Hillary or George

[slappy4428]

Simple question, based on Dog's post.
I can't stand Shrub. I'm a Democrat. But I also think that Hillary would create a greater gap between left and right....

 

[alleyallen]

Simple question, based on Dog's post.
I can't stand Shrub. I'm a Democrat. But I also think that Hillary would create a greater gap between left and right....

I'm thinking both would be the same, but certainly there does appear to be a much more vitriolic reaction toward Hillary. Give the Shrub a couple of more years, though, and maybe things will be equal.

 

[Bubba Fett]

They seem to be loathed about equally, though for very different reasons.

 

[Montezuma's Revenge]

Is ass to mouth an option in this poll?

 

[Ace]

Hillary would be more divisive. She'd be split about 50-50.

About 70 percent of the country has come to conclusion that W is a turd.

 

[cougargirl]

Hillary. First on the basis that she would be a woman in highest power position in the United States. Second, she'd be sweeping in changes, and people inherently fear change. Third, she has the task of soothing the angry Dems and appeasing the GOP in Bush's wake.

 

[Oz]

Third, she has the task of soothing the angry Dems and appeasing the GOP in Bush's wake.

I'm not so sure she could appease the GOP, which loathes her. Barack Obama could do it, but Hillary tends to polarize people's feelings, much in the same way as when you say "Bush."

 

[zeke12]

Whichever is pro-breast feeding in public.

 

[nafselon]

Hillary would be more divisive. She'd be split about 50-50.

About 70 percent of the country has come to conclusion that W is a turd.

Although this was meant for sarcasm it comes across very true. Hillary's intelligence is going to hinder her with "normal" folk who aren't used to seeing intelligent, outspoken women that aren't under the rule of less intelligent men (i.e. Condi Rice). Her political ways of playing both sides are no different than say John McCain, but she's less soothing in her methods of doing it so people don't believe it's as geniune.

Right now her biggest ally in obtaining the presidential office is the guy sitting in there. In two years the voters might desire someone that doesn't come across as average intelligence and chummy with the people that love to **** Americans up the ass.

Also it bears watching on who she decides to run with. Maybe she decides to run with a guy that is appealing over the midwest like Evan Bayh from Indiana. Maybe she tries the John Edwards route to see if it can work a second time. With her it really comes to who she aligns herself with.

Put her in a national race and she probably does better in the South than John Kerry. Much like the Bush family, I wouldn't underestimate the Clintons, their record in elections speaks for itself.

 

[alleyallen]

Whichever is pro-breast feeding in public.

Or actually breast feeds in public.

 

[steveu]

Hillary. First on the basis that she would be a woman in highest power position in the United States. Second, she'd be sweeping in changes, and people inherently fear change. Third, she has the task of soothing the angry Dems and appeasing the GOP in Bush's wake.

Hey I'd be for a woman in office that high. Condi Rice for president! ;D

 

[Football_Bat]

Hillary would indeed appear to be the Democrats' frontrunner heading into 2008.

But Iowa and New Hampshire historically have a way of knocking heavy Democratic favorites off when the Dems' nomination is open (see Howard Dean, Edmund Muskie) and bestowing someone new "momentum" (see John Kerry, George McGovern).

Scandal trips up others before the first vote is cast (Gary Hart, Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy).

Personally I'd love to see Wesley Clark have another go at it and let the Clintons use their clout for him behind the scenes.

 

[Point of Order]

George W. Bush or George Costanza? I'll take Costanza.

 

[Montezuma's Revenge]

I call bull**** on the notion people resist Hillary because she's an intelligent woman.

It's because a lot of people deeply dislike her, don't trust her, and don't sense that she stands for anything but herself.

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

don't trust her, and don't sense that she stands for anything but herself.

What scares me is that there are people who believe this doesn't apply to every politician without exception, as if Hillary is somehow unusual in this regard. I mean, come on.

 

[alleyallen]

don't trust her, and don't sense that she stands for anything but herself.

What scares me is that there are people who believe this doesn't apply to every politician without exception, as if Hillary is somehow unusual in this regard. I mean, come on.

Like the inventor of the Internet, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton invented being selfish, power-hungry and grating on other people's nerves.

 

[Turnbull AC's]

They seem to be loathed about equally, though for very different reasons.

Exactly. This is a stupid question to ask. Bush is clearly an idiot who has set this country back many years because of his numerable mistakes and poor choices. You guys don't like Clinton only because she's an abrasive, opinionated woman. I have no faith in my fellow American citizens.

 

[JR]

Hillary Clinton invented being selfish, power-hungry and grating on other people's nerves.

Invented?

You can't possibly be serious.

 

[Football_Bat]

Hillary Clinton invented being selfish, power-hungry and grating on other people's nerves.

Invented?

You can't possibly be serious.

That was Sarcasm Light Oblique font, JR.

 

[Chi City 81]

Hillary Clinton invented being selfish, power-hungry and grating on other people's nerves.

Invented?

You can't possibly be serious.

No, he's not, JR.

EDIT: Football_Bat beat me to it.