A friend sent me this link and I found it amusing.

http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460

Edwards, Obama, and Clinton all tied with 51 pts for me.

I had a 28 with Edwards and 25s with Obama and Clinton.

My highest Republican candidate was Guiliani with 14 and then Mitt at 11.

Heh, I'm evidently a Kucinich man, with Dodd in second. Giuliani, then Paul, were my top Republicans. Whoever wins, I'm entirely in favor of Elisabeth Kucinich as first lady, so the poll was half right.

Biden, Hunter, and Giuliani.....27, 25 and 25 respectively....
Guess I'm not as conservative as some might think on here....

Umm, i guess im politically all over the place Everyone but one had a score between 18 and 27 for me. With Dodd and Biden leading the charge, with Tancredo being 10.

Obama who i like was 24.

Kucinich 60

Richardson 53

Gravel, Dodd and Edwards 48

I am LIBERAL!!!!!

Kucinich 59
Dodd 47
Gravel 46

Kucinich 47
Clinton 43
Obama 43

No suprise. The lowest were Brownback, Huckabee and Thompson in a tie with 3.

Kucinich - 42
Dodd - 37
Edwards - 36

Not much surprise here either; Guilani and and Ron Paul were my top Republicans, with 22 and 14, respectively. Of the 'frontrunner' Democratic candidates, I'm currently leaning towards Edwards, although I have some reservations about all 'top 3' candidates.

Regards,
Nydia

Extremely surprising, Kucinich was top at 33, with all the other Democrats right behind at 32 or 31 except Biden and Gravel. Giuliani was top Republican with 19.

My big problem is the only person that I agreed with on my top concern (Iraq) was Tom Tancredo.

I am curious..but why do folks not want to see Clinton in office? What is the reasons folks have for not wanting her? Would it be because she is a woman?

BTW...I have not decided who I want yet...if it really matters who I pick these days...I think they might be all coming out of the same basket anyways. :(

I don't want to see her in office, because I think her views are far too extreme. She's been trying to moderate herself as of late, but her track record shows that she is WAY out in Left field.....

I'll be voting Democrat this election unless Hillary is on the ticket.

Not everyone is a straight line voter. The candidate does matter. I think that it is widely underestimated how many people who would vote Democrat won't because of Hillary. Also, there are people who would not usually vote who are going to simply to vote against her.

I don't like her because she's a big bitch. Just look at that smile. It's so evil. That patronizing laugh she's being doing as of late - /gag.

Tim Russert: Boston or the Red Sox?
Hillary: Well, we all know I've been a Yankees fan for many, many, years.
:confused:

I need more stuff to think that Hilary would not be good. Give me some concrete reasons if possible. http://www.ayonae.ro/images/smilies/smile.gif

I dont think I know of a woman politician that had sex in the oval office or playing footsie with officers in bathroom stalls...hehehe If anyone knows of this...do tell...it would be curious to know. http://www.ayonae.ro/images/smilies/smile.gif

I think it would be nice to change the scenery in over 200 years in the presidential office, from a man to a woman. http://www.ayonae.ro/images/smilies/smile.gif

What would you call the husband of woman president? "The first man?" http://www.ayonae.ro/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

I am a registered Democrat, and I would only vote for her if there was someone I completely abhorred running against her.

As bull headed and right wing as I feel GW is, I feel Clinton is as bull headed and left wing. I don't either extreme is fit to run our country.

And if you really want change, you'll want someone who has not been a lifetime politician, woman or man.

don't want to see her in office, because I think her views are far too extreme. She's been trying to moderate herself as of late, but her track record shows that she is WAY out in Left field.....A poll a few months ago showed that most Americans considered Hillary to be far more liberal than she actually is (moreso than Edwards and Obama even). Grats on being part of a losing statistic. She's long been quite moderate, and her voting record reflects that.

I'd be delighted to have a woman President, but would prefer someone else -- I'm not a fan of her voting record. Unfortunately, given the nature of the Republican field, if she gets the Dem nod there won't be any other options.

I would vote for Hillary were she the nominee, but she's not my first choice (principally because she's been largely bought out in recent years and has hedged on her positions). However, due to her *shrewdness* and experience, I'd put her below Edwards and above Obama on my list.

Of *all* of the candidates whose position pages I read, I was most impressed with Chris Dodd's, but I don't think he stands much of a chance.

Perhaps ironically, I think Bill will make a better 'First Husband' than he did president; unlike Hillary, he's tailor-made for the role; he *loves* people, he loves to schmooze, and people have great affection for him - and I think he'll be able to serve largely 'behind the scenes' with a grace that Hillary, with her more obvious ambition and stridency, never could. Part of me wishes her (them) luck so that we get the chance to see that dynamic in action in this country, something that would do some of our *countrymen* a lot of good :).

Regards,
Nydia

Starrla the reverse question must be asked, are you pro-Hillary BECAUSE shes a woman?

I like Obama, but dream with me if you will. Hillary wins the primary, takes Obama as her Vice.....that would make me at least vote for Hillary with hopes of Obama pulling a Bush Sr., and succeeding the president he served under ala Reagan.

Perhaps ironically, I think Bill will make a better 'First Husband' than he did president; unlike Hillary, he's tailor-made for the role; he *loves* people, he loves to schmooze, and people have great affection for him - and I think he'll be able to serve largely 'behind the scenes' with a grace that Hillary, with her more obvious ambition and stridency, never could. Part of me wishes her (them) luck so that we get the chance to see that dynamic in action in this country, something that would do some of our *countrymen* a lot of good :).

Regards,
Nydia

HEHE i have always thought the same thing, having Bill back in office even as the First Man(?) would make me happy.

Im sure it will make Mr. Clinton happy as well. smoking cigars and chasing interns.

Perhaps ironically, I think Bill will make a better 'First Husband' than he did president; unlike Hillary, he's tailor-made for the role; he *loves* people, he loves to schmooze, and people have great affection for him - and I think he'll be able to serve largely 'behind the scenes' with a grace that Hillary, with her more obvious ambition and stridency, never could. Part of me wishes her (them) luck so that we get the chance to see that dynamic in action in this country, something that would do some of our *countrymen* a lot of good :).

Regards,
Nydia

I disagree. Bill Clinton is a very, very, very intelligent guy and very much the alpha of that relationship. I don't forsee him ever taking the subserviant 'behind the scenes' role in any aspect of their marriage, and I think he courted her long ago with that dynamic in mind. He'll continue to be the leader let alone if and when she wins the Presidency. Frankly, I imagine he's got enough of his own stuff going on and won't spend all that much time doing the schmoozing and reading books to children and throwing galas and the traditional "First Lady" roles. I expect him to continue to live in New York and continue to live out his ex-President lifestyle and continue to work hard though his non-profit Foundation combating the Africa AIDS crisis and global warming.

It'll be a very stark difference between him and Laura Bush.

*edit* back on topic ... I personally like Edwards, Obama and Hillary. I feel like any of them could certainly bring something good to the table. As that little poll showed me, apparently I also like Ron Paul.

Dear Kelraz:

I wasn't implying that Bill isn't brilliant or that he wasn't in charge during his own presidency; the issue I was discussing was *temperment*, not aptitude or 'dominance', if you will. Look at the activities you just listed that he is involved in: The AIDS crisis, global warming, etc - they're exactly the sort of things that some of our more activist First Ladies have been involved in and that is exactly what I was referring to, in addition to his considerable interpersonal skills, which make him a born ambassador (something else First Ladies have frequently been involved in).

Quite a few of our First Ladies were something other than Xanax (or booze) - addled, vacuous tea party hosters who mouthed their husband's line, but rather individuals with their own agendas who worked in complement to, or even sometimes as a foil or antagonistic conscience to, their partners' agendas. Eleanor Roosevelt, or even Nancy Reagan, come to mind?

Regards,
Nydia

I just foresee it very differently. Maybe not in acts, but I don't picture him to be as visible behind his spouse as other first-peoples. I picture him living in New York, Chelsea living in New York, and Hillary taking a bunch of her staff down to Camp David instead.

I think that has a lot to do with the nature of their marriage, which some people see as a sham or ambition-driven convenience due to the extramarital affairs, etc, but which I tend to view as the more or less inevitable space needed in a marriage between two strong intellects/personalities.

/derail on)

By the way, speaking of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, his secretary and long-time mistress, Lucy Mercer, was present with him at Warm Springs when he died - Eleanor was in Hyde Park at the time (with Hilda Doolittle, whom it has been speculated she had an intimate relationship with in later life). Mercer, of course, was quickly whisked away from the scene to avoid scandal, but the state of, erm, affairs didn't seem to interfere overmuch, despite Eleanor's considerable grief at the long-term relationship, with their ability to function brilliantly in their roles, nor could one call their marriage a 'sham', as considerable affection existed within it even though it evolved considerably as she gradually threw off the yoke of her upbringing and began to realize her own potential.

/historygeek off)

Regards,
Nydia

I don't want to see her in office, because I think her views are far too extreme. She's been trying to moderate herself as of late, but her track record shows that she is WAY out in Left field.....

What track record would that be, please? I am seriously curious, as I have heard that but have not seen anything to back it up yet.

If Giuliani is the Rep candidate, I will vote for Clinton just to have my vote counted as being against him.

I still do not see a candidate that I like, to be honest.

I just foresee it very differently. Maybe not in acts, but I don't picture him to be as visible behind his spouse as other first-peoples. I picture him living in New York, Chelsea living in New York, and Hillary taking a bunch of her staff down to Camp David instead.

The Secret Service will have much to say about this living arrangement.

Romney , Thompson and Hunter.

Obviously a left leaning site as things had to be dictated by Fed govt and not pushed to state or personal responsibilities. Hello I don't trust big govt to make choices such as Stem cell research, health care or fock sakes they don't have the right to decree what's wrong/right in marriage. Leave the constitution alone dernit.

Edwards is the last on my list, of course, he's the biggest hypocritcal candidate and to hear him talk about health care reform when the jackass made his money off of bankrupting the system sickens me.

Obama is about the only liberal I'd vote for atm with my desire to see the ruling parties of Bush and Clinton ousted overruling everything else.

The Secret Service will have much to say about this living arrangement.

He's got a secret service detail in New York already. They'll protect him regardless of if she wins or not.

What track record would that be, please? I am seriously curious, as I have heard that but have not seen anything to back it up yet.

If Giuliani is the Rep candidate, I will vote for Clinton just to have my vote counted as being against him.

I still do not see a candidate that I like, to be honest.

I'd rather have Hillary in office than Giuliani...plus it would piss off a lot of old guys at work.

Edwards is the last on my list, of course, he's the biggest hypocritcal candidate and to hear him talk about health care reform when the jackass made his money off of bankrupting the system sickens me.I don't see this as being hypocritical at all. Forget a moment the hyperbole of Edwards "bankrupting the system," his representing clients in medical cases doesn't have anything to do with wanting to provide all Americans health coverate.

Hypocrasy related to medical lawsuits looks more like this (http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/06/07/robert-bork-files-slip-and-fall-lawsuit-against-yale-club/?mod=homeblogmod_lawblog) (note the punitive damages in addition to the million dollars in compensatory damages), when the plaintiff has written (http://volokh.powerblogs.com/posts/1181323327.shtml) in favor of tort reform to limit rewards in those kinds of cases.

If Edwards made his fortune in medical insurance by denying treatment to claimants and then proposed universal health care, that would also be hypocrasy.

I find it humorous that so many people have the gut reaction, Hillary is a liberal stance and so many true liberals I know ( Thormir or Nydia are examples on this board ) don't like her because she is a moderate. Having known about Hillary Clinton most of my life ( she first moved into the governor's mansion when I was 8 ), she really is extremely moderate to conservative Southern democrat, with a bit of a liberal slant on issues I'll lump under the heading "feminist issues". Even that she has largely outgrown.

Tancredo 52, Hunter 51, Brownback-Huckabee-Thompson 48 ?

lol I like Giuliani test is interesting got a 47 for him richardson a 45 Edwards a 41 Romney a 38 and Obama a 36. Thou I do think Obama is a great speaker. ( edit hillary got a 36 also thou I dont see myself voting for her at all )

Having looked up Hillary's voting record, she almost strikes me as a moderate...

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=WNY99268

However, things she has said make me think of her as voting 1 way, while saying something else.
Although that's not unusual for a politician, regardless of gender.
Just something about her (not her gender, because I like the idea of Condoleezza Rice as a candidate) as President just doesn't sit well with me.
However, if she wins, I say more power to her. Maybe it would be a nice change in the Oval Office.
Although more of "Slick Willie" in Washington, is something I could do without....

Although more of "Slick Willie" in Washington, is something I could do without....

Once again, I need to see some data regarding how he was such a poor president, when compared to the previous administrations going back as far as Nixon.

Most of those I have talked with personally who have negative opinions of Clinton cite media sources and give me talk radio quotes when they try to argue against Clinton. I believe this was one of the best Republican spin campaigns the party has ever put together, although it cost the tax-payers (you and me) in excess of $106 million to smear him, proving no more at the end of the day than that he cheated on his wife and like most other family men tried to manipulate the truth when caught.

Reagan and Bush had gone on a shopping spree increasing defense spending in order to bankrupt those countries we opposed, because they could not keep up; thus, ending the Cold War, to their credit. Clinton cut that spending, and became a target for those Senators and Representatives who lost money going to their home states and districts. Seriously, I cannot fault him for wanting to slash the pork some were taking home, like Trent Lott inserting an amendment for a Carrier to be built in his home state, which the Navy flatly said they did not need and that the money asked for was at least 20% over the cost.

Domestically, he said straight out that the country was in debt and we needed to pay it off, and he set about doing that.

I am no Democrat, but I will never again align myself with those who were so incensed at losing the White House that they stooped to using whatever measures they deemed necessary to disparage the President, at the expense of working on the nation's business, and setting in motion the spin factories that would result in the Red-Blue divisions we now have.

The Clinton presidency was no worse than any of the five preceding administrations, and in terms of financial accountability it was indeed better. It was made to appear in a negative light by the Limbaughs and Hydes and Gingriches who have all subsequently been shown to have their own skeletons, and it makes me wonder how the "Religious Right" would so strongly support those who have forgotten "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Maybe they simply cannot find anyone untainted by their own behaviors.

None of the candidates running at the moment have given me reason to hope for much, but the thought of having some Clinton influence in the White House is favorable to a New York mayor who wants the country to be hiding under their beds terrified all the time and claiming that he will do what it takes to protect them. I have had enough of the police state activities and attitudes of the White House, thank you very much.

(Obviously, I am off today, slept in, and have not had enough coffee yet)

What would you call the husband of woman president? "The first man?"

Bill is still called President Clinton, and he'd still have the right to be called that even if Hillary won. I'll leave it up to the manners pundits to figure out how to differentiate between them. :)

I'm voting against the Republicans, no matter who is on the ticket.

Most of those I have talked with personally who have negative opinions of Clinton cite media sources and give me talk radio quotes when they try to argue against Clinton. I believe this was one of the best Republican spin campaigns the party has ever put together...Quite effective indeed, and the smears against Hillary have successfully distorted perceptions of her and her record for years. If/when she wins the Dem primary, expect a campaign against her that will make the Swift Boat Vets and Willie Horton look quite tame by comparison. It may be, however, that the attacks will backfire in her favor as people realizes she's not the demon she's made out to be (just another sort of demon altogether).
...and it makes me wonder how the "Religious Right" would so strongly support those who have forgotten "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Maybe they simply cannot find anyone untainted by their own behaviors.Somewhat related, a Giuliani primary win may split the evangelical vote from the GOP. When you have Randall Terry (http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/398614427.html) saying Hillary would be the preferable of the two, and the Focus on the Family (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/09/30/giuliani/?source=whitelist) leadership calling for a 3rd party candidate if Giuliani is nominated, the pressure is on. Given all this and his past record, it surprises me that Giuliani receives the support he commands even at this early stage, but it seems conservatives are looking for a true authoritarian to lead the way forward.

The Clinton presidency was no worse than any of the five preceding administrations....

Well, there was that whole bombing thing that happened at the WTC in the early 90's...
Then that attack on our embassies in Africa...
Then the USS Cole incident....
The only thing I can think of that happened prior to that was that was as bad was the Marine Corps barraks bombing that happened on Regan's watch...

But I will admit, Clinton knew how to balance a budget.

Well, there was that whole bombing thing that happened at the WTC in the early 90's...
Then that attack on our embassies in Africa...
Then the USS Cole incident....
The only thing I can think of that happened prior to that was that was as bad was the Marine Corps barraks bombing that happened on Regan's watch...

But I will admit, Clinton knew how to balance a budget.

LOL, you have made a complete circle now Sixee, and are back to being as ridiculous as you were before your hiatus.

Please provide some data regarding how he was responsible for these acts of terrorism, or how they would not have occurred if his opponent had won the election.

Now excuse me, while I go arrange a public lynching of our state governor, who was in office when a school shooting took place, making him at fault according to your line of thinking.

Well, there was that whole bombing thing that happened at the WTC in the early 90's...
Then that attack on our embassies in Africa...
Then the USS Cole incident....
The only thing I can think of that happened prior to that was that was as bad was the Marine Corps barraks bombing that happened on Regan's watch...

By this logic, Bush must have been the worst president ever.

Bush being "worst ever" hardly depends on such a narrow range of factors. Sixee's really just grasping at straws to be argumentative. It's a shame that his week of lucid thought passed so quickly.

Our democracy must be not only the envy of the world but the engine of our own renewal. There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America. - Bill Clinton


I personally think he was a great president. Sure he had some problems, but a lot fewer then most.

Yeah, that whole, "Clinton knew how to balance a budget" thing was also me being argumentative....
There are many factors that go into a "Great President" and a "Worst President Ever".
Was Clinton a "Great President"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents

If you rank him by what scholars think, he ranks 21 out of 42. Hardly stellar, but at least he's not Warren G. Harding.

The only other place where he stands out is the "Most Favorably Viewed President", He squeaked in at #20 with 55%.

Conversley GW stands out as being the "Most Unfavorably Viewed President" behind only Richard Nixon.
He also ranks just behind Clinton in the scholar ranking.

One thing that seems fairly certain is that history tends to make people think more favorable of a President.
I remember many times hearing that Regan was one of the "Worst Presidents Ever".
He seems to rank pretty highly on most of the polls.

Yeah, that whole, "Clinton knew how to balance a budget" thing was also me being argumentative....
There are many factors that go into a "Great President" and a "Worst President Ever".
Was Clinton a "Great President"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents

If you rank him by what scholars think, he ranks 21 out of 42. Hardly stellar, but at least he's not Warren G. Harding.

The only other place where he stands out is the "Most Favorably Viewed President", He squeaked in at #20 with 55%.

Conversley GW stands out as being the "Most Unfavorably Viewed President" behind only Richard Nixon.
He also ranks just behind Clinton in the scholar ranking.

One thing that seems fairly certain is that history tends to make people think more favorable of a President.
I remember many times hearing that Regan was one of the "Worst Presidents Ever".
He seems to rank pretty highly on most of the polls.

Incorrect...

Clinton remained popular with the public throughout his two terms as President, ending his presidential career with a 65% approval rating, the highest end-of-term approval rating of any President since Eisenhower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenhower).[55] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton#_note-45) In addition to his political skills, Clinton also oversaw a boom of the U.S. economy. Under Clinton, the United States had a projected federal budget surplus for the first time since 1969.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton

Not to mention that presidential legacy is often determined decades after they leave office.

Ever think that people did the numbers and figured out the majority of the planning of the 9/11 attacks happened with him in office? Maybe thats why his popularity dipped after the fact?
And please see my previous post. The man knew how to balance a budget. If he had been a little more proactive in stopping terriorism, I'd have had a greater respect for him.
He was beleagured about the whole keeping his pants on witch hunt the Repubs were doing at the time.
If he hadn't had that to deal with, maybe he would have seen the whole Al-Qaeda thing as the real threat it became.

Call me crazy but the republicans should of been spending more time on terrorism than witch hunting Clinton, it slightly seems like you are throwing CLinton under the bus for 9/11. 100+ million dollars would of gone a lot better in defense and intelligence than i don't know, investigation oral sex.

Call me crazy but the republicans should of been spending more time on terrorism than witch hunting Clinton, it slightly seems like you are throwing CLinton under the bus for 9/11. 100+ million dollars would of gone a lot better in defense and intelligence than i don't know, investigation oral sex.

Thank you

I don't disagree. If you read what I wrote:

He was beleagured about the whole keeping his pants on witch hunt the Repubs were doing at the time.
If he hadn't had that to deal with, maybe he would have seen the whole Al-Qaeda thing as the real threat it became.
I'm giving him a pass on that.
It's kind of hard to do a good job when half of the people you are working with are trying to get you fired....

Ever think that people did the numbers and figured out the majority of the planning of the 9/11 attacks happened with him in office? Maybe thats why his popularity dipped after the fact?
And please see my previous post. The man knew how to balance a budget. If he had been a little more proactive in stopping terriorism, I'd have had a greater respect for him.
He was beleagured about the whole keeping his pants on witch hunt the Repubs were doing at the time.
If he hadn't had that to deal with, maybe he would have seen the whole Al-Qaeda thing as the real threat it became.

According to you, it was Bush Sr.'s lack of being proactive in stopping terrorism that allowed for the planning of the terror acts you cited on Clinton's watch. If the planning for 9/11 took place on Clinton's watch, the necessary planning for the acts during Clinton's watch took place in Bush Sr's watch, right?

How about a bit of reality checking? When madmen are committed to carrying out violence against others, the only people responsible are the madmen themselves. And what "proactive" methods would have been acceptable to you or anyone else, out of curiosity, prior to our being attacked? We were a nation of laws then......

And if Bush Sr with his intelligence background had not been so busy placating his big business associates, maybe he would have seen more clearly what kind of people he was involved with in the Middle East, and OBL would have been brought to heel before Bush Sr ever left office. Hell, it might even have won him re-election.

We can do all kinds of Monday morning quarter-backing, but not one of us on these boards were privy to what was actually taking place in the briefing rooms and Oval Office with any given administration.

All in the Family: Obama and Cheney?

http://a.abcnews.com/assets/images/icons/icon-email.gif Email (?subject=ABC%20News:%20Political%20Radar%20--%20All%20in%20the%20Family:%20Obama%20and%20Cheney ?&body=Go%20to%20http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/10/all-in-the-fami.html)
http://a.abcnews.com/assets/images/icons/icon-share.gif Share (http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php) var addthis_pub = 'abcnews';

October 16, 2007 7:10 PM

ABC News' Sunlen Miller Reports: Illinois Sen. Barack Obama may have a distant cousin he's not too happy about.

In an interview with MSNBC today Lynne Cheney, wife of Vice President Dick Cheney, admitted that she discovered that "Dick and Barack Obama are eighth cousins," going back eight generations and having a common ancestor.

Part of Obama's classic stump speech consistently includes criticism of the vice president. The senator is seeking the 2008 Democratic nomination for president.

At a town hall event in Amana, Iowa Sen Obama didn't let up on his regular critique of the president and vice president saying, "We have to bring an end to Bush and Cheney politics……(they) led us into the worst policy disaster of all time, and that having a "Long resume says nothing about your character. "

Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton responded today saying, "Obviously Dick Cheney is sort of the black sheep of the family."





When did Lorne Michaels start writing for and producing the political campaigns? This is straight out of a SNL skit, hehehe.

LMAO Byl, you owe me one glass of green tea!!!

Hilarious.

Wonder how that'll change his popularity? Or do you think voters are too smart to fall for that?