Hilary for president?

temi · 10-31-2006, 02:15 PM

Though Hilary Clinton is yet to declare her candidacy for Democrat nomination for the white house but political analyst are saying she will definitely be running given the war chest of almost 100 million dollars her supporters has raised for her re-election to the senate. It is argued that the money is more than enough for campaign to enter the senate that the fund is really for white house.
I wonder if you think she would make a good president if elected or US is not ready for a woman president?

Vautrin · 10-31-2006, 07:03 PM

Well, as a non-US-citizen, I am not too fond of the Democrats or the Republicans. My vote does not count anyway.

Elections like this are not about what is best for the country, nor about what most people believe is best for their country, but how to get the majority of the electoral college.

Sadly, it is a big mistake to assume that the most "qualified" person automatically will have a decent shot at winning the office. And as elections, worldwide (let me be clear about that) have become mudslinging contests above all else, that she is a woman may work against her, the fact that her husband was Bill Clinton will work against her, et cetera.

I can't comment on her credentials, but I know there are a lot of talented people in the US who will never have a shot at running for office, even though many of those people would be (objectively speaking) better in the office.

Duke · 10-31-2006, 09:45 PM

Personally I think she's a knucklehead so I'd hate to see her in the Oval Office. The only problem is, who do you vote for President in the US? I may get beat to a pulp over my opinion but I have to admit, I actually liked Bill.

Weiser · 10-31-2006, 09:53 PM

Me too, but we're canadians and apparently all of us liked him.

Duke · 10-31-2006, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weiser

Me too, but we're canadians and apparently all of us liked him.

I think it's because none of us felt he was going to blow up the world unlike Psycho-Bush. I have to admit, this nutcase actually scares me because he's a war monger and he's proud of it.

darkangelism · 10-31-2006, 10:42 PM

i think hilary will get the nomination, there are not any other nationally known democrats with experience, i think barack obama will get a nomination sometime down the line. the party is weak though, even with what a lolt of people see as bush's mistakes the GOP is the stronger party.

temi · 11-01-2006, 04:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkangelism

the GOP is the stronger party.

Not well versed in US politic either, I know the Democrats and the republicans but who are GOP?

Vautrin · 11-01-2006, 07:01 AM

It is a common reference to the Republicans.

But depending on what happens in Iraq, and a few other "Wars on/of Terror" (depending on your political stance of cours), the candidate of the Democrats may almost become completely irrelevant. Not that people would be voting for the Democrats, but against the Republicans. Likewise, the opposite could happen too.

Sort of the same thing happened in England, with the re-elections of the Labour Party under Tony Blair. It is not that the majority of people are necessarily happy with Labour, but they thought they would be unhappier with the Tories.

Elections nowadays are nothing more than letting people decide between two evils, so they can pick the lesser evil. At least for most people. Half of the US population does not even bother to vote (/register). That in itself is telling.

I don't know who will get the nomination. It will also depend on the situation at the moment the candidates would be running for their party's nomination. And whether or not W. can address those issues that the Democrats would be running on.

In case of the War on / of Terror, especially in Iraq, I would not be surprised if W. would install or silently support a stable dictatorship, just to get rid of the problems there. Which begs the question of freedom. That does not really matter, at least for the elections. There are numerous dubious ways of winning votes, none of which have anything to do with sound policy, or sound proposals.

Any musician with an IQ of above 130 could run the country at least as well as any candidate of the Democrats or the Republicans. At least that is what I think. Plus, it would be more entertaining

.

temi · 11-01-2006, 07:12 AM

Thanks for shedding light on that, I did not know Republican are also know by that acronym.
You are absolutely right about election being having to choose between two evils, in UK the two most likely persons to become our prime minister are not that appealing but the 3rd candidate comes from very small party that has never won a general election in UK.

Vautrin · 11-01-2006, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by temi

You are absolutely right about election being having to choose between two evils, in UK the two most likely persons to become our prime minister are not that appealing but the 3rd candidate comes from very small party that has never won a general election in UK.

Ah, the Lib-Dems. At least in the UK there is the option to vote for a party, yet that the party's leader may not be elected at all, depending on the vote in his / her own constituency. Happened a few times, if I am not mistaken.

In the US "the wall" is such a bizarre issue. It is supposedly meant to keep illegal immigrants out. Yet the same people who support these measures, often depend on illegal labour (lower prices for products and services, more labour per paid dollar, little or no rights for the employee). Undoubtedly some "legal" Americans lose their job because of illegal labour. But is the "Mexican" the only one to blame? What about the corporation that chooses to do the illegal act? Certainly, those corporations who use illegal labour don't have "clean hands." Yet at the same time, they feel justified for the sake of competition, to do so. In short: a lot of corporations don't want the issue solved. It would be bad (in their reasoning) to solve this problem, for the U.S. economy. So necessarily, it would be best for the US (again, in their reasoning) to let the problem persist.

A tough stance on the subject will of course draw a lot of votes, although parties have to be careful not to alienate minority members in swing states against them. Now, as corporations are major contributors to political campaigns, expecting some reward in return for their support, it is not hard to see that it is not unlikely that political parties sometimes have different opinions on matters than the attitudes they proclaim to stand for. There are dozens more effective ways to deal with illegal immigration, yet none of them are actually pursued. There are reasons for that.

And undoubtedly the Democrats have a similar hypocritical stance on other issues. That is not what I want to discuss. I just want to show that political parties come up with a "solution" that is more often than not a solution at all, or which they are not really intending to put to practice, yet if it serves to gain popular support, it will draw a lot of votes. The result may well be that political campaigns prevent solutions from being applied to a problem. And to clarify, similar things apply to other countries than the US.

That is one big problem with directly electing one's Head of State, even moreso if he has a lot of executive powers (unlike for instance Germany and Israel).

Now what does this mean? It effectively boils down to a negative selection. Candidates need to muster all the support they can get, through making "reasonable" promises, and whether or not those promises are put to practice, may well be irrelevant. There are other requirements as well.

Luba · 11-01-2006, 09:13 PM

I guess it is a Canadian thing; I like Bill Clinton, too!

darkangelism · 11-01-2006, 10:45 PM

temi where are you from?

Duke · 11-01-2006, 11:03 PM

I think Bill must have been really drunk when he married Hilary.