HellaDumb

iTrader: (3)

Rumors, Rumors, Rumors, and now this? I sure hope not:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7041441/

ftnssn

I can almost hear Karl Rove grinning now. You don't think he's already started digging up dirt about Vince Foster, Whitewater, the Rose Law firm the list goes on and on. I think that if this administration mildly cleans up the Middle East and doesn't invade Iran or Syria that Condoleeza Rice has a better shot at being the first female president than Hillary does. Part of the reason that Clinton won was because he was a Southerner and he pulled some red states, Hilliary doesn't have that advantage.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

This is a very good point and it's no exception to the point I was trying to make here: https://www.i-club.com/forums/teh-politics-forum-114/taking-same-path-once-again-90714/

Let me explain... You don't consider a female President when the Republican party is strong with the majority and popularity. Even if she did manage to convince a few moderate-Republicans to vote she'd better have red elephant blood pumping in those veins while she prays to Reagan himself to pull red states.

I just don't get the logic with the Democrats recently. They are clinging to all the wrong things at the wrong times. They need to ditch Hilary and ditch any candidate associated with liberals. If they are already running as a Democrat then they already have the strong majority of their vote by default! It's just that simple! Especially when the phrase, “a vote for Nader is a vote for “insert Republican” has never been more true than ever before. They need a moderate candidate that's pro-choice but willing to really protect gun ownership laws etc etc.

Let's just tackle one premise for a minute...damn near every whining Democrat blamed the 2004 election loss on the evangelical vote. Where's the exception going to be for Hilary in 2008? 9 times out of 10 who cleans the house, washes the dishes, makes the bed and dinner in these evangelic environments? What makes these same Dems/Libs think that the evangelical vote won't go into full force when everyone finds out Bill is wearing the apron and biting the pillow?

HellaDumb

iTrader: (3)

Sorry to detract from your point, but this is a lovely mental picture

Group B

iTrader: (3)

um no thanks

WRX2ndregime

iTrader: (2)

She's not even strong enough to leave her husband after he lied about cheating on her, then told everyone that he cheated on her, then wrote a book bragging about cheating on her. I'm sorry but most strong women wouldn't be on her side, because 99% of women probably would have left him. They need someone else to promote, cause she will probably get the nomination. I don't think it's time for her.

VIBEELEVEN

iTrader: (2)

He "didn't have sex with that woman" though.
Wow, there went the morals of our society with just one quote.
I think some people(liberels) feel sorry for her. Besides that would've been really bad for both ot them politically.
That's why after a few years, she's trying to re invent herself. Even goin as far as saying that "abortion is a sad choice" c'mon now hil, we know how you really feel, who in thier right mind would think it's ok to turn a third term infant to goo and suck out the carcas via vacuum?
As insincere as she is, at least she's smarter than the others, and learns from the mistakes of her party.

HellaDumb

iTrader: (3)

Haahaha out of left field!

Salty

iTrader: (14)

I'll agree with this. I think it'll be a day late and a few dollars short though. Her newly publicized views on abortion will be the equivalent of Kerry's medals. If the Clintons had not been in the spot light for over 20yrs then a lot of people wouldn't know a better about her true views.

The American public likes their candidates to serve their steaming pile of **** on a clean platter but they don't like to catch wind of it. This is exactly one of the reasons Clinton beat Dole imho.

Group B

iTrader: (3)

you like that huh!

that was your response to some christian spam message sent to i-club...