Hillary Clinton went face with Bill O'Reilly tonight, with the second half airing tomorrow.
It certainly is a breath of fresh air to see someone ask her questions and hold her accountable on her answers. While he gave her a pass on a few questions, he was far from easy.
While I didn't always agree with her answers or solutions, I came away a lot more impressed with her. She showed a more human side to her, and let her guard down enough to give you an insight into the person. While I doubt I'd vote for her I haven't ruled her out entirely.
If nothing else I applaud her for doing the interview. Granted she was going for that middle class Reagan Dem who has become weary of Obama and his nutty preacher, but still, it was a gutsy move for a politician who normally doesn't want to be put in a situation that she's not controlling.
As for the O'Reilly haters. Watch tomorrow's interview. I think some of you listen to the B.O. haters and pre-judge. The guy is a very good interviewer.
Quote:While I doubt I'd vote for her I haven't ruled her out entirely.
It took guts for Clinton to do this interview. Part of the reason she took it is she's in trouble with Obama and couldn't pass up any opportunty for added exposure.
But the bottom line is we have three unqualified candidates for Presdent from the two main parties.
Prior to her one term in the US Senate all Clinton did is use her husbands political connections to line her own pocket and those of the Rose Law Firm she worked for. That and put down Bimbo eruptions everytime Bill got caught with his pants down, which was often. How does that experience translate into heading the most powerful nation on earth? Any head of a Fortune 500 company is more qualified than Hillary Clinton to be President, why should we settle for this?
Obama is another very limited experience US Senator. He's engaging and has a gift for gab, but too often he's demonstrated poor judgement in his viewpoints and comments. Once again what has he DONE to demonstrate leadership potential? Nothing.
McCain is probably the most seasoned of the three candidates but he tends to shoot from the hip, is glib beyond belief and has most of the wrong solutions on foreign policy. He'd be a disaster as President, IMO.
There's something wrong with our system when all we can come up with is this quality of candidates. The issues are too serious these days to turn them over to amateurs.
I see all three of these folks as being just like Dumbo-exploited because of their inexperience and political weakness by Machiavellian powers like the Neocons. There are groups that want that is this country-continual ineffectual Chief Executives beholden unto the special interests. Appears it's going to continue.
Quote:But the bottom line is we have three unqualified candidates for Presdent from the two main parties.
Bingo. Blame it on the process that they set up in order to hand pick their candidates. It's not an inclusive one, and it blew up on them this time.
Quote:While I doubt I'd vote for her I haven't ruled her out entirely.
That's gotta be the funniest thing I've seen in a while!
Chipdip1 Wrote:While I doubt I'd vote for her I haven't ruled her out entirely.
You know she ain't getting the nomination.
As for those ripping the economy and I'm not saying its great it ain't the Carter years either. No recession and unemployment still @ 5 %.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=..._article=1
Why are the Carter years the benchmark? I don't quite get why that seems to be the case.
I think we don't have a way of analyzing our economy as it fits in the new 'world market', that's part of the struggle. We have some low unemployement numbers, but those are from calculations and a model that is very dated. We also have a crisis in credit and the mortgage industries, and I feel that it's a result of wages being flat and the country as a whole experiencing such shakey job situations.
No one can question that Bush has spent 90% of his focus on a war in Iraq that never should have happened, rather than on our economy. And don't bring up 9/11 again, Iraq had NOTHING to do with that!
We could have easily prosecuted an effective war against international Al Quaida-mostly through financial, legal and small scale military means-while still maintaining chief focus on doing the things we need to do to build the American economy and make us competitive in the world.
Bush wasn't up to that task, intellectually or otherwise.
I'm dead serious when I say I haven't ruled her out.
If the Republican candidate were more conservative it would be an easy decision. The difference in her and McCain is virtually nothing. And of course there's the self-interest side of me, who knows the NEA has her in their pocket (yes I'm a huge hypocrite in that regard).
As for Carter being the benchmark he's the hands down winner for me. No one comes close in terms of a terrible economy, a total lack of leadership, and "we can't do it" attitude.
George Bush senior had a flat economy, gave no direction, and instead of we can't do it, he told us it was "all in your head, things are fine". A big reason why he was a four year president.
My problem with comparing everything to the Carter years, is that it seems like an attempt to say that things are fine now, because they're not as bad as the Carter years. That's bs, we should and can expect more leadership and direction in terms of policies that affect us economically, not say, "it was worse when Carter was in". That's a cop out.
Carter was a disaster, but he was President when things were pretty bad in the 1970's with oil embargoes, end-of-Vietnam War inflation and the like. While he showed no leadership, he inherited a lot of problems as well.
Bush had EVERYTHING going for him in 2000. Both Houses of Congress, most Governorships and State Legislatures in Republican hands. With even a LITTLE leadership and focus on economic issues we could have been hitting the ball out of the park right now. That's why I despise the man, he was handed the golden balloon and he didn't do anything with it.
I'm sorry guys, I have no pity for Dumbya. No President in modern history-except Clinton in 1992-was handed a better situation than Bush. Even with 9/11 we should have hit it out of the park.
DesertBronco Wrote:George Bush senior had a flat economy, gave no direction, and instead of we can't do it, he told us it was "all in your head, things are fine". A big reason why he was a four year president.
My problem with comparing everything to the Carter years, is that it seems like an attempt to say that things are fine now, because they're not as bad as the Carter years. That's bs, we should and can expect more leadership and direction in terms of policies that affect us economically, not say, "it was worse when Carter was in". That's a cop out.
I'm just comparing the situation w/a situation just 30 years ago that has seemed to be forgotten by many.
As bad as people note the economy we are not in a recession and any country in the world would die for a 5% unemployment rate.
CD,
Wait until Supremes are nominated and spending bils go nuts than you'll see a differance. Judge Roberts/Alito or Ginsberg ? Tax cuts or increases ? Spending liberally or cuts ?
Quote:George Bush senior had a flat economy, gave no direction, and instead of we can't do it, he told us it was "all in your head, things are fine". A big reason why he was a four year president.
My problem with comparing everything to the Carter years, is that it seems like an attempt to say that things are fine now, because they're not as bad as the Carter years. That's bs, we should and can expect more leadership and direction in terms of policies that affect us economically, not say, "it was worse when Carter was in". That's a cop out.
Everything is never fine. But the difference in a 13% mortgage vs. a 6% is not tough to grasp. 5% unemployment vs. 11% unemployment under Carter. Carter was held hostage by a third world country, yet one second after Reagan was in office the hostages were released. If you wonder why Carter is the measuring stick, then you truly are a hopeless liberal.
Quote:CD,
Wait until Supremes are nominated and spending bils go nuts than you'll see a differance. Judge Richards or Ginsberg ? Tax cuts or increases ? Spending liberally or cuts ?
McCain has to show me that he WANTS to appeal to conservatives. To date, he's only shown he wants to appeal to Democrats who are on the fence (the so called Reagan Dems). Perhaps a good strategy, but not one that I am fond of.
Chipdip1 Wrote:Quote:CD,
Wait until Supremes are nominated and spending bils go nuts than you'll see a differance. Judge Richards or Ginsberg ? Tax cuts or increases ? Spending liberally or cuts ?
McCain has to show me that he WANTS to appeal to conservatives. To date, he's only shown he wants to appeal to Democrats who are on the fence (the so called Reagan Dems). Perhaps a good strategy, but not one that I am fond of.
He's noted he wants to nominate an Alito or Roberts. He's noted he wants to cut spending and cut taxes. Luckily I'm convinced your better state will convince you of the right alternative. A few hiccups don't make him a lesser conservative. Even Hannity has said 80 % of agreement is much better than the alternative.
Quote:Even Hannity has said 80 % of agreement is much better than the alternative
He's not reaching out to me.
As for Hannity. He'd endorse a barnyard animal if it were running against a Dem. Hannity truly bugs me. He's just not that smart. I wish Laura Ingram would get his time slot.
It's not so much what McCain is promising now, it's what he's done in the past. Same with Obama and Hillary for that matter. Their track records don't excite me in the least.
My true hope is that McCain wins, and goes one term. Then I'd like to see Jeb Bush (the best one in the bunch) run for President.
Quote:He's noted he wants to nominate an Alito or Roberts.
Election year verbal bulltwaddle and you fell for it. The FACTS of the matter are McCain supported fillibustering of several Bush conservative judicial nominations in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Republicans could have ended the fillibustering, but McCain as the deciding vote wouldn't let them. This is one major reason so many conservative talk show hosts can't stand him.
McCain has ignored conservatives for years while playing up to the Liberal elites. What does that tell you?
Quote:It's not so much what McCain is promising now, it's what he's done in the past.
Quote:My true hope is that McCain wins, and goes one term. Then I'd like to see Jeb Bush (the best one in the bunch) run for President.
JB will never see the inside of the White House. Dumbo assured that. We've seen our last Bush as President, at least for the current generation.
Why is Jeb Bush one of the best in the bunch, aside from being electable?