2000
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
I take your word for it, and withdraw the "Dopey" comment.
My misinterpretation...
Sorry, not going to take your "word" for it, I will stick with my judgment, the same judgment that said from the beginning (before so many recently got on the bandwagon---finally) that Bush was bad news, very bad news.
I get similar but different impressions of Rudy, and believe that while smarter than Bush, power would go to his head...if not other parts of his anatomy.
I don't want more emperors in the Oval Office, I want public servants, who server the vision of the electorate, not their own personal missions and agendas.
I do believe Hillary would make a good executive, that she would assemble a good crew around her, and being able to talk to a former president intimately (no, not sexually) any time she wished.
Hillary's problem is that she is not genuinely a people person in the manner most politicians are, and she is a trained attorney, which also prevents a lot of people from having much charm.
A good example was the recent clip I saw of a rally in which a voter asked her about her position on Vietnam.
He asked point blank, "Are you going to admit you made a mistake."
She handled it very poorly.
It really is an easy question to answer.
Hillary, and most Americans, if they thought a country was as much of a threat as Iraq was portrayed by would vote the way most senators and Congressmen did.
So, Hillary was given flawed information upon which to make a decision, but if the information had been valid, she would have made a mistake not to vote to give Bush the authority in most people's eyes.
Only a few were are essentially dovish and distrusted Bush deeply, and were willing to take a very unpopular position at the time voted against the resolution.
I even think Obama may have voted for the war at the time, if his state was calling for that. Senators and congressmen/women are supposed to support the will of their constituency, which most did at that time.
I was against the decision to give Bush that much power, not simply because I thought it was a scam and Bush is a boob, but because I am fully against giving one single man as much power as the office of the presidency currently holds. I want balance of power restored, the way the Framers intended it.
Hillary of course came off abrasive and Kerryesque when asked the question, because she fears showing who she really is, a smart strong woman who does know how to think. America is not really in love with thinking women though.
She could have explained the situation, told the voter she would have done the same thing today if the intelligence really said it was necessary to go to war, and if the people believed it, they would want her to. She didn't show strength, she showed weakness trying to straddle the fence, of being right (which I think she thinks she is) yet compromising by saying if she knew the intel was bad, she would not have voted for it. Doh! Only the neocons would have voted for the resolution even if they knew the intel was bad, because they wanted war no matter what.
She could have said her job is to serve the will of the people, and polls showed that most people believed the intelligence was good, to a great extent because Colin Powell blew out his career by being pushed into it by Cheney and Bush. Colin blew his chance at a presidency by bending over and saluting this scummy administration, then going in and making a fool of himself at the U.N.
Hillary simply is not a good public speaker, not a natural speaker in a group of people and many men in this country (and women) are still intimidated by a strong woman.
Heck, look what happened to Carly Fiorina, who got canned and people thought was a bitch...but she was actually right about her push to merge with Compaq, and it was her plan that was put into effect that resulted in the stock price and business doing so well in the past couple of years.
Strong powerful women who are not great looking women, who dress in pant suits are viewed as bitches, not babes, and not as not leaders by the majority of this country. Many men in America fear this type of woman.
Great Britain had strong women in their past, so Thatcher didn't pose an ego problem for the Brits, and many Jewish men/women are familiar with a strong female in the family so Israel was willing to take a chance (Golda Meir) and Indira Gandhi had the last name for the job.
But, this is America, and American men and women like the fantasies of a strong man supported by a woman of little personality and little ambition, just like that dimwit Laura Bush.
Sadly, it will likely not be the men who will prevent America from having a strong capable female in the White House...it is the women.
Quote from Rearden Metal:
Understand this: Giuliani is ten times the fascist of our current president. If he wins, pack your bags, because this country is fucking DONE. Even that deceitful bitch Hillary is preferable over Rudy the fascist, although she will NEVER become president. Not a snowballs chance in hell. Never ever ever...
Giuliani shows all the hallmark traits of the authoritarian.
He gets off on making rules for the sake of making rules, and then forcing others to obey (or else). He pursues persecution for its own sake, as evidenced by his witch hunt against Boesky & Milken. Giuliani selects human targets and then proceeds to hunt them down, scouring the books for obscure laws to use as ammunition. He especially enjoys enforcing drug prohibition- a nice fun way for any fascist to oppress others under the guise of 'enforcing laws'. Bar owners are another favorite target, and Guiliani is documented to have sent squads of literally dozens of his city goons to enforce obscure 'no dancing' regulations, 'inspecting' places of business with a fine tooth comb in order to 'find something' out of code, and then dishing out heavy penalties to the proprietors for the sole purpose of Giuliani's self-gratification.
People like him are only good for one thing: Restoring law & order where there is complete anarchy. He would have been useful in post-Katrina New Orleans, provided he be whisked away the moment the situation got under control.
Prof, I could easily see guys like you putting this thug into the White House, but I'm warning you: If you make that mistake, you will regret it more than anything. And don't think; "I'm not doing anything wrong so I have nothing to worry about". Guys like Giuliani will always FIND something 'illegal' to hang you with, no matter how clean you think you are. If you support this fascist, you have no idea how big a mistake you'd be making. It would be THE END of the United States of America. I am <b>right</b> about this, and hopefully you won't have to find that out the hard way!
Quote from ProfLogic:
Political discussion always brings out a lot of passion. This is one of your most coherent posts RM. Thanks. Definately more food for thought. I'm thinking I need to re-evaluate things. I made the identical statement regarding Bush, "It would be THE END of the United States of America", before he was put into office.
Quote from ProfLogic:
I spoke to police, businessmen, politicians (both parties), firemen, street venders and just average individuals that live in NY and surrounding states and they all have the same story. Dinkins policies were dead and Giuliani was instrumental in resurrecting them.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
"I know personally that he would like to clean up the tax mess and is truly a person that cares about this country."
You confuse your beliefs with knowing...you don't know that he cares about this country.
Sheesh....Rudy Kool Aid drinker alert!
Rudy alone could not clean up the tax "mess" that would require action by congress.
Doh!