton?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by eklipse:
So, what exactly is the problem with Hillary Clinton?

precisely. what is the problem, exactly, that makes her such anathema to right wingers?
If its not her intelligence, what is it, exactly?

[theolein]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Right. I just HAS to be the educated part that worries us. It couldn't be that some of us actually respect her as a politician. I'd MUCH rather go up against Dean than Hillary. He isn't half as shrewd as she is.

I agree with you, which you'll notice in my post further up. Hillary is a very clever and moreover, independent thinker. Shrewd she is as well, which is why I think she's not running against the shrub and torpedoing current Democrat efforts to get into the white house.

In short, with that level of political acumen, I think she has what it takes.

Condoleeza Rice, on the other hand, while obviously intelligent in an intellectual kind of way, doesn't seem to have the independent instinct that is needed to survive around pieces of human trash like Karl Rove.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Joshua:
Your assumption that Republicans dislike Hillary Clinton because they are afraid of "educated women" is vacuous and offensive.

Fine, correct me, then. What IS the reason for the dislike?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by eklipse:
So, what exactly is the problem with Hillary Clinton?

Nothing at all. Hillary is the finest example of womanhood I know.

Her beauty and charm just glows around her.

She isn't hateful, spiteful, or a bitch in any way.

She isn't a opportunist, nor does she try to get on top by riding the coat-tails of others.

I have no idea why anyone would dislike Hitlary.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
It would be hard for Rudi. There are all those pictures of him in drag.

LOL! True. Of course there's picts of Hillary in...er, wait a minute, she's allowed to dress that way, right?

Actually, I'd like to see Hillary run just because she's so articulate. At this point I'll take anyone who seems to have a grasp of the situation better than Dubya. I've never heard her stances on specific issues, I only know that she's left of center.

2008 Predictions:
Dems - Hillary, Gore, maybe Edwards again.
GOP - Rudy, Frist, maybe Powell & possibly Jeb Bush

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
... To what would YOU attribute this irrational fear and loathing?

I ALREADY told you why Republicans fear her. She won a Senate seat that a lot of us didn't think she'd win. It doesn't pay to underestimate her. I think she'd be very hard to beat in 2008. She has certainly proven herself to be smarter than Gore during the current presidential campaign. Al's endorsement of Dean did little more than make a fair number of Gore's former supporters angry with him. By contrast Hillary will certainly endorse someone too... AFTER the voters have had a chance to have their say.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Where did I say the word pleasure or defeat?
I really wouldn't care if she won or lost, as it would be a comedy either way.

Try not to insert words that do not exist when you read.

Try to read. I was addressing Zim, not you.

[Lerkfish]

well, now, lets address each of these notions, shall we?

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Nothing at all. Hillary is the finest example of womanhood I know.

So, she's not "womanly" enough for you? How do you define that, exactly? Feminity? Does that mean you hate anyone who doesn't conform to your preconceived notion of the right amount of feminine? who gets to decide that, and why has EVERY right wing republican decided she doesn't pass muster on that issue?
I'm sorry, but must label this characterization as misogynist

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Her beauty and charm just glows around her.

So...she's not a supermodel, and thus you hate her? How the hell then did Barbara Bush not trip that meter? Are you saying she's less attractive than Nancy Reagan? and even if she was, does she have control over that, is that a valid reason to find her loathesome?
I'm sorry, but must label this characterization as sexist

Originally posted by Zimphire:
She isn't hateful, spiteful, or a bitch in any way.

So....care to delineate in what way she is so "bitchy" or spiteful? how is Condelezz Rice less bitchy? How would you know? How is the entire republican right wing consortium has deemed to label her "bitchy"? is that truly a valid barometer to measure legislators? If so, how did Strom Thurmond measure up on that scale? Trent Lott? Newt Gingrich? Was he safely not "bitchy"?
Sorry, I must label this characterization as..trivial

Originally posted by Zimphire:
She isn't a opportunist, nor does she try to get on top by riding the coat-tails of others.

By "others" do you mean her husband? Do you realize there are a myriad of worse incidents of that, including sonny bono's widow, yet the right has not deemed to make Ms. Bono a national target of shame.
Sorry, I'll have to label this characterization as hypocritical

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I have no idea why anyone would dislike Hitlary.

"Hitlary"? Is that a freudian slip or are you intentionally labelling her as Hitler?

At any rate, I can see how i was sooooo unfair to question the validity and maturity of the right's targeting of Hillary.


Also, here is the curious thing, to me.
The republicans have always said the reason they hate Bill Clinton is his having an affair in the white house. One would think, the only TRUE victim of the affair was Hillary herself. One would think you guys would treat her with sympathy and understanding and support her attempts to find a way on her own without her husband. Yet, you end up treating HER like a tramp.

and you keep acting like you republicans were the injured party of his infidelity.

curious.

[Joshua]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Fine, correct me, then. What IS the reason for the dislike?

Hatred by association, for one. Many Republicans have a visceral hatred of Clinton, and they've clearly extended their hatred to Hillary. That's partly because she seems to have some of the same traits that irritated people about Clinton: the smugness, the opportunism, etc.

There's also basic policy differences. She's a Democrat, Republicans are, well, duh.

And, as has been pointed out in this thread, she's a real threat politically. She has strong support on the left, and she's enough of a centrist to get the moderate vote. There are plenty of reasons to fear her if you disagree with her policies.

(For what it's worth, I don't have any feelings about her either way.)