The Queen Bee Wins the White House: It is almost a Lock

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
John Adams, the second president of the USA, had a son, John Quincy Adams who was the sixth president of the USA. Guess the political system in the USA has been rotten to the core for 200 years.

[/ QUOTE ]
Very different world back then. A tiny fraction of the population and a tiny fraction of the economic and business prosperity and a tiny tiny fraction of the current upper and upper middle class. There are 300 million people in the US today, 10 million with IQs over 125, as well as tens of thousands with significant political experience. The fact that the son of a former president becomes the president - with a record of personal failure outside of politics - indicates that nepotism and inside deals have won over the ideals of merit that the US was founded on. And just as importantly, that people don't care. Hilary is a less egregious example - she has an amazing record of self made success, but the probability of both these events occuring in a meritorious system should give you pause.

[ QUOTE ]
Apparently you're on record as stating that a woman president of the USA indicates the system is rotten to the core irregardless of her political beliefs and acumen. But I realize you post a lot of the stuff you do to get a response. You've succeeded again.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't have problem with Hilary Clinton - she's a highly accomplished and intelligent person with a fantastic record as senator and in private law practice before then. But like OP, I don't trust her to not be corrupt. There's something flaky about her that has nothing to do with her sex. I got the same vibe from Kerry (who is a Skull & Bones member like Bush & Bush).

[calmB4storm]

[ QUOTE ]
This is probably not the case however so it shows that the american voter is stupid to the core. The political system can only win for these dynasties if the people choose to vote for them. In the end, you must blame the voter.
natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]
You really think voters are 100% to blame?

Not


or





or





?

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
zeno,

Also, the election is still a year away. A lot can and will happen from now until then.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but I agree with the editors of the Economist [see also a 4-page additional article in the October 6 edition, p 27-30] that it is her election to lose, and, so far, no one charismatic enough, or as well organized, or with the heaps of money needed, has shown up to really challenge this formidable woman. There is of course much negativity still associated with her but it is not insurmountable and a majority of voters are easily swayed by empty rhetoric, trite platitudes, and feel good ideas. Unless she really stumbles and falls into a hole, Hillary has a very good chance of wining.

-Zeno

[Phil153]

Why do you think the conservative base won't rally behind their candidate? They were enough to get a bumbling Bush over the line the second time. The only thing I can see getting Hilary home is the female vote, and I've read (can't find the damn source) that women generally don't vote for women candidates.

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
Foreign policy will be better than this admin ...

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't share your optimism:
Clinton would use violence against Tehran

It boggles my mind that so many democrat voters are letting her get away with this BS.

Maybe it's because so many people base their votes on the really important issues

[Tornado69]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No comment except you know that a political system is rotten to the core when a son and wife of former presidents succeed their fathers and husbands.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. It could very well be that the family members that followed were indeed the best options at the time.

This is probably not the case however so it shows that the american voter is stupid to the core. The political system can only win for these dynasties if the people choose to vote for them. In the end, you must blame the voter.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

Well with voting now going electronic, what's to stop the powers that be from stealing every election ? Bush stole em before, who's to say they won't steal them again ?

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
But like OP, I don't trust her to not be corrupt. There's something flaky about her that has nothing to do with her sex.

[/ QUOTE ]

From the Economist October 6 issue, p 27:

'But Hillary-hatred is by no means confinded to the right. David Geffen, a Hollywood mogul, gave voice to a widespread feeling on the left when he complained about the Clinton's relationship with the truth. "Everybody in politics lies." he told the New York Times. "But they do it with such ease, its troubling".'


There is much more about this pair of politicians that I find rather slimey. Too Slimy, I mean - As all politicans reek of at least some slimyness. But see Hitchen's book No One Left to Lie Too.

-Zeno

[natedogg]

Voters take 100% of the blame.

In the end, all we have to do is not vote for these people. It is really that simple.


natedogg

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Her presidency will/would depend a lot on how Congressional elections turn out. If the Republicans have control of one of the Senate and/or House we're likely to see uber gridlock IMO. If the Democrats get control of both the Senate/House she'll be able to enact more of what she wants to do. If she didn't have the husband she has, she wouldn't stand a chance of being elected.

[/ QUOTE ]


Good point. One key to Hillary getting the agenda she wishes to impose on all is having a congress that is in her pocket. Whatever legitimate legislation, and the fluffy stuff she has up her sleeve, she wishes to enact may be rubber-stamped by a bamboozled congress. If however not all fall in line or congress is divided a more compromising legislative agenda may be in order.

But to be more specific, would Hillary do anything to help clean up the mess of say Social Security? Or revamp the odious bureaucratic tax code? She will push hard for her pet agendas outlined in the campaign, but those almost always fail to live up to the hype no matter which politican is promoting them.

-Zeno

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you think the conservative base won't rally behind their candidate? They were enough to get a bumbling Bush over the line the second time. The only thing I can see getting Hilary home is the female vote, and I've read (can't find the damn source) that women generally don't vote for women candidates.

[/ QUOTE ]

Others here are probably better versed to answer those questions but my off the cuff response is that the Conservative (Republican Party) has little chance to win the Presidency this time around, the reasons I think are obvious. Possibly the only person that could seriously challenge Hillary and salvage and energize the conservative base is Newt, but I could be wrong on that.

-Zeno