Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Is Hillary ready to lead?

  1. Jan 4, 2008 #1

    chemisttree

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Hillary Clinton's third place showing yesterday in Iowa might not be the show stopper some have anticipated. There are reports that the campaign is in disarray and struggling but her overall political apparatus is the envy of all the candidates in the Democrat party. I think she will do much better in the coming weeks but it will be closer than she had anticipated. She still polls very high in nationwide polls and there is still time to modify her delivery, message and for her to change her focus. She appears to be doing just that by adopting Obama's message of change...

    Its pretty clear that she isn't doing herself any favors by stressing her foriegn policy experience while spouting this kind of nonsense...

    and

    There is still a good chance that she will be the Democrat nominee.

    God help us if she wins the whole thing....
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 4, 2008 #2

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Don't even think it! Hopefully not. I think Obama has a reasonable shot to come in first. I think folks are looking for change, and it ain't Hillary.

    Pray for divine pre-emptive intervention. :biggrin:
     
  4. Jan 4, 2008 #3

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Yep! Hillary is squirmier than a jellyfish on the issues, and has the highest negatives of the Dems. There is a huge bloc of people who would vote for a convicted felon still in prison before they would vote for her. What's worse is that if she is elected, she will pull in the same crowd of DC insiders that populated Bill's administration. We need real change, not new wallpaper.
     
  5. Jan 4, 2008 #4
    I dont think obama will change much. Im curious what you guys think he will change?

    To be clear, I dont think anyone is going to change anything anytime soon, except for maybe Ron Paul. (But he would probably be impeached before he actually changed anything).
     
  6. Jan 4, 2008 #5

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    At this point, I think Obama 'represents' change, i.e. it's more appearance than substance, but I'm hoping he's not tied in with the same interested parties as Hillary. Hillary is inside Washington and has been since 1992. Obama was reelected to the Illinois Senate in 1998 and 2002, officially resigning in November 2004 following his election to the U.S. Senate, so he is much less of a Washington insider than Hillary.

    So let's see what substance develops over the next 10 months.
     
  7. Jan 4, 2008 #6
    Yeah, but that really does not mean much. Hes not going to get us out of Iraq - realistically. And what is he going to use to get americans affordable insurance, our borrowed money to China? Hes going to have to get us out of debt. But I wouldnt really call that a 'change'.
     
  8. Jan 4, 2008 #7

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    C-tree, please cite the source for the excerpts.
     
  9. Jan 4, 2008 #8
    Funny how we address all the male candidates with their surname, like Obama, Guiliani, Huckabee etc. but when it comes to Rodham Clinton, we are all of a sudden on first-name basis. :rolleyes:

    Rodham Clinton did some great job with some health care plan under Clinton, but because it was a 1200+ brick with no summary, it fell on the Congress floor. I'm sorry to confess, but during this election, I'm a one-issue-man.
     
  10. Jan 4, 2008 #9

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The neo-cons are in tight with Blackwater, et al. Paul would never live to be sworn in, IMO, and Huckabee had better watch his back, too.

    Obama probably would not change too much too fast, except the color of the residents of the WH. He has drawn his political advisers from that same stagnant pool of beltway bloodsuckers that all the other major candidates have tapped, and he may not have the guts to buck them. On the plus side, he is smart and articulate, and probably won't be a sock-puppet for his VP, like W.
     
  11. Jan 4, 2008 #10

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/defense.html

    I disagree with some of the goals, and they seem to have conveniently left out the 10's of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans killed as a result of the on-going conflicts.


    On Wikipedia, some writes that "For 2007, the budget rose to US$532.8 billion," and links this to http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2007/ . Perhaps that includes the supplemental budget, but it's hard to tell.
    http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2007/fy2007_greenbook.pdf

    Now in 2008,

    Fiscal 2008 Department of Defense Budget Released
    So the real Defense budget is $481.4 billion + $141.7 billion + $93.4 billion = $716.5 billion. Bush apparently used a pocket veto to kill it.


    http://www.sun-sentinel.com/service...onworld/sfl-flaveto1229sbdec29,0,150283.story

    The next president will have to reduce government spending and increase revenues in order to stop the hemorrage. The next president will have to be clever in order to repair the disaster that Bush will level in his wake, and deal with emerging economies and forces of China, Russia, India and others.

    Then there is the Middle East - which is still unresolved. Note that the Bush administration has stopped calling for democracy, ostensibly in lieu of stability long enough to extract as much money from the area as possible.

    I have to wonder how many billions are going to Bush cronies, mercenaries and other interested parties. Hopefully the new president will uncover that mess.

    Then there's energy security.

    And health care.

    And social security. One way to deal with that is simply stop paying SS benefits, and let everyone fend for themselves - or raise taxes to cover the outlays.
     
  12. Jan 4, 2008 #11

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I happen to favor Clinton. After all she was co-President during Bill's term. No one can deny she had significant influence on Presidential decisions, she's a smart, strong woman. I see having her in office as a return to the Clinton era (minus the sexcapades) and I don't see that as too terribly bad considering the unknowns.
     
  13. Jan 4, 2008 #12

    chemisttree

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    The first quote is from FOX news. The second is from an interview on Wolf Blitzer’s program last Sunday. I will print the entire transcript of the question and answer.
    The last is from an interview she gave on This Week with George Stephanopoulos that aired last weekend. The entire question and answer…
    Yes, it’s that bad. Remember during the 2000 election when George Bush couldn’t remember Musharaff’s name? I don’t hear any of that on CNN aimed at the airhead Hillary!
    Now, that’s just funny!

    PS. For those of you that aren't following this, Musharaff wasn't on the ballot (he was reelected last October 6th to a 5 year term as president). The elections in question were parliamentary in nature. WHAT A RIOT! (sorry Evo! You have to admit that it is funny!)
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2008
  14. Jan 4, 2008 #13

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    But Hillary Clinton is not an airhead. She's smart and knowledgeable, and relatively strong personally. I just have to wonder about the rest of her administration.

    Bill Clinton's foreign policy (Indolence is a word I have heard used) was a disaster, eclipsed only by Bush. Bill Clinton's domestic programs benefitted from irrational exhuberance - with which he had nothing to do.
     
  15. Jan 4, 2008 #14

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    PFFFT, what has that to do with the ability to run a country? A slip up. She has a guaranteed track record of being able to run this country, IMHO. I don't think the Clinton admisistration was all that bad and I'm not opposed to seeing it return.
     
  16. Jan 4, 2008 #15

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    There are a lot of things that Obama might re-consider that Clinton would not touch. One of those is pumping money into Israel. Israel has managed to keep a choke-hold on the Palastinians thanks to US aid and military equipment. It's pretty easy to label the Palestinians as "terrorists" since they lack the resources to penetrate Israel with tanks and attack-helicopters and blast their victims with rockets and artillery, and they have to resort to unconventional warfare. It is accepted that there will be civilian casualties every time the Israelis attack the Palestinians, but there is no such allowance for the Palestinian "terrorists" when they try to defend themselves or respond to attacks.

    The Palestinians are the aggrieved party from the late 40's onward and they have suffered greatly from the Zionists' persecutions. They are ready to accept a 2-state solution to this genocide, yet much of the world (led by the US) is willing to let the Zionists keep their boots on the necks of the Palestinians.
     
  17. Jan 4, 2008 #16

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    You don't think she was refering to Musharraf's party when she mentioned Musharraf by name?

    It is, after all, entirely true that if the PPP does not participate (I think they will), then the PML-Q (Mush) will be the only major party participating (though Sharif might change his mind and the PML-N might get back in the ring). Currently, PML-Q, PML-N, the MMA alliance and PPP control about 70% of the Assembly seats. Half the members of the MMA group have announced that they are going to boycott the elections, but they might also change their minds.

    So I don't think Clinton is talking through her hat. Would anyone have understood if she said that the PML-Q might end up being the only major party in the election, because the PPP is in disarray, the MMA is broken up (and partly boycotting), and the PML-N is also boycotting?
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2008
  18. Jan 4, 2008 #17

    chemisttree

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    A slip up? Definitely! But funny too.
     
  19. Jan 4, 2008 #18

    chemisttree

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    I bolded the important parts. It's clear she wasn't referring to his party. I also didn't know she wore hats... but if she did, I'm sure she would change it every day.
     
  20. Jan 4, 2008 #19

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    No doubt about that!
     
  21. Jan 4, 2008 #20

    chemisttree

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Not that it's important, but Nawaz Sharif can't run for election in Pakistan because of a felony conviction. I would think that the smartest woman on the planet would know that (it's a foreign policy thingy).

    I do like her impression of a southern black ("I ain't no ways taarrr'd...).
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Is Hillary ready to lead?
  1. Hillary on Healthcare (Replies: 12)

Loading...