|Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: First black, now a woman?!!1!|
First black, now a woman?!!1!
Posted - 12/11/2012 8:40:33 AM | show profile | flag this post
Y'all know his is gonna happen, right?
President Hillary Clinton.
First female President of the United States of America.
With Bill, right behind her. (Remember those years back, he said America gets two for the price of one?)
I love this!
She's been an outstanding Senator and Sec of State. Grace under pressure. Bigger cahones than Bill.
From Main Street to les maisons de Paris: a winner.
And the Dem Party loves her. She's a shoe-in.
HUH? What's that I hear?
The nattering confusion and consternation of Conservatives everywhere?!!
Or is it simple fear?
Hillary would, demographically, put a stake in the heart of the GOP and Reagan Republicanism. left as a party of tea baggers and dead-enders and corporate kleptocrats.
NYT;'s Dowd has some great lines this week:
"Strangely, Republicans are still gobsmacked by their loss, grasping at straws like Sandy as an excuse.
Who would ever have thought blacks would get out and support the first black president? Who would ever have thought women would shy away from the party of transvaginal probes? Who would ever have thought gays would work against a party that treated them as immoral and subhuman? Who would have ever thought young people would desert a party that ignored science and hectored on social issues? Who would ever have thought Latinos would scorn a party that expected them to finish up their chores and self-deport?
Republicans know they’re in trouble when W. emerges as the moral voice of the party. The former president lectured the G.O.P. on Tuesday about being more “benevolent” toward immigrants.
But history will no doubt record that withering Republicans were finally wiped from the earth in 2016 when the relentless (and rested) Conquistadora Hillary marched in, General Bill on a horse behind her, and finished them off."
First by a Black guy. Then a women.
|it's just tv folks||
Posted - 12/11/2012 1:29:04 PM | show profile | flag this post
I'd say about 3 years out
is a bit too early to decide the Dem nominee for 2016.
I agree, if the Dem convention were held today, Hillary would be a slam dunk for 2016. But, there are so many variables we don't even know about that can occur between now and then. We don't know what individual Democrats might accomplish between now and 2016. We don't know what bad things might occur and be blamed on Democrats between now and 2016.
Among the named Dems for 2016 .... Hillary has an awesome resume and record. She would make a great president. VP Joe Biden is more than qualified to be president. If Hillary runs, Joe doesn't have much of a chance at this point and time (as any Dem doesn't have much of a chance). If she doesn't decide to run, Joe is a leading candidate.
The other 2 likely candidates (at this point) are MD Gov Martin O'Malley and NY Gov Andrew Cuomo. I just don't see Cuomo as much of a voter draw (that's just a personal opinion, I wouldn't vote for him in the primaries). I think O'Malley would be a good VP pick. Booker will likely run for Gov or Sen in NJ ... I don't see him quite ready for the national stage at this point in time.
Others I've seen listed ...
Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia ... not an exciting national candidate, maybe a VP choice, but not compelling odds.
Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer ... again, not compelling odds.
Gov. Deval Patrick ... again, not quite ready
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York ... definately not ready for the big job, but may be a VP candidate is Hillary decides not to run.
Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa ... again, a VP prospect ... who knows what will be by 2016.
imo, as of this point, the gop's best qualified choice for 2016 is Jeb Bush. Too bad the Bush name is so damaged. I have always thought Jeb would have made a good Republican president. I don't agree with him on everything, but I think he is a decent human being. Unfortunately the Bush family decided age before competence was the way to go. I feel so bad for Jeb and for America. I believe he would have been a much better president, a much better president for America and a much better president for the republican party.
W basically proved that HW was a much better president than W. W was a complete failure. What are we, as American voters, to believe if the Bushies pushed W instead of Jeb as the standard bearer of what is best for America in 2000?
Jeb doesn't deserve to be president because his brother is retarded and he won't separate himself from the retarded wing of the Republitard party. Marco Rubio doesn't deserve to be to be president because he is a "white Hispanic" who is oh so willing to throw his fellow Hispanics under the bus. Paul Ryan doesn't deserve to be president because he was the the VP choice on a failed presidential ticket and chose to disavow his "deeply held positions" so he could be on Romney's ticket!
Chris Christie would be a so called "refreshing" choice for a republican nominee. Yeah, he can be a nasty sob, but he showed a willingness to be "bipartisan" when it benefited his people ... i.e people who might actually vote for him.
Posted - 12/11/2012 4:26:30 PM | show profile | flag this post
It's just tv
I thought that was an excellant summation of where we stand--and I agree 90% with your opinions on the candidates. Well done.
As much as I thought President Obama would beat Romney--almost any crisis--foreign or domestic--outside of his control could have meant a loss. The same thing can be said for the next four years.
That being said, you have to admit--"Clinton v Bush" does have an eerie familiar ring to it.