[Masthead] Overcast ~ 38°F  
High: 44°F ~ Low: 40°F
Tuesday, Jan. 17, 2017

Madame President??

Posted Wednesday, August 8, 2007, at 10:53 AM

OK, I know I'm going to hear about this one from people of all party affiliations, but could this be a term that the American public hears quite a bit starting next year?

Hey, it could be a reality soon.

It's getting closer to time for the 2008 Presidential race to start heating up, and our current Commander in Chief of the World is nearing the end of his term. But who will be his successor? There are a lot of names to choose from in next year's election, and some of the names that have been shooting to the top of that list include Obama, Giuliani, Biden, McCain, Edwards and Kucinich.

And one name, in my opinion, is placed right at the top of that list: Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Is it because of her excellent public speaking ability? Maybe. Is it because she is experienced in handling and debating affairs with top governmental officials? Perhaps. Is it because her husband spent eight years in the White House and she learned how to deal with adversity and public scandal and handled it with the style and grace of a true professional? Could be.

The truth of the matter is, Hillary Clinton spent her time as First Lady, and currently as a senator from New York, proving to the American public that she could take whatever rags were thrown at her and spin them right into gold. And she became one of the country's, no -- the world's, most respected and admired female political leaders in the process.

And if she is elected president next fall, what a bargain that would be for American voters. Because wouldn't that be like getting two presidents for the price of one? Not to say that Hillary couldn't handle the lead role by herself, but what a name to have behind the scenes helping her to learn the ins and outs of holding the top executive seat in the United States. And there's no doubt she's already familiar with White House operations, having watched her husband, Bill, lead the country through a peacetime and one of it's most stable economical periods.

Speaking of Bill, I know there is definitely an argument there. Yes, he committed inappropriate acts in the Oval Office. Yes, he lied about it to the American public, causing a super-sized scandal that rocked the nation during his presidency. But unlike our current president who has definitely lied on more than one occasion, Clinton's lie didn't cost the U.S. government billions of dollars, nor the lives of thousands of U.S. troops, who have been fighting an expensive war the last five years or so that appears useless and endless. A war centered around egos and big oil money that only continues to fatten Bush's pockets. A war that Bush's dad started almost 20 years ago that his son felt inclined to finish.

And how popular is that so-called "War on Terror" now?

And Hillary stood stolid by her husband during his scandal, and stood by and watched with the rest of the country as he would later go on to receive the highest approval ratings of his term. And then what did she do after her husband was out of office? Did she give up caring and leave politics? No, she went on to become a state senator and later announced her candidacy for the presidency, continuing her progress toward forging a better country for all people.

And here we are now, apparently on the cusp of removing U.S. troops from Iraq, hopefully by early 2008, according to top government officials. And one of the key factors in getting one of the presidential hopefuls more votes, or even elected, may be that candidate's individual plan to remove those troops, and how fast they can get it done. Of course, outlining a plan and actually seeing it to fruition are two different things entirely.

A couple of weeks ago, I watched several of the 2008 presidential candidates take the podium to field questions from the American public during a two-hour broadcast on CNN, hosted by popular news anchor Anderson Cooper. The candidates answered questions from people who submitted questions on top issues facing the nation via YouTube, a popular Web site that allows users to create and download videos that can be viewed by anyone.

The topics of viewer questions ranged from the War in Iraq, women in politics, health care, and other relevant issues. When asked by one viewer if she thought the nation was ready to respect a female president, Clinton didn't hesitate to respond, saying that a number of smaller countries around the world already have female government leaders, many of whom she has spoken with during her career. And according to her, women have a place in politics, just like men, maybe even more so nowadays when some male political leaders aren't exactly making the best decisions.

Her responses were quick, intelligent, and done in a manner that suggests that she is ready to take on the biggest responsibility a U.S. politician can handle.

Now other candidates also gave good responses to most questions, including one of Clinton's biggest challengers for the Democratic nod in next year's election, Illinois senator Barack Obama. But while Obama's responses often drew cheers and applause from the audience, Clinton's responses to nearly every question drew even louder cheers and applause, and the occasional standing ovation. It basically left no doubt in my mind who voters think is the best person for the job of leading the U.S. toward a brighter future.

And hey, it might be a tough job, but someone's got to get us out of this mess.

Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

Obama in 2008.

-- Posted by kennyfelt on Wed, Aug 8, 2007, at 11:26 AM

Maybe so, Mr. Felt, and that wouldn't be a bad choice. In fact, Obama would be my next choice. But right now, I think Obama is shaking in his boots when he stands next to Hillary. He fears her. He knows he could be trailing a woman and that thought scares him. He is confused and frightened in her path. When she speaks, he knows not what to say next. He will kneel to the queen that is Hillary!! :0)

-- Posted by scsa316 on Wed, Aug 8, 2007, at 11:31 AM

Two weeks ago, I would have agreed with you, Silvers. But lately, Obama is standing his ground against Hilary. I think he's tired of being considered second in the race and he's coming out swinging. I watched their debate from Soldier Field in Chicago last night, and Obama was very impressive. But I'll tell you what, I'm liking Biden. He's bluntly honest, he knows what he's talking about, and he continues to stress how this country needs to be united again. I like that rhetoric. I'm not certain on who I'll vote for right now, but Obama and Biden have moved past Hilary in my mind.

-- Posted by The Union Forever on Wed, Aug 8, 2007, at 12:00 PM

Oh, how quickly a person changes their tune. Wasn't it just a few months ago, Mr. Dalton, when you proposed the notion that Hillary Clinton would be the next president, that she would be the best candidate for the job, because of her qualifications and because she learned the job from Bill.

And now, just because Joe Biden pops his head up in the heat of things and says, "Hey, remember me?" Now you're going to switch gears and go against all your previous ideas about Clinton. That's blasphemous, dude. I can agree with your comments on Obama, because he's a close second. But come on, Dalton, what are you gonna do next? Change your mind in another couple months and decide MJ is the best candidate?? I can see that...:0) (to be continued, I'm sure)

-- Posted by scsa316 on Wed, Aug 8, 2007, at 12:51 PM

Michael Jordan for President, Barry Bonds for V.P. and Michael Vick for Secretary of Defense.

-- Posted by kennyfelt on Wed, Aug 8, 2007, at 1:04 PM

I don't know, dude...I loves me some Michael Jordan, but I don't know how good of a president he'd make...he'd probably gamble away all of our national treasury.

And as far as Hilary goes, I just don't know. Something about her lately has just turned me off of her. I get the feeling that she thinks the Democratic nomination is hers and everyone else is just dreaming. I do respect her and what she's trying to do, but I just don't get a good vibe from her anymore. But the prospect of getting Bill back in the White House is awfully appealing. So I'm not totally off Clinton's bandwagon.

And I don't know why I like Joe Biden all of a sudden. I just like what he has to say. Same with Obama. When they talk, I want to listen.

I guess it's that way with Bush now. But I only want to listen because I'm curious as to what stupid stuff he'll say next.

I do like Vick as Sec. of Defense, though.

-- Posted by The Union Forever on Wed, Aug 8, 2007, at 1:47 PM

I'm not a Democrat but I'd vote for Obama in a second. I'd vote for Hillary only if the Republican candidate she's running against sucks tremendously...which is totally possible. Biden has no chance. Same with Edwards. I'm afraid Obama ultimately has no chance because of the person Hillary is seen as in the eye of the media. She will get the nomination unless she does something incredibly stupid in the coming months...

-- Posted by kennyfelt on Wed, Aug 8, 2007, at 2:46 PM

If I was a Republican, I'd be really disappointed in my choice of candidates. I don't really like any of them. But to their defense a little, they are in a very tough spot. Pretty much nobody likes Bush anymore, so Republicans have to make sure to separate themselves from him. At the same time, however, he is the leader of that party, so they don't want to stray so far that they seem anti-their-own-party. I believe anybody who says they support the war in Iraq has no chance of being elected. The American people are done with this war and anyone who even hints at continuing it once they are in office is doomed. So what do they do? They don't dare say they are against Bush's foreign policy decisions. Again, they are in a tough spot. Maybe what we need to do is elect a Libertarian, or some other third party candidate. Maybe if both the Dems and the Repubs lost, they'd take a step back and realize that this blue vs red stuff is dividing our country more and more every election cycle. Deep down, I don't care who wins the presidency, so long as he or she does the job right and make the decisions that best give the U.S. its positive image back. We are the greatest country in the history of the world and it's time we start acting like it.

To paraphrase a line from one of my favorite movies: We need a president who will do the job, instead of one who simply is trying to keep the job.

God Bless America

-- Posted by The Union Forever on Wed, Aug 8, 2007, at 4:11 PM

I wouldn't vote for Hillary to run our country but I'd sure let her be our new city manager. She'd get some fixin' up done rown heyah, e.g. streets,water and sewer lines. Infrastructure baybee!!

I read this in today's news;

HOLLY RAMER, Associated Press Writer

Wed Aug 8, 1:25 PM ET

Caption....Clinton: Bad roads, bridges harm economy

"The degradation of our infrastructure isn't just a serious threat to our safety -- it is also a grave threat to our economy."

-- Posted by like2b_onree on Wed, Aug 8, 2007, at 7:37 PM

It is very important who leads our country in the next four years....

Be very careful about Political Correctness....

Have your forgotten so quickly???

1. President Clinton appointed her to head his controversial health care reform in the early years of his presidency.

This scheme was meant to provide all Americans with health insurance. However both the scheme and Hillary Clinton's appointment were widely criticised. The reform failed to pass through Congress in 1993, and the following year the First Lady largely withdrew from public life.

2. However, Hillary Clinton later became embroiled in the Whitewater property scandal. In January 1996, Hillary Clinton was forced to stand before a federal criminal grand jury to answer questions about how some billing records that had been missing for several years reappeared in the offices of her law firm. For a while there was speculation that she would be indicted.

3. And the list goes on.........


"Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all."

(Nikita Khrushchev , February 25, 1956 20th Congress of the Communist Party)

"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society."

(Hillary Clinton, 1993)


Hillary has all of the marks of your Leftist dictator: the unquenchable thirst for more and more power, the paranoia, the greed, the narcissism, the naked hatred of her opponents, the unflinching willingness to go to any length to destroy people who stand in her way, the arrogance to believe that her way is the only way and that she can completely change 40,000 years of human nature in a few, short years.

If she is elected President, the first Clinton Presidency is probably going to look tame compared to hers. Hillary's

arrogance, paranoia, greed and hatred will drive her to do things that will result in an unending series of scandals that the Right will be only too happy to go after her for.

"Keep Corrupt And Dishonest Hillary Clinton Out Of The Whitehouse"


More Information:

http://stophillary.com/lies.htm --- Must Reading ---





-- Posted by pfcorra on Thu, Aug 9, 2007, at 8:05 AM

A couple things Hilary has said lately have really bothered me. I'm not gonna waste time looking up the exact quotes - I have MJ videos to watch - but I remember well enough what she said.

The first was regarding whether presidential candidates should take money from lobbyists. Edwards and Obama both said they do not take money from lobbyists, or if they do, are going to stop. But Hilary said she will continue to take money from lobbyists because they do represent the normal American, however she promises she is not influenced by those very lobbyist who help fund her campaign.

I call BS on that one.


Then, during her ongoing dispute with Obama about whether we should use force in Pakistan if we have actionable intelligence telling us there are terrorists threats in that county and Pakistan's government can't or won't do anything about it. Obama has said repeatedly that if there is a clear threat to the United States in Pakistan, and nobody else will act, then we will.

But then Hilary attacks Obama, saying he shouldn't be saying that because, among other reasons, it undermines Pakistan's own government.

But Obama made it clear, right in Hilary's face, that he just wants the American people to know that if there is a threat to our security, and we have no choice but to act, we will.

So what does Hilary say to that? She said presidential candidates shouldn't always say what they are thinking. Pretty much saying there are some things the American people don't need to be told.

Well I disagree 100 percent. These people are running to lead this country for at least four years. And if one, or all of them, think force in Pakistan or anywhere else may be necessary, they've got to tell us.

After the debacle that has been "President" Bush, the USA needs somebody who will be honest to us, finally. We don't need anymore lies, anymore Washington insider secrets. We need to know that if Obama is elected, there's a chance we may use force against terrorists in Pakistan. Whether you agree with what he says or not, we need to know what he plans to do with this great nation and our military.

Oh, and another thing, that whole thing about Hilary calling Obama naive because he said he may meet with leaders of so called rogue nations - Iran, N. Korea, Venezuela - during his first term. I think that's great. I think we need somebody who will talk to other countries and maybe find out just what the hell is going on around the globe.

Personally, I just think Hilary is feeling intimated by Obama and his newfound ability or willingness to hit her back.

Obama/Biden or Biden/Obama in '08!!!

Or maybe even Kucinich. That little twerp makes me laugh.

-- Posted by The Union Forever on Thu, Aug 9, 2007, at 8:19 AM

I may have to quit posting.

Me and union forever are finally in agreement on something.

I would love to see Obama as our president, but I don't think the powers that be will allow it.

He reminds me of Bobby Kennedy in many ways. He has charisma,the energy of his youth,he is probably more in touch with todays average voter than any other candidate.

He has not yet sold his soul to the world corporations.

He is somewhat naive,openminded, but will hold fast to his own ideologies.

Unfortunately I fear if he were elected he may experience the same sad fate as the young Bobby Kennedy did.

-- Posted by like2b_onree on Thu, Aug 9, 2007, at 10:38 AM

I don't think Obama would be a bad choice, either. He's young, intelligent, very well spoken, and I think he could do much to improve certain areas of our nation that have weakened during the current presidential administration. Either way, Clinton or Obama will most likely be elected next year.

As far as referring to Clinton in a communist sense..well, that's just ludicrous. Pfcorra, I don't think you can compare Kruschev and Clinton's comments in the same light. I think the meaning behind her quote is that of a "We need to stop thinking with a 'Me-first' attitude and start thinking as a group for the future" whereas Kruschev, in a completely different political era, is talking about how communists don't care a lick about what the individual thinks because the communist government ruled with an iron fist anyway. Apples to oranges in my opinion.

Anyway, like I said before, just about any political strategy would be better than the mess Bush has this country in. I know you can't sit there and say that this country has improved economically, politically and socially over the last 8 years. If you're going to compare Clinton to the communists, how about comparing Bush and Cheney as well? Seems like those guys and the GOP do nothing but think and talk about themselves lately.

-- Posted by scsa316 on Tue, Aug 14, 2007, at 2:34 PM

I think another Clinton in the white house would be SUPER. Things seemed SO well with Bill as president. I would love to see him as OUR first LADY....but anybody, and I mean ANYBODY will be better then what we have now...

I also like John Edwards....

But I am hoping for a Clinton/Obama or Clinton/Edwards or Obama/Edwards or Edwards/Obama ....and any combo is better then Bush/Cheney/Rove

-- Posted by bwoodward on Tue, Aug 14, 2007, at 9:52 PM

Do you really think Clinton or Obama would take the offer to be vice president? In a perfect world we couldn't ask for two better to fill those spots....but how likely is it to happen?

I can see it happening more Clinton/Obama rather than Obama/Clinton.

What do you think?

-- Posted by kennyfelt on Tue, Aug 14, 2007, at 10:11 PM

Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration:

If You Ask Me
Jason Silvers
Recent posts
Blog RSS feed [Feed icon]
Comments RSS feed [Feed icon]
Hot topics
Lunch is on me
(2 ~ 10:47 AM, Jan 13)

MJ...the greatest ever?
(10 ~ 10:04 AM, Sep 14)

AC/DC or freeze!
(0 ~ 3:37 PM, Jan 30)

Fave Christmas movies??
(3 ~ 8:29 AM, Jan 10)

Home Sweet Home
(3 ~ 10:41 AM, Jan 7)