January 22, 2007

Clinton "In it to win it"

Sen. Hillary Clinton has formally announced her intention to run for the presidency next year.

What I want from you, dear reader, is this:
-What you see as her strengths and weaknesses,
-If you think she'll get the nomination and why or if you don't think she will and why.
-If you like her, and if you hate her, and why.

Wanna participate in a live online "conversation" about the future with Sen. Clinton?

Go here and register, the event starts at 6:00 p.m. our time tonight. Tell 'em The Dope sent you.


At 1/22/2007 6:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

-What you see as her strengths: ability to raise money, name ID, strong Democratic values, (health care, womens rights electability (two time winner in NY, 64% last time in the NY Senate)

weaknesses- viewed as a B----, her husband and his baggage,
-If you think she'll get the nomination Yes she will
and why: see strengths
or if you don't think she will and why.
-If you like her:Yes I like her
why: tough, smart, she has the fire to win it.

At 1/23/2007 6:43 AM, Anonymous Saul said...


1. She jumped on the bandwagon and voted for the Iraq war, displaying a lack of leadership and serious lack of character. That was a cowardly and disastrous move that I hope she regrets every day of her life (for moral, rather than "practical" reasons). I had thought she had more integrity than her husband, but her war stance convinced me otherwise.

2. You should not get to be president if someone in your immediate nuclear family was president. That applies 10,000 times more for the Bush family, but it should apply for the Clintons, too. There are 300 million people in the US. I can't believe that presidential mettle is so unevenly distributed.

I hope she gives it up and quits the race. If she wants to do some good for the country, let her try it in some non-presidential capacity--like the senate, perhaps. As far as I have seen, she has nothing to offer the presidential race that several other democrats can't already bring to the table, other than her being a woman, and she has serious weaknesses. She certainly shouldn't be opposed because she's a woman, but she shouldn't be supported just because she's a woman, either. Her presidential bid is a tremendous waste of energy and resources.

At 1/24/2007 2:57 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not certain as to what post to ask this, but since Hillary will certainly chase federal healthcare, this seems like the logical place.

With 47-million uninsured - has anyone looked at the economics?

47-million at even just $250.00 per month - heck, say $200 a month, equals $9.4 BILLION a month - $112.8 BILLION a year.

Healthcare is a real issue, but how on earth do we deal with it in a reasonable manner so as not to bankrupt our country?

At 1/24/2007 8:05 PM, Blogger nicodemus said...

Her ability to outmaneuver her opponent. There is a reason why in 2006 she was able to knock 2 viable Senate opponents out of the race early so that by November her only opponent was a total doorknob. She is a shrewd operator.

Fundraising, Fundraising, Fundraising. Bill is still in the 75 % approval ratings.

She will unify the Republican base....because she is Hillary.

I would gladly support a woman for president, but not this one! I never liked Hillary and I will admit that I probably can't base that on anything logical or rational. She is smart and she knows politics. I just think she is too brash and that is my gut level opinion. As First Lady, Hillary was always sticking her nose in policy and pushing her agenda. Say what you want about Dubya, but at least now we have a First Lady who is actually a real "lady".

At 1/25/2007 7:07 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Let's see. Cost of unecessary invasion of Iraq = $2 BILLION PER WEEK, carry the zero, comes to...
$104 BILLION per year, and then add the cost of healthcare and support for returning troops and families, added interest on the money borrowed and higher oil prices and we're talking about between 1 and 2 TRILLION DOLLARS before it's over, and that doesn't even factor in all of the costs.

How could a nation do such a thing and not bankrupt our country?

AND THAT'S THE COST TO KILL PEOPLE, not help them live healthy productive lives.

The fact is that any national health care plan would be financed in a number of ways. And if the insane war is brought to a close, that savings alone would likely pay for it as well as many other national priorities.

I'm not sure if your numbers are accurate either.

At 1/25/2007 7:52 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Like your women to "know their place" eh, Nico?

At 1/25/2007 12:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

TID, the question was WHAT 'number of ways' do we finance $112+++ (ever seen a government program that was cost effective?) - likely $250-billion a year?

What number of ways would this be?

I don't know if a cigarette tax would cover it!

(FYI - I see benefit in it (if indeed we could figure out how to run one government agency correctly), but the cost scares the heck out of me.

At 1/25/2007 3:31 PM, Blogger maybesomeday said...

I think it's great another women is ready to rumble. We haven't seen any guts from the females in this area since Ferraro and that's been way too long ago.

Maybe if Ferraro had been in charge of the campaign slogan instead of Mondale, they could have won!!

At 1/26/2007 7:16 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is the backbone of the party, middle-aged union men, willing to go to the polls for a woman?


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home