What Hiliary will have to do in '08 25 replies

Please wait...

NiteStryker

Biggest F-ing A-hole 2010

215,560 XP

24th April 2003

0 Uploads

18,771 Posts

0 Threads

#1 14 years ago

Ok, most people now are betting that 2008 will be Gualini and Hilliary going head to head. I was on billoreilly.com, and I was reading his column, and it was quite interesting, read it below and see what you think:

Bill O'Reilly's November 4th ColumnMany readers will not believe this, but I am trying to look out for Senator Hillary Clinton. She's a fellow American who badly wants to be President, but based upon the vote a few days ago, Britney Spears has a better chance than Hillary of achieving that. Unless, of course, Mrs. Clinton follows my advice. John Kerry lost the election because he did three major things wrong: first, he refused to allow Americans to get to know him. He was the soundbite king, but who the heck is this guy? Dr. Phil couldn't even get Kerry to open up. The folks couldn't get a handle on the Senator.

Secondly, Kerry did not have an alternative plan to counter the chaos in Iraq. You could go to his website all day long but there was little he was going to do differently than President Bush. And Americans don't want to go to anybody's website to get answers to questions. They want you to look them in the eye and tell them what you're going to do. Kerry didn't do that.

And third, John Kerry's progressive pals in the media killed him. Most Americans don't want arrogant movie stars and partisan fanatics ramming stuff down their throats. I understand that talk radio is the epicenter for that, but you choose to dial those programs up. When newspapers and entertainment shows begin unfair attacks on any American, there is always a backlash.

So Hillary Clinton would be wise to think about the above. Right now she is perceived as being even further left than Kerry. She has lots of pals in Hollywood, and the progressive media loves her. She rarely gives interviews to journalists who will ask tough questions, and few know what makes her tick.

That's John Kerry's recipe, and it's a loser. I thought that John Edwards would be competition for Hillary in the 2008 democratic primaries, but the Kerry campaign put him into the witness protection program, and he all but disappeared during the campaign. Edwards has brains and talent, but his luster has been diminished big time. It's Hillary's nomination to lose.

But lose she will if she continues running as a secular progressive. It should be obvious to everyone short of the Dixie Chicks that Americans want to maintain a traditional society based on Judeo-Christian philosophy. This time around, eleven states voted on gay marriage, and eleven states rejected it. And even multiple reruns of "Will & Grace" isn't going to change that situation.

So here's my advice to Hillary Clinton: morph into a modern version of June Cleaver. You don't have to wear a dress everyday and be deferential to your husband, but you do have to show Americans that you could live on their block without Secret Service agents keeping everyone fifty yards away. You have to demonstrate some kind of rapport with the folks. Right now, millions of Americans think you played a primary role in "Rosemary's Baby." You're a devil to those on the right, and in traditional precincts, you are distrusted and sometimes loathed. You must change that.

Pandering to your left-wing base is not going to cut it anymore. The progressive left has become detached from working America. Ralph Nader got nine votes, okay? Traditional values and a respect for normalcy is the prevailing wisdom during a time of terrorism.

Frankly, I don't know if Hillary Clinton can pull this off, because I simply don't know anything about her, even though I read her book. She remains guarded and remote, a woman of intellect--but not of definition. Exactly what does Hilary Clinton stand for, besides massive government entitlements? I don't know, and you probably don't either.

So reruns of "Leave It to Beaver" should be on the Clinton TV screen, in both Georgetown and Chappaqua. The Senator should spend some time at Wal-Mart and Sam's Club. She should dish at Dunkin Donuts and Wendy's, ride a bike once in a while, and maybe even vacation in Florida. Americans generally like their leaders to have something in common with them. John Kerry did not. George W. Bush did. Hillary, I'm looking out for you. Get the "Everybody Loves Raymond" makeover. Right now.

I also thought the 3 reasons why kerry lost was interesting.




Mr. Matt VIP Member

#BanRadioActiveLobster

356,809 XP

17th June 2002

7 Uploads

33,682 Posts

780 Threads

#2 14 years ago

She may also need a sex change, I fear.




NiteStryker

Biggest F-ing A-hole 2010

215,560 XP

24th April 2003

0 Uploads

18,771 Posts

0 Threads

#3 14 years ago

:lol:

People think she will win because shes a women, but I dont think thats a factor for many people....

She is scary tho, she would jack taxes and spending, and prolly surrender to the insurgents in Iraq




Mr. Matt VIP Member

#BanRadioActiveLobster

356,809 XP

17th June 2002

7 Uploads

33,682 Posts

780 Threads

#4 14 years ago

I was serious, I don't think a woman will win an American election at this point in time. Maybe by 2008 things will be different, but at the moment I can't see it.

I'll say one thing -- never vote for a socialist government. Vote for a socialist government and you'll suffer for life. Doesn't matter if it's a man, a woman, a child, a space alien, a god, a midget, a black guy, an Asian guy, an Eskimo, a turtle, Bush, Kerry, or a blob of dirt running for president... if they're slightly socialist, don't vote for them. I'm serious, you complain about fuel prices and taxes now, if a socialist government gets in you can kiss your 5 litre road-based luxury ferry goodbye. If there's one thing America has going for it right now, it's that you get to keep a lot of your hard earned cash. People say you have a lot of poor people who aren't being taken care of, but you're not alone. Don't know if any of you have walked through Birmingham recently...

I say this only because 'jacking taxes and spending' doesn't sound very capitalist to me.




NiteStryker

Biggest F-ing A-hole 2010

215,560 XP

24th April 2003

0 Uploads

18,771 Posts

0 Threads

#5 14 years ago

thats because its not....hiliary is very scary in her political views and I think she could be a socialist




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#6 14 years ago

She IS socialist. She will never be president because she has no appeal to independants, or even democrats for that matter. If she runs in the primaries, she will not make it through. Only women will vote for her.




FireSphere

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

13th February 2004

0 Uploads

1,646 Posts

0 Threads

#7 14 years ago

I've got some news for you guys. America right now is in a way socialist. We are a welfare state, a combination of capitalist and socialist ideals. It wasn't always like this...since the industrial revolution, America has changed considerably. And it's a good thing that we did change, because welfare states work, and America is the best example of that. Libertarians and other conservatives need to realize that it is possible to have it both ways- to have high productivity and well-being for all Americans. But I agree that Hilary will not win the Democratic nomination. We liberals aren't stupid: we know the Right hates Hilary. Even now there are those in the Democratic Party who are saying that the reasons Kerry lost is because he's not left-wing enough, which is contrary to what Republicans have said (that Kerry is too left-wing) and contrary to what I say now (Americans are too right-wing). In the election of 2008, the Democrats need a moderate, someone with good speaking ability, who isn't boring, and can appeal to both bases. Barack Obama is an excellent choice.




ThomasMeyer

The forums staffers think I'm Cool

50 XP

4th October 2004

0 Uploads

159 Posts

0 Threads

#8 14 years ago
CataphractI've got some news for you guys. America right now is in a way socialist. We are a welfare state, a combination of capitalist and socialist ideals. It wasn't always like this...since the industrial revolution, America has changed considerably. And it's a good thing that we did change, because welfare states work, and America is the best example of that. Libertarians and other conservatives need to realize that it is possible to have it both ways- to have high productivity and well-being for all Americans. But I agree that Hilary will not win the Democratic nomination. We liberals aren't stupid: we know the Right hates Hilary. Even now there are those in the Democratic Party who are saying that the reasons Kerry lost is because he's not left-wing enough, which is contrary to what Republicans have said (that Kerry is too left-wing) and contrary to what I say now (Americans are too right-wing). In the election of 2008, the Democrats need a moderate, someone with good speaking ability, who isn't boring, and can appeal to both bases. Barack Obama is an excellent choice.

America is becoming Socialist and it is scary. Welfare is not good, in this nation no one has any reason to be homeless or extremely poor. A good deal of homeless people are homeless out of a choice not because they have to be, but because they're not willing to work in fast food restraunts or stock shelves or any other menial (that's spelled wrong) labor. Many think it's beneath them, and after all, why work when the government is giving you money? People say jobs are being lost because of out-sourcing. Wrong! Jobs are lost because of unions. When an American Union worker wants $20 an hour for untasked labor (not too mention benefits) it's only natural that a company will outsource or take a worker who is willing to do those same jobs for half that. These Unions are like a noose tightening around the throat of corporations, eventually the corporation will die and where will be? Liberal's aren't stupid? I apologize, but many of you could have fooled me. The Left Wing supports gay marriage, welfare, increasing taxes the rich (the one's who have worked hard to get there!{Well, except Paris Hilton}), socialist medicare, and the great damnation, Social Security. They've gone the way of the Federalists. America, is the land of the free, not the land of infants being nursed by the government. Oh, and Hilary will win the Democratic Nomination. She has the best shot out of the Democrats to become President. She will get (at least) 70% of the Hispanic vote, 60% of the Black vote, 70% of white females, and at most 20% of white males. She will be crushed in the election. If she is facing Guilani then she will only win California, Oregon, Washington, D.C., and the North East liberal states. All else will go to the Republican canidate.




J-Dub'

What are these damn animals?

50 XP

1st July 2004

0 Uploads

6,013 Posts

0 Threads

#9 14 years ago
X-CShe IS socialist. She will never be president because she has no appeal to independants, or even democrats for that matter. If she runs in the primaries, she will not make it through. Only women will vote for her.

That is 100% true. I seriously doubt there will ever be a woman president.




FireSphere

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

13th February 2004

0 Uploads

1,646 Posts

0 Threads

#10 14 years ago

America is becoming Socialist and it is scary. Not true. America is heading in the opposite direction: toward pure capitalism. Bush's re-election proves this. Welfare is not good, in this nation no one has any reason to be homeless or extremely poor. If there is no reason for people to be homeless or poor, then why are they homeless and poor? Cause and effect. A good deal of homeless people are homeless out of a choice not because they have to be, but because they're not willing to work in fast food restraunts or stock shelves or any other menial (that's spelled wrong) labor. Many think it's beneath them, and after all, why work when the government is giving you money?

No. Poor people don't think that working at fast food restaurants and performing other menial (that's spelt right, btw) tasks is "beneath them." On the contrary, it is the rich that think this sort of work is beneath them. Perhaps this is part of the motivation that prevents rich people from becoming poor (the fear of becoming a "peasant"). On the other hand, when poor people become satisfied taking low-level crappy jobs, they become a slave to the system, of which it is tough to break free when it has a person in its grasp. Your comments reveal the common misconception among Republicans that "poor people are poor because they are lazy." Let me list the reasons why poverty entraps the impoverished:

  • Poor people are only considered qualified enough to take low-level crappy jobs. It's tough to prove the rest of society wrong, especially when they constantly consider you as "lazy."
  • Poor people are less educated than their middle-class and rich counterparts. It's tough to gain the skills necessary for higher-paying jobs.
  • In a capitalist society, wealth = power, and with power comes the ability to make choices and negotiate via the free market. But poor people are forced to choose what society gives them, because the only other choice is death. What will it be, a rundown apartment in the ghetto or a shitshack in the boondocks?
  • Even those who do work hard find it exceedingly difficult to compete with the middle-class and rich that hold all the advantage against them. Businesses run by poor people inevitable crumble (unless no other outside competitors interfere, which is rare).
  • It's hard for poor people to advance themselves for the same reason that "Rags to riches" is a myth. The chances are too low for a large portion of the poor population to advance.

People say jobs are being lost because of out-sourcing. Wrong! Jobs are lost because of unions. Jobs are being lost by a combination of outsourcing (although it has been reduced recently) and certain industries (such as steel, manufacturing, and call centers) withering away. Unions are not the root of the problem. In fact, since 9/11, workers' unions have been nearly powerless to stick up for the American worker, because companies constantly blame 9/11 for "lost profits" and the necessity to depress wages. Not only that, but companies have consistently endeavored to prevent workers from forming new unions, by using illegal practices such as threatening termination of employment, reduced pay, or isolating workers to prevent them from "scheming" to create a union. The Left Wing supports gay marriage, welfare, increasing taxes the rich (the one's who have worked hard to get there!{Well, except Paris Hilton}), socialist medicare, and the great damnation, Social Security. Not all, but some liberals support gay marriage. We definitely support welfare, you're right about that. Mitt Romney, Republican Governor of Massachusetts (my state) also supports a reformed welfare system, although Romney is more liberal than most in the Republican Party. You assume that the rich ALL WORKED SO HARD to get where they are. Then, you grossly underestimate the number of rich who did almost nothing to get where they are (Paris Hilton). You intentionally leave out all the rich people who are rich because their parent(s) were rich. And yes, I know there is an inheritance tax, but 60% of $1 million is still a large number. If she is facing Guilani then she will only win California, Oregon, Washington, D.C., and the North East liberal states. All else will go to the Republican canidate. Giuliani will not do as well as you predict. He, like Kerry, is a liberal having a very unsubstantial record of achievements. In fact, before 9/11, his approval rating among New Yorkers was pretty low. People considered him an "asshole." Funny how 3,000 people dying and an opportunity not missed will boost your charisma and popularity... However, if Republicans run him as a presidential candidate and point out how "being liberal isn't so bad," they will have reached the height of hypocrisy, as if they aren't already on the slopes to getting there. All in all, ThomasMeyer, I find your post very telling. How much does your "daddy" make? Did he tell you all these things about how the rich are being unfairly treated? Did he cuss and shout about how the "poor people are all lazy?" Your post was the portrait of an unthinking soldier of the ignorant army of avaricious pandering. :cya: