How sad and pathetic is this?

[dgabriel]

Quote from TM_Direct:



Instead of once again labeling somebody of hatred and the rest....why not just give your opinion? As of right now it is just a THEORY.....I'd like to know what you think....if Dean or Clark won in 2004 would that screw up her aspirations in your opinion? Would she accept a VP nod? it's not hate its just a lot of political speculation..

I did not label Maverick74 as a Hillary hater, he did so himself in another thread.

It is important to sort out rhetoric from analysis and speculation.

Your question assumes I must assume that Hillary aspires to the White House, so let's accept that as a given.

So off the top of my head here are my toughts:

No, it would not screw up her aspirations necessarily, as she could run in 2012 if the Dems take the White House and hold it, and she would not be too old.

It's a difficult question on the VP nod. She would have to determine if a woman could utilize the VP as a stepping stone like men have. But the problem of women and glass cielings will continue to exist. If she is the VP candidate and the Dems win, the public might want her to go no further either because of prejudice, plain dislike, or the Democratic Presidency experience difficulties and tars her the way Clinton did Gore. If Bush wins in 2004, and I think he probably will, she could come into the race in 2008 as a candidate coming out of the Senate, and there may be a freshness to her candidacy. A new change, etc.

She has to decide whether Bush is beatable.

Things can change a lot in a few years so who knows.

I met the Clintons at the White House incidentally, and they were very impressive working the room, especially BIll Clinton. I have photos of me shaking their hands. Mav, email your portrait and I will fill you in in my place shaking Hillary's hand. Make it a profile with your hand extended.

 

[TM_Direct]

Quote from dgabriel:



I met the Clintons at the White House incidentally, and they were very impressive working the room, especially BIll Clinton. I have photos of me shaking their hands. Mav, email your portrait and I will fill you in in my place shaking Hillary's hand. Make it a profile with your hand extended.

the big difference is that Hillary was working the room for contributions, and Bill ws working the room for some action ..

sorry, had to throw some rhetoric in...BTW how old is Hillary? In 2012 she would be around 65 correct??

 

[TM_Direct]

i just found out...she's 56...she would be 64 in 2012....

 

[ARogueTrader]

 

[ArchAngel]

Quote from TM_Direct:
Bill Running again....you cannot run for more then 2 connsecutive terms....but he CAN run after a i term absence....If GW wins again, i would not be surprised to see BILL not HiLL in 2008.

I believe the 22nd amendment prohibits being elected to more than two terms - whether they're consecutive or not.

Amendment XXII
Source: Cornell Law

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

This whole democrat scramble is fascinating. No one expected Dean to do so well. He has made Kerry and Lieberman look dull, which seems to be an occupational hazard of the Senate. I suspect the Clark campaign is a Clinton-directed effort. Why is the real question. I cannot possibly see Hillary agreeing to run as VP with anyone, Clark included. She has a better job now than that, and it's not her nature to be second fiddle. If Clark derails Dean, then he is not likely to want to step aside for Hillary. So what I conclude is that the Clinton's became afraid that Dean would get the nomination and lead the party to a disaster of McGovern-like proportions. Clark has proven to be a disaster but at least he cannot be marginalized as some leftwing whacko who will threaten the country's security.

Hillary might be tempted to jump in if Bush suddenly looked very beatable. But her time frame is getting pretty tight. Her one chance was if the economy went into the toilet, but today's data seem to foreclose that. Her eye will be on '08, which gives her four more years to soften her image and hope tthat the country begins to turn her way.

 

[Maverick74]

Quote from dgabriel:



Your first paragraph and first sentence of the second paragraph outlines a conspiracy theory. But then you condemn the Clintons for acting the part in this theory, although it is unproven and just a theory.

You start from a point of hatred, then you accept and try to spread as gospel a halfcocked theory as it supports your original view and feeling of hate.

Maybe Clinton was right about the supposed right wing witch hunt.

Hey dgabriel, put the weed down and wake up. Don't pretend that you don't know what Hillary's intentions are. You are not that naive. And my OPINION of Hillary has nothing to do with the facts of this situation. She does want to run for President, she has made that VERY clear. She will not wait till 2012 to run, no way. She wants to run in 2008 at the latest. God knows how much more dirt could be revealed about the Clintons over the coming years. That is a ticking timebomb and she knows it.

She needs Bush to win in 2004 and that is a fact. She can't run in 2008 if a democrat wins in 2004. So what must she do? she has to make sure she gets a candidate that can't win the general election. There is nothing to argue here and this has nothing to do with hate.

 

[dgabriel]

Quote from Maverick74:



Hey dgabriel, put the weed down and wake up. Don't pretend that you don't know what Hillary's intentions are. You are not that naive. And my OPINION of Hillary has nothing to do with the facts of this situation. She does want to run for President, she has made that VERY clear. She will not wait till 2012 to run, no way. She wants to run in 2008 at the latest. God knows how much more dirt could be revealed about the Clintons over the coming years. That is a ticking timebomb and she knows it.

She needs Bush to win in 2004 and that is a fact. She can't run in 2008 if a democrat wins in 2004. So what must she do? she has to make sure she gets a candidate that can't win the general election. There is nothing to argue here and this has nothing to do with hate.

If there is nothing to argue, why are you arguing?

PS. Haven't touched weed in 20 years.

 

[TM_Direct]

Quote from dgabriel:



If there is nothing to argue, why are you arguing?

PS. Haven't touched weed in 20 years.

The real question is not if your touched it....but if you INHALED or not???

 

[ARogueTrader]

Quote from Maverick74:

And my OPINION of Hillary has nothing to do with the facts of this situation.

Not in the least am I surprised that your OPINION has nothing to do with the facts of this situation.

From all that I have read of your comments, I am convinced quite clearly that you are one never to let the facts get in the way of your OPINION.