A Female President: Is America ready?

[MrMon]

Those following the election will probably be interested in these two new analyses of the races.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ential_primary
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ential_primary

Short version:

Hillary is the presumptive Democrat nominee, barring a knockout punch by Obama. She's too far ahead in the polls with too many people and too much money behind her to lose at this point.

Thompson and Giuliani continue to lead, defying expectations. McCain is toast, Romney still can't find traction, without his leads in Iowa and NH, no one would be paying attention to him. The real unknown here is what will Thompson do once he actually enters the race.

[MrWookie]

I have no idea how a Rudy vs. Hillary race would shake out. It seems like Hillary should lose to any Repub nominee except for maybe Rudy, and Rudy should lose to just about any Dem nominee except for maybe Hillary.

[MrMon]

Giuliani actually puts an awful lot of blue states into play with losing any red states. That is the reason he maintains his support, despite being so "liberal".

[Runkmud]

To answer the question, in my own opinion, yes, I could vote for a female President, but Hillary is out of the question.

As a longtime Libertarian, who typically votes republican, I'd be more than happy to toss a vote to the Dems this election, as long as it's not Hillary. I could almost accept her as a candidate, even though she's politics as usual, except that the she seems like the pinnacle of evil to me.

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
He's also been accused of being behind massive UFO cover-ups, and I'm not sure how he's gotten off the hook for that either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh...

You know Blarg, I think about 97% of your posts are excellent and well thought out. It's a shame that you'll post this kind of crap, because it really brings down the overall quality of your posts.

You know damn well that there have been numerous complaints against Clinton for what is an obvious longterm pattern of sexual misconduct. From harassment to groping to outright rape, there have been credible claims that would be taken deadly seriously by NOW and other women's groups if the accused was anyone other than Clinton.

Trying to imply that these accusations are akin to UFO conspiracies is intellectually dishonest. And the worst part about it is you're obviously smart enough to know that.

[bogey1]

[ QUOTE ]
except that the she seems like the pinnacle of evil to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come now, we have the pinnacle in Darth Chenney and his hand puppet Bush.

Maybe not so much a pinnacle as just more imposing than the immediate evil adjacent to her.

[Blarg]

I don't happen to agree that those claims are credible and that's hardly a unique sentiment. There has been a whole, and quite grotesque, industry built up around Clinton bashing that is unprecedented in American politics, and though it has been enormously successful, not everyone has been willing to buy into it. And thank goodness. Personally, I don't approve of that sort of thing, find it tiresome, and think it lowers public discourse to the bottom of the barrel.

Now, if you actually are willing to judge the overall quality of someone's posting by whether or not you agree with them politically or vice-versa, I'd say that's getting way too wrapped up in politics and far more a comment on you than them. I have friends and people I admire of all political stripes. I don't pretend to admire their politics if I don't agree with those politics, but I'd be kidding myself if I thought my or anyone's politics were adequate to judge people in other regards. I'd also be smart enough not to bring up politics at the dinner table with those people.

[DrewDevil]

Well, I am not a Republican nor a "Clinton basher," and it's fine with me if you don't think those things are credible. But to compare them to UFO conspiracies is absurd. Paula Jones was credible enough to require the deposition of a sitting president. Kathleen Willey was credible enough to be interviewed on 60 Minutes, and Juanita Broaddick's story was in every national newspaper, the Wall Street Journal, etc. This is very different than UFO conspiracies and I happen to think it's disingenuous of you to try to lump them together.

And I also have many good friends with whom I completely disagree with politically and can have spirited debates with, etc. It's not your politics that annoys me, it's the fact that you're willing to be intellectually dishonest to make your point, because I think THAT lowers the level of discourse.

[Blarg]

Rush Limbaugh isn't a Clinton basher either. "I'm not making this stuff up, folks."

Someone making accusations is able to get media coverage. Color me unimpressed.

If you think not agreeing with you that crackpot accusations merit serious discussion or that the worst kind of media wh*ring is worth giving credence to makes me intellectually dishonest, cool beans. I'm comfortable with that.

But I think it should be obvious to you by now that we're not about to agree on this, so why are we still discussing it, and why did we ever start? Let's stop the thread hijack already.

[DrewDevil]

Agreed. I really, really don't want Hillary to be president.