PDA

View Full Version : Hillary vs. Condoleeza



Green Tea
03-06-2005, 10:56
Just a thought, do you think the next American election in 2008 could be a "show down" between Hillary Clinton and Condoleeza Rice? I think it would be a damned good campaign :)

TQ
03-06-2005, 10:58
Just a thought, do you think the next American election in 2008 could be a "show down" between Hillary Clinton and Condoleeza Rice? I think it would be a damned good campaign :)

If you run into presidence in 2008, the compaign will be even more fun :D :D :nut:

Green Tea
03-06-2005, 10:59
If you run into presidence in 2008, the compaign will be even more fun :D :D :nut:

I'm not American. But I could run for Prime Minister someday :verycool: ....... hahahah

veejay
03-06-2005, 11:05
who knows what will happen in 08. republicans will want to hold on to the White House and thus pick someone who has every chance of being elected...Hillary will run at some point for president, but i'm not sure that it will be in 08, although she does have an exploratory commission 'checking things out' from what i've heard recently. i'm gonna get virtually lynched for this, but i'd love to see hillary in the oval office...and bill as first husband...

i think another thing that somewhat hampers / muddles hillary's potential candidacy as the democratic presidential candidate is bill's possible appointment as the head of the UN to replace Annan...not sure what will happen with that, and haven't really looked into it...

random thoughts...but, i'm still trying to recover from the last election...sigh...

Britanski Soldat
03-06-2005, 11:52
Condaleeza, the first black and female President of the USA - could that be possible? That would be an accolade..........

CRAYOLA
03-06-2005, 11:55
Imagine Colin Powell as Prez and Condolezza as VP!!!!!!!!!
A definite ticket BUT sad to say...the world isn't ready for it! :suspect:

Green Tea
03-06-2005, 11:55
Condaleeza, the first black and female President of the USA - could that be possible? That would be an accolade..........

Indeed, I think it would be a brilliant tactic by the republicans. That is.... if they can bring themselves to allow it...African American, Female, Single (possible lesbian), etc.

In reality, I'm guessing they will push for Jeb Bush as they next incarnation though.... Sadly enough.

Green Tea
03-06-2005, 11:57
Imagine Colin Powell as Prez and Condolezza as VP!!!!!!!!!
A definite ticket BUT sad to say...the world isn't ready for it! :suspect:

Not likely. Colin's credability was destroyed with those whopping lies about WMD. From what I've read, he is a ruined man in US politics.

veejay
03-06-2005, 11:57
In reality, I'm guessing they will push for Jeb Bush as they next incarnation though.... Sadly enough.

oh...please no...it is highly probable...but i'm not sure that i could stomach it...sigh...

TQ
03-06-2005, 11:59
Indeed, Single (possible lesbian), etc.



Here's the report i was just given by the people that're stalking her.
"Single. Unmarried. Unengaged. Uninvolved. No commitments".

CRAYOLA
03-06-2005, 12:01
He did his job and supporting the president was the number duty. I cannot see anyone else as a better nominee, and he has long been the best candidate.

Crazyeelboy
03-06-2005, 13:13
Senator Clinton vs. Dr. Rice in 2008? Interesting forum concept, but it won’t happen.

Senator Clinton is just too divisive a candidate to win a national election. She seems like a front-running Democrat now, but that is probably because she has the best name recognition for now. In any event, although she will always do well with liberal Democrats, she would have a really hard time in other circles.

Dr. Rice is a very impressive person, but she has little political or executive experience. There is no telling how she would do in a campaign where she would have to deal with issues outside of foreign policy and security. She might surprise us, but I can’t see her running for the White House next time around. Perhaps as a VP candidate, but not a Presidential candidate.

General Powell is an interesting guy. He has never been elected to office, but he has long-standing political and executive experience. He also has a great reputation across party lines and with independents. It is hard to tell, however, how much support he would get with conservative Republicans in getting the nomination. He seems a bit “moderate” for that crowd. I’d like to see him run to see him define his positions on a variety of issues. For now, I’d really like to see him in the Senate.

Governor Bush (Jeb) has no chance in 2008. He is not taking the kind of national position he needs to build his own reputation (for example, if President Bush wanted him in place, he would have made him Attorney General or something like that) and I don’t think voters want to have a third guy from the same family in the White House so soon. My guess is that he might look to the Senate or a Cabinet post with the next GOP President.

My money is on John McCain. He is the one national figure who can draw good support from the three “parties” (Republicans, Democrats and Independents) in a national election. He would destroy any other candidate from either party in the national vote, but he might have problems getting through the primaries to get the nomination. He might have to team up with a very conservative VP candidate to get the nomination. Also, he is getting up there in years. He is healthy now, but who knows how he’ll be in 2008?

The upshot – McCain/Frist take an easy win to the White House in 2008.

Watch out for the up and comer – Michael Steele (now Lt. Governor of Maryland and no connection to the Hungry Duck). This guy is going places!

Green Tea
03-06-2005, 13:21
http://www.gov.state.md.us/images/ltgov2.jpg

http://www.gov.state.md.us/ltgov.html

Lt. Governor, Michael S. Steele

Interesting reading!

Crazyeelboy
03-06-2005, 13:39
He gave a great speech at the GOP Convention last summer. My guess is he is headed for the Senate and beyond.

Britanski Soldat
03-06-2005, 14:15
[QUOTE=CRAYOLA]Imagine Colin Powell as Prez and Condolezza as VP!!!!!!!!!
QUOTE]

Coln Powell would make a fine President but I understand that his wife will not allow to run for President as she is convinced that some white supremicist / KKK type will asssassinate him...................!

I tend to agree, I think that he could become too much of a target for the nutters!

veejay
03-06-2005, 14:24
He did his job and supporting the president was the number duty. I cannot see anyone else as a better nominee, and he has long been the best candidate.
who is this you are referring to? colin powell or jeb?

CRAYOLA
03-06-2005, 16:16
who is this you are referring to? colin powell or jeb?
Powell of course. I little about Jeb but I know he has little chance of winning the nomination.

Goose0009
03-06-2005, 19:30
It would be interesting to see how the South and Midwest which are very Republican states would vote. I would vote for a black president even if they weren't the best candidate as long as they could do the job. I think we need a black president. I think it would show the world how far we have come. When I was in highschool I worked in a mill, and it was a union. It was the same old crap relatives hired relatives and relatives hired friends and so on and so on. It was nepotism with capital N. It was so counter productive. There were people working in labs that didn't know the difference between a times table and the periodic table. No one was able to fire anyone cause everybody was a cousin, nephew or a friend. It was like an old Fraternity. I think we need diversity and it would be very helpful for the U.S. not to go down the same path as unions did.

Halyavshik
03-06-2005, 23:17
Not likely. Colin's credability was destroyed with those whopping lies about WMD. From what I've read, he is a ruined man in US politics.

You think ? It didn't stop Bush from getting re-elected, did it ?

P.S. I think this thread should be in the Politics forum. It's far too deep for current 'Cafe' levels of intellectual discourse.

Braders
03-06-2005, 23:22
I'm not reading politics in the cafe ;) Moved to the Political forum.

Crazyeelboy
04-06-2005, 02:07
I would vote for a black president even if they weren't the best candidate as long as they could do the job. I think we need a black president. I think it would show the world how far we have come.

I recall someone once had a dream of a day when a person will be judged by their character and not the color of their skin. Selecting the "second best" candidate because of their race is not progress, but racial bias. Progress is looking at merit and character without regard to race. We Americans would show the world how far we have come if we vote for a minority candidate because she was the best for the job, full stop.

veejay
04-06-2005, 02:46
I recall someone once had a dream of a day when a person will be judged by their character and not the color of their skin. Selecting the "second best" candidate because of their race is not progress, but racial bias. Progress is looking at merit and character without regard to race. We Americans would show the world how far we have come if we vote for a minority candidate because she was the best for the job, full stop.
Amen...

i personally don't think we're anywhere near judging individuals on their merit as opposed to outward appearances. sigh... qualified praise is the worst sort of insult, IMHO...

Goose0009
04-06-2005, 04:12
I recall someone once had a dream of a day when a person will be judged by their character and not the color of their skin. Selecting the "second best" candidate because of their race is not progress, but racial bias. Progress is looking at merit and character without regard to race. We Americans would show the world how far we have come if we vote for a minority candidate because she was the best for the job, full stop.
Maybe it is, but reality is there is still a strong racial divide in the U.S. I have traveled in europe and I have seen more interracial couples there then I ever have in the U.S. I have very strong feelings against racism and I have heard many people say some pretty nasty things about some groups in America. I would like to see a strong black republican candidate and see how well they do in the Southern States. There are plenty of people who are still living when the South was segragated. I wouldn't be suprised if Mississippi still had Minstrel shows.

Ned Kelly
04-06-2005, 12:05
i think hillary is positioning herself nicely for a tilt at the presidency (she's currently situated just to the right of yankee@moscow). she'd sell her soul for power and that's one of the key criteria to winning.

condoleeza rice is appalling - she shouldn't even be in her current post.

Crazyeelboy
04-06-2005, 20:03
Ned-

What's the problem with Condi?

koba65
04-06-2005, 21:46
It would be interesting to see how the South and Midwest which are very Republican states would vote. I would vote for a black president even if they weren't the best candidate as long as they could do the job. I think we need a black president. I think it would show the world how far we have come.

Thanks for showing us your latent racism. Voting FOR someone based on their race/skin pigment is just as bad as voting AGAINST someone based on their race/skin pigment. A typical white liberal attitude - "minorities are incapable of helping themselves, so I, a liberal-minded white man, will give them that helping hand and lift them out of the oppression that they are not able to escape from on their own." It's insulting to any minority and hypocritical.

You also infer that Republicans and Southerners are racist and discriminatory and somehow those in the North and liberal are more enlightened. Complete rubbish. It wasn't too terribly long ago that Democrats in Congress were resisting Republicans who were supporting (a Democrat) President's efforts to pass a the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A good portion of those dems are still serving today. They get a pass on their racism of the past (and probably hidden now). Perhaps you are too young to remember, but two of the biggest white Civil Rights activists with influence were Frank Sinatra and Charlton Heston (two staunch Republicans). Of course, in today's America white liberals get a pass on their brand of racism if they vote on raising entitlements. Explains why my KKK Grand Kleagle Senator (Byrd) is allowed any air time and why white liberals can label Colin Powell and Condaleeza Rice "House N*****S" and do so without any consequences.

The difference between the Democrat Party and the Republican Party on the issue of race is Democrats think that minorities are incapable of helping themselves and succeeding and think that handing out entitlements will solve every problem. Republicans believe that everyone is capable of bettering themselves, should be on an EQUAL playing field and barriers should be removed so that everyone can achieve what they work for.

In another post you state that you see many interracial couples in Europe as that somehow makes them more enlightened. You obviously do not realize that in most of your posts about race/politics you use labels, you judge people on their "color" or what part of the world they live in and draw conclusions from it. Once again, latent subconcious racism that you probably cannot see in yourself. Your attitudes on these issues are very patronizing.

Crazyeelboy
04-06-2005, 22:01
Koba-

Bolshoe cpasibo for articulating the difference between the Republicans and Democrats on race. Given that I'm the head of the Republicans Abroad thing here, I didn't wnat to make the comparison, but the cool thing is that you did it better than I could have.

Ned Kelly
04-06-2005, 22:25
Ned-

What's the problem with Condi?

i think she's a poor public performer - overbearing bordering on bombastic. i also get the sense of a streak of fanaticism. when i saw her saying "all people are created by the lord" on the otherwise worthy topic of human trafficking i wanted to puke. i hate it when religion is drawn upon in politics.

i find few characteristics in condoleeza rice to recommend her as america's chief diplomat.

then again i hated madeleine albright, too.

SpruceGoose
07-06-2005, 23:38
then again i hated madeleine albright, too.[/QUOTE]

Mate, Madelaine put in one of the all time great fending off with the elbow performances when Andrew peacock tried to wrap his arms around her one day. I love her.

Frankly I think that the women in Q (Hillary and Condi) are mainly just distraction s from the real revolution thats going to happen. The world cant continue drifting into neo liberal lala land without either them handing over some power (2 chances) or some punting types somewhere becoming mega pissed off. My moneys on the latter, Maybe not soon, but sooner or later.

Crazyeelboy
09-06-2005, 11:07
Spruce:

Sorry, but I didn't quite follow your message.

Britanski Soldat
09-06-2005, 11:23
Ned-

What's the problem with Condi?

Condoleeza Rice sounds like some dish that you get in an American or Mexican Fast Food restaurant.

I mean, what American would want the President of the good old US of A to sound like a cheap meal....................!?!

SpruceGoose
09-06-2005, 12:30
Spruce:

Sorry, but I didn't quite follow your message.

Sorry mate, I wrote it late at night after staring at legal documents for a whole day. I'm not sure I know what i meant now.

I like Madelaine.

I dont mind Hillary.

I think Condi is a non entity, who's there because shes not Colin Powell.

I think the team in power in the US at the moment are just stoking a reaction and that eventually it will happen.

Crazyeelboy
09-06-2005, 17:57
Condoleeza Rice sounds like some dish that you get in an American or Mexican Fast Food restaurant.

Now, that's funny!!

Goose0009
10-06-2005, 09:25
Thanks for showing us your latent racism. Voting FOR someone based on their race/skin pigment is just as bad as voting AGAINST someone based on their race/skin pigment. A typical white liberal attitude - "minorities are incapable of helping themselves, so I, a liberal-minded white man, will give them that helping hand and lift them out of the oppression that they are not able to escape from on their own." It's insulting to any minority and hypocritical.

You also infer that Republicans and Southerners are racist and discriminatory and somehow those in the North and liberal are more enlightened. Complete rubbish. It wasn't too terribly long ago that Democrats in Congress were resisting Republicans who were supporting (a Democrat) President's efforts to pass a the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A good portion of those dems are still serving today. They get a pass on their racism of the past (and probably hidden now). Perhaps you are too young to remember, but two of the biggest white Civil Rights activists with influence were Frank Sinatra and Charlton Heston (two staunch Republicans). Of course, in today's America white liberals get a pass on their brand of racism if they vote on raising entitlements. Explains why my KKK Grand Kleagle Senator (Byrd) is allowed any air time and why white liberals can label Colin Powell and Condaleeza Rice "House N*****S" and do so without any consequences.

The difference between the Democrat Party and the Republican Party on the issue of race is Democrats think that minorities are incapable of helping themselves and succeeding and think that handing out entitlements will solve every problem. Republicans believe that everyone is capable of bettering themselves, should be on an EQUAL playing field and barriers should be removed so that everyone can achieve what they work for.

In another post you state that you see many interracial couples in Europe as that somehow makes them more enlightened. You obviously do not realize that in most of your posts about race/politics you use labels, you judge people on their "color" or what part of the world they live in and draw conclusions from it. Once again, latent subconcious racism that you probably cannot see in yourself. Your attitudes on these issues are very patronizing.
I said if the candidate was capable of doing the Job I would vote for a black candidate. I certainly wouldn't vote for Condoleeza Rice because she is a lying B#tch. I wouldn't just vote for a black person. don't give me that crap about dixicrats and how the Republican Party was founded by Abraham Lincoln. It is just rightwing conservative rhetoric. I know ive heard it befiore if you want it bad enough you can do anything you want. Maybe, you should hear tapes of Richard Nixon and what he thought about Nig#ers and their work ethic. You don't know me and I don't even want to go there. I don't have to defend myself on being filled with latent racism. Does the democratic party use demagoguery? Sure, I would say no different then Republicans use religious prejudices to influence the South and the Midwest that it is in their best interest to give tax breaks to the Wealthy 10 percent. If they use their bible enough hopefuly some rich republican will open up a poultry processing plant in their hometown.

koba65
10-06-2005, 09:59
I said if the candidate was capable of doing the Job I would vote for a black candidate. I certainly wouldn't vote for Condoleeza Rice because she is a lying B#tch. I wouldn't just vote for a black person. don't give me that crap about dixicrats and how the Republican Party was founded by Abraham Lincoln. It is just rightwing conservative rhetoric. I know ive heard it befiore if you want it bad enough you can do anything you want. Maybe, you should hear tapes of Richard Nixon and what he thought about Nig#ers and their work ethic. You don't know me and I don't even want to go there. I don't have to defend myself on being filled with latent racism. Does the democratic party use demagoguery? Sure, I would say no different then Republicans use religious prejudices to influence the South and the Midwest that it is in their best interest to give tax breaks to the Wealthy 10 percent. If they use their bible enough hopefuly some rich republican will open up a poultry processing plant in their hometown.

Thanks for proving my point that you see everything based on where someone is from, what their race is, what God they believe in, etc. No matter how much you deny it, you are filled with discriminatory thought based on your misperceptions of people who you do not know. Re: Nixon - Evidently you haven't heard the LBJ tapes. He was just as racist. Here's the kicker for both of them. LBJ's legacy includes the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed over the wishes of his own racist party (remember, they fillibustered it). Nixon, well, he gave us Affirmitive Action. When you've matured a bit, perhaps you'll understand a little better how wrong you are.

Here's your Dems for ya:

In the 1930s, Democrats filibustered to death a federal anti-lynching bill that passed the House several times. Civil-rights litigation was repeatedly derailed in the 1950s by Democratic filibusters or threats thereof. Democrats filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act for 74 days, and in 1963, Democratic governor George Wallace physically blocked the schoolhouse door to prevent two black students from entering the University of Alabama.

Rusty
10-06-2005, 12:00
I would believe 2008 elections will be "hard".

Both parties will put their best men, I seriously doubt Hillary will get a chance. Both sides will probably not push a new gender (female), as president. Now they may try vice president (if Hilliary agreed). In my humble oppinion, the parties will try "newer" faces, with possible familure running mates.

:bookworm:

Crazyeelboy
11-06-2005, 22:55
Hell, forget 2008 for now. Watch the midterms in 2006.

surfsky
14-06-2005, 08:34
I think John McCain and Joe Leiderman will run together, they are already buds on the hill

Crazyeelboy
14-06-2005, 08:50
Nobody would nominate them. Neither party would nominate a ticket with the "other side" on it.

surfsky
16-06-2005, 01:07
I think they have the ability to do it on there own. They are not millionaires but I think the media would be on their side.

Crazyeelboy
16-06-2005, 01:24
Simply won't happen - as much as I like the good Senator from Connecticut (I disagree with much of his politics, but he has integrity), McCain does not need him and should not throw off his party for this running mate.

The mixed ticket is DOA, but the assumption of powerful media bias in your message raises an interesting issue.