Clinton Receives Another Endorsement

[Brando @$$ Fat]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-mayor30may30,0,2507619.story?coll=la-home-center


Democratic presidential contender Hillary Rodham Clinton will announce the endorsement of Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa today, a development that could help the New York senator expand her reach among Latino and union voters in many parts of the country.

The expected announcement follows months of political courtship on both coasts. Clinton has met with Villaraigosa several times in Los Angeles and Washington and has wooed him more aggressively than any other top Democratic candidate.

Villaraigosa is California's most recognizable Latino political figure and a rising Democratic star.

He said he chose Clinton because she stood out among a crowded field of Democratic hopefuls, including Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson.

The mayor said he was swayed by Clinton's six years as a United States senator, her ability to secure money to rebuild parts of New York City after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and her know-how from eight years in the White House with her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

"I'm supporting Sen. Clinton because I think her experience, strength and leadership are what we need in our nation right now," Villaraigosa said.

The Clinton campaign did not return phone calls Tuesday, but it issued an advisory saying that she would be traveling to Los Angeles for a "major campaign announcement" at UCLA after touring a preschool.

It was not clear Tuesday what role Villaraigosa will play in the campaign. But he said he would be "stumping on her behalf throughout the city, the state and, indeed, throughout the country."

Villaraigosa co-chaired Sen. John Kerry's Democratic presidential bid in 2004 and became deeply involved in planning the Democratic platform for the 2004 elections.

Experts said one obvious plus for Clinton is Villaraigosa's role as the Mexican American leader of a major American city. Several states with large Latino populations were heavily contested in the 2004 presidential election.

"He is someone who could bring in a Latino vote without having to campaign too heavily in Latino communities," said Jaime Regalado, director of the Pat Brown Institute of Public Affairs at Cal State Los Angeles. "He has the surname and the face of Latino America."


______________________________



This is something I haven't quite been able to grasp. I mean, Clinton is such a polarizing figure, even with a lot of Democrats...yet when it comes to endorsements she sweeps the other Democrats away. I think it's amazing that the Democrats, who seem to have the White House in their very grasp, would do something to fuck it up by endorsing somebody that not a lot of people like. They've lost seven out of the last ten elections....can they really afford to lose again? Now it seems they've stopped giving a shit.

[EVILxxx]

The Clintons have a lot of...leverage.
one things for sure, she don't feel no ways tired.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
The Clintons have a lot of...leverage.
one things for sure, she don't feel no ways tired.


Lawdy knows it......

[Lynn7]

I don't know. Obama could suck the wind out of her campaign. Did I see today that Clooney and Damon are supporting Obama? Many other Hollywood types are doing the same.

The funny thing is that who the heck is Hillary anyway? Just cause she was married to the president does not mean she is the perfect candidate to be president. It's absurd. And now she can say she has been senator to New York but again, how does that qualify anyone to be president? A person should be able to stand on more in a resume than someone who votes for or against issues as one out of 100.

Obama is the same. He has no real credentials to be president.

People seem to just want to pick people who are personable and present well. Heck there are people out there who have tons of great experience but they never seem to be able to run for pres or if they do the media overlooks them. And I am speaking now on both sides of the aisle.

Tom Tancredo can hardly get heard and yet he has been tirelessly working against the immigration issue and yet you don't hear too much about him.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I don't know. Obama could suck the wind out of her campaign. Did I see today that Clooney and Damon are supporting Obama? Many other Hollywood types are doing the same.

The funny thing is that who the heck is Hillary anyway? Just cause she was married to the president does not mean she is the perfect candidate to be president. It's absurd. And now she can say she has been senator to New York but again, how does that qualify anyone to be president? A person should be able to stand on more in a resume than someone who votes for or against issues as one out of 100.

Obama is the same. He has no real credentials to be president.

People seem to just want to pick people who are personable and present well. Heck there are people out there who have tons of great experience but they never seem to be able to run for pres or if they do the media overlooks them. And I am speaking now on both sides of the aisle.

Tom Tancredo can hardly get heard and yet he has been tirelessly working against the immigration issue and yet you don't hear too much about him.


I agree. In fact, I don't understand why so many senators believe they are qualified for the presidency. We haven't had someone go from the senate to the White House since President Kennedy, and he BARELY won that election.

[Thrizzle]

I wish Al Gore would enter the race and put an end to all this nonsense.

[MadsenOMC]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I don't know. Obama could suck the wind out of her campaign. Did I see today that Clooney and Damon are supporting Obama? Many other Hollywood types are doing the same.

The funny thing is that who the heck is Hillary anyway? Just cause she was married to the president does not mean she is the perfect candidate to be president. It's absurd. And now she can say she has been senator to New York but again, how does that qualify anyone to be president? A person should be able to stand on more in a resume than someone who votes for or against issues as one out of 100.

Obama is the same. He has no real credentials to be president.

People seem to just want to pick people who are personable and present well. Heck there are people out there who have tons of great experience but they never seem to be able to run for pres or if they do the media overlooks them. And I am speaking now on both sides of the aisle.

Tom Tancredo can hardly get heard and yet he has been tirelessly working against the immigration issue and yet you don't hear too much about him.

Bush had no real credentials to be president then either. He performed miserably in the business world and had everything in life handed to him on a silver platter. Obama's small toe on his left foot is smarter than Bush. Oh, and Tom Tancredo is a nutjob.

[QUENTIN]

The funny thing is that who the heck is George W. anyway? Just cause he was the son of the president does not mean he is the perfect candidate to be president. It's absurd. And now he can say he has been governor to Texas but again, how does that qualify anyone to be president? A person should be able to stand on more in a resume than someone who failed in everything they ever did, in business and politics, and who stood for the death penality 99 times out of 100

I don't like Hillary and I don't like Bush, and largely for the same reason. They're not real politicians, they were never qualified for their first elected offices and they're certainly not qualified to be president. It's just a terrible case of nepotism, the likes of which were common in 15th century Europe, but we should have grown out of by now as a "democratic" nation. Unfortunately, the best way to ensure a succesful run in politics is just to have the best name recognition. It's all a popularity contest based on who people have heard of. People don't even have to like their policies, as long as they think they like them as people more than "the other guy" when everything comes down to a horse race. Giuliani is a corrupt, slimy, amoral scumbag who never accomplished anything and is just using 9/11 as a publicity ploy, but everyone know his name. For chrissakes, Arnold Schwarzenneger got elected as governor of the nation's most populated state and his only experience is in making action movies and working out. But it's about who raises the most money and gets the most press coverage, so it will probably end up Giuliani vs. Hillary, even though neither represents their political party or has the interests of the American people at heart, because they're the biggest household names.

[shoe1985]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I don't know. Obama could suck the wind out of her campaign. Did I see today that Clooney and Damon are supporting Obama? Many other Hollywood types are doing the same.

The funny thing is that who the heck is Hillary anyway? Just cause she was married to the president does not mean she is the perfect candidate to be president. It's absurd. And now she can say she has been senator to New York but again, how does that qualify anyone to be president? A person should be able to stand on more in a resume than someone who votes for or against issues as one out of 100.

Obama is the same. He has no real credentials to be president.

People seem to just want to pick people who are personable and present well. Heck there are people out there who have tons of great experience but they never seem to be able to run for pres or if they do the media overlooks them. And I am speaking now on both sides of the aisle.

Tom Tancredo can hardly get heard and yet he has been tirelessly working against the immigration issue and yet you don't hear too much about him.

Bill does give Hillary a lot of credit for different things during his Presidency. I can't remember the exact details, but he gives her lots of praise.

Obama is someone that actually listens to the people. I met the man three times and it was weird, he actually knew me on the 2nd and third time we met. He seemed to really want to make changes to this country for the better. Plus, he is someone who worked his way up to where he is. He wasn't handed the job, something I love about candidates.

George W. got the job because of his name. Look at his life, his dad bailed him out of everything he failed at. How does that show him how to become a man?

Giuliani has bad ideas and he is running on name only.

Obama might not have a lot of experience, but so what? We need someone with fresh ideas and not controlled by big corporations.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by shoe1985
Bill does give Hillary a lot of credit for different things during his Presidency. I can't remember the exact details, but he gives her lots of praise.

Obama is someone that actually listens to the people. I met the man three times and it was weird, he actually knew me on the 2nd and third time we met. He seemed to really want to make changes to this country for the better. Plus, he is someone who worked his way up to where he is. He wasn't handed the job, something I love about candidates.

George W. got the job because of his name. Look at his life, his dad bailed him out of everything he failed at. How does that show him how to become a man?

Giuliani has bad ideas and he is running on name only.

Obama might not have a lot of experience, but so what? We need someone with fresh ideas and not controlled by big corporations.

IF people other than Bill gave her praise (who didn't work for her) then I would pay more attention. People mostly praise her on her poise and her hard work. Well, hard work does not credential a person to be president. The best thing to judge would be on a person's judgement. And it is imperative that a president is also capable of managing people to some extent. She doesn't have a great reputation for getting along with people. She gets offended easily and she likes to get even with enemies. She also can freeze people out. I just can't see her as the president.

Obama seems like a charming man and he also seems like he has some good judgement but he has so little experience at anyhting. Being a lawyer is good for being able to talk smoothly and convincingly but will he be able to manage and make decisions for the country? Will he be strong or crumble under pressure. Is he ready for such awesome responsibility? Tough enough to stand against Iran etc? Tough enough to protect us from threats?


Rudy did good when running NYC- he cleaned up the bad districts and made them family friendly again- he made NYC a lot safer to visit. Crime went down a lot when he was in charge. He did a good job during the stress of 9-11. I think he has proved himself in management and judgement but he does have a hot temper and that worries me.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by QUENTIN
Giuliani is a corrupt, slimy, amoral scumbag who never accomplished anything and is just using 9/11 as a publicity ploy, but everyone know his name..


I'm glad someone went out and said it. Giuliani came down here to give the commencement speech at The Citadel recently and his speech was basically about how we shouldn't forget 9/11. It's such a disgraceful exploitation of the worst terrorist attack on American soil.

[QUENTIN]

Originally posted by Lynn7

Rudy did good when running NYC- he cleaned up the bad districts and made them family friendly again- he made NYC a lot safer to visit. Crime went down a lot when he was in charge. He did a good job during the stress of 9-11. I think he has proved himself in management and judgement but he does have a hot temper and that worries me.

It was actually proven by world renowned economist Steven Levitt that the big thing Giuliani ran on and is known for, cutting down on crime, was a falsehood. The drop in crime in NYC had nothing to do with Giuliani or his tactics. Giuliani taking credit for the drop in crime while he was mayor is effectively the same as me taking credit for the weather while I'm outside

Also, most people in the know and involved in the process seem to think he did a bad job post-9/11. Certainly if he cared for the well-being of New Yorkers, he shouldn't have so minimized the very serious health risks related to air quality immediately after 9/11 and shouldn't be denying the first responders and members of the FDNY the healthcare they need. They risked their lives, saved people, and were the purported heroes of 9/11, but now they're being brushed aside and left to die of the illnesses they contracted that day.

From Wikipedia:

Alleged government minimization of health risks

Critics assert that government officials, notably, US President Bush and then-New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani minimized the health risks of the area and rushed to reopen the area.Mayor Giuliani, in attempting to deflate New York Daily News journalist Juan Gonzalez' reportage of the 9/11 air issue, claimed that "the problems created . . . are not health-threatening." In the first month after the attacks, the mayor said, "The air quality is safe and acceptable." In a September 18, 2006 New York Daily News article titled, "Rudy's Black Cloud: WTC health risks may hurt Prez Bid," Sally Regenhard, mother of Firefighter Christian Regenhard, who died on September 11, is quoted, "There's a large and growing number of both FDNY families, FDNY members, former and current, and civilian families who want to expose the true failures of the Giuliani administration when it comes to 9/11." She told the New York Daily News that she intends to "Swift Boat" Giuliani.

A May 14, 2007 New York Times article, "Ground Zero Illness Clouding Giuliani's Legacy," gave the interpretation that thousands of workers at Ground Zero have become sick and that "many regard Mr. Giuliani's triumph of leadership as having come with a human cost." The article reported that he seized control of the cleanup of Ground Zero, taking control away from established federal agencies, such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. He instead handed over responsibility to the "largely unknown" city Department of Design and Contruction. Documents indicate that the Giuliani administration never enforced federal requirements requiring the wearing of respirators. Concurrently, the administration threatened companies with dismissal if cleanup work slowed.

In November 2001, Giuliani wrote to the city's Congressional delegation and urged that the city's liability for Ground Zero illnesses be limited, in total, at $350 million. Two years after Mayor Giuliani finished his term, FEMA appropriated $1 billion to a special insurace fund to protect the city against 9/11 lawsuits.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is contemplating calling Giulani to testify before a Senate committee on whether the government failed to protect recovery workers from the effects of polluted Ground Zero air.
Congressman Nadler was quoted in a March 1, 2007 "New York Sun" article, "Potential Clinton-Giuliani Battle Brews Over 9/11 Health Issues." He said that he "absolutely" wishes to interview Giuliani administration officials regarding the environment in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. He asked, "Who made decisions, if any, that resulted unnecessarily in a lot of people getting sick?"

And when it comes to first responders at Ground Zero, a 2006 medical study of fire fighters reported that those personnel who inhaled Ground Zero air essentially lost 12 years of lung function. Additionally, a Mount Sinai report found that 70 percent of recovery and rescue workers reported an increase in debilitated respiratory function between 2002 and 2004. Approximately 40% of first responders being monitored lack health insurance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_September_11%2C_2001_attacks

[shoe1985]

QUENTIN is right. Knowing people who live in New York and hearing stories about Rudy pre and post 9/11, I don't feel he is right for President.

As for whether Obama is able to take control of so much, well nobody ever knows if they are ready for it.

Hell, I though Arnold would be a terrible Governor, but I have heard mostly positive feedback from some friends of mine from California. They are actually happy he is in office and they also didn't want him in office during the first election he won.

[Thrizzle]

My Aunt is a New Yorker and has lived in Manhatten all her life. She hates Guiliani with a passion and thats something she has in common with a lot of New Yorkers. He wont win New York if he gets the Republican nomination.

Bloomberg on the other would make a good president IMO.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
I'm glad someone went out and said it. Giuliani came down here to give the commencement speech at The Citadel recently and his speech was basically about how we shouldn't forget 9/11. It's such a disgraceful exploitation of the worst terrorist attack on American soil.

I remember after 9-11 president Bush said that people would forget 9-11 but he would never forget. I'm sure the families of the people who were murdered on that beautiful day in September are glad that there are some people who do not forget that day but continue to bring it up-- just like we still remember the massacre of December the 7th. I will never forget hearing those phone messages as people called their answering machines to say good bye to their families. I will never forget that people had to jump out of the twin towers to escape the flames. It's shameful that other people would want us to forget.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by QUENTIN
It was actually proven by world renowned economist Steven Levitt that the big thing Giuliani ran on and is known for, cutting down on crime, was a falsehood. The drop in crime in NYC had nothing to do with Giuliani or his tactics. Giuliani taking credit for the drop in crime while he was mayor is effectively the same as me taking credit for the weather while I'm outside

Also, most people in the know and involved in the process seem to think he did a bad job post-9/11. Certainly if he cared for the well-being of New Yorkers, he shouldn't have so minimized the very serious health risks related to air quality immediately after 9/11 and shouldn't be denying the first responders and members of the FDNY the healthcare they need. They risked their lives, saved people, and were the purported heroes of 9/11, but now they're being brushed aside and left to die of the illnesses they contracted that day.

From Wikipedia:

Alleged government minimization of health risks

Critics assert that government officials, notably, US President Bush and then-New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani minimized the health risks of the area and rushed to reopen the area.Mayor Giuliani, in attempting to deflate New York Daily News journalist Juan Gonzalez' reportage of the 9/11 air issue, claimed that "the problems created . . . are not health-threatening." In the first month after the attacks, the mayor said, "The air quality is safe and acceptable." In a September 18, 2006 New York Daily News article titled, "Rudy's Black Cloud: WTC health risks may hurt Prez Bid," Sally Regenhard, mother of Firefighter Christian Regenhard, who died on September 11, is quoted, "There's a large and growing number of both FDNY families, FDNY members, former and current, and civilian families who want to expose the true failures of the Giuliani administration when it comes to 9/11." She told the New York Daily News that she intends to "Swift Boat" Giuliani.

A May 14, 2007 New York Times article, "Ground Zero Illness Clouding Giuliani's Legacy," gave the interpretation that thousands of workers at Ground Zero have become sick and that "many regard Mr. Giuliani's triumph of leadership as having come with a human cost." The article reported that he seized control of the cleanup of Ground Zero, taking control away from established federal agencies, such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. He instead handed over responsibility to the "largely unknown" city Department of Design and Contruction. Documents indicate that the Giuliani administration never enforced federal requirements requiring the wearing of respirators. Concurrently, the administration threatened companies with dismissal if cleanup work slowed.

In November 2001, Giuliani wrote to the city's Congressional delegation and urged that the city's liability for Ground Zero illnesses be limited, in total, at $350 million. Two years after Mayor Giuliani finished his term, FEMA appropriated $1 billion to a special insurace fund to protect the city against 9/11 lawsuits.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is contemplating calling Giulani to testify before a Senate committee on whether the government failed to protect recovery workers from the effects of polluted Ground Zero air.
Congressman Nadler was quoted in a March 1, 2007 "New York Sun" article, "Potential Clinton-Giuliani Battle Brews Over 9/11 Health Issues." He said that he "absolutely" wishes to interview Giuliani administration officials regarding the environment in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. He asked, "Who made decisions, if any, that resulted unnecessarily in a lot of people getting sick?"

And when it comes to first responders at Ground Zero, a 2006 medical study of fire fighters reported that those personnel who inhaled Ground Zero air essentially lost 12 years of lung function. Additionally, a Mount Sinai report found that 70 percent of recovery and rescue workers reported an increase in debilitated respiratory function between 2002 and 2004. Approximately 40% of first responders being monitored lack health insurance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_September_11%2C_2001_attacks

I remember visiting NYC before Rudy and after Rudy. It was like night and day the way we felt so much safer walking around there.

Were we supposed to leave the debris there from 9-11? LEt's count those sicknesses of the workers against the terrorists too. It is the terrorists fault but here we go blaming Americans again.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I remember after 9-11 president Bush said that people would forget 9-11 but he would never forget. I'm sure the families of the people who were murdered on that beautiful day in September are glad that there are some people who do not forget that day but continue to bring it up-- just like we still remember the massacre of December the 7th. I will never forget hearing those phone messages as people called their answering machines to say good bye to their families. I will never forget that people had to jump out of the twin towers to escape the flames. It's shameful that other people would want us to forget.


Ok, who WANTS us to forget? Is there some mass group of people out there plotting to erase any memory of 9/11? I know the Holocaust was bad but does that mean I have to bring it up as much as possible? Everybody knows 9/11 was bad, which is the problem. Rudy keeps talking about 9/11, something that all voters will agree was bad, when he should be talking about the issues.

[Thrizzle]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I remember after 9-11 president Bush said that people would forget 9-11 but he would never forget. I'm sure the families of the people who were murdered on that beautiful day in September are glad that there are some people who do not forget that day but continue to bring it up-- just like we still remember the massacre of December the 7th.

If Bush still remembers 9/11, why did he say this when asked about finding Bin Laden, "I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."

Bush, Guiliani, all these phonies who use 9/11 as political capital dont really give a damn about it, because if they did they would expend every resource available to bring Bin Laden to justice.

[shoe1985]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
If Bush still remembers 9/11, why did he say this when asked about finding Bin Laden, "I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."

Bush, Guiliani, all these phonies who use 9/11 as political capital dont really give a damn about it, because if they did they would expend every resource available to bring Bin Laden to justice.

Exactly

Lynn, clarify something for me, would you rather someone for President who had to work to get where they are, or have it handed to them because of name value?

I wouldn't vote for the Kennedy who is in Congress because he isn't what I am looking for. Now there are many people who will because he is a Kennedy. The guy grew up with a silver spoon, like George W. They are geared more towards big business and greedy corporations.

I like Obama because he seems to actually care for the American people. He has good ideas that might not get made into bills, but who knows? George W is far from being a good President. Like I said many times before, he will go down as one of the worst Presidents in history, maybe worse than Hoover.

If I have to choose between Rudy and Hillary, I will vote Hillary, but not because she is the best person for the job, but because Rudy is such a terrible choice. We can have all the safety you want, but there is more to this job than safety. Also, don't we have people in charge to make sure America is safe? Maybe it is called Homeland Security? The President should have more pressing matters like the economy or healthcare.

I believe that most people are more worried about jobs and whether they can afford healthcare than whether we will get attacked again. I am voting for the future and not the present in the next election, I hope everyone else does the same. It is time to get rid of things like Social Security and place that money into people's 401k plans so people have it to retire with.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by shoe1985
Exactly

Lynn, clarify something for me, would you rather someone for President who had to work to get where they are, or have it handed to them because of name value?

I wouldn't vote for the Kennedy who is in Congress because he isn't what I am looking for. Now there are many people who will because he is a Kennedy. The guy grew up with a silver spoon, like George W. They are geared more towards big business and greedy corporations.

I like Obama because he seems to actually care for the American people. He has good ideas that might not get made into bills, but who knows? George W is far from being a good President. Like I said many times before, he will go down as one of the worst Presidents in history, maybe worse than Hoover.

If I have to choose between Rudy and Hillary, I will vote Hillary, but not because she is the best person for the job, but because Rudy is such a terrible choice. We can have all the safety you want, but there is more to this job than safety. Also, don't we have people in charge to make sure America is safe? Maybe it is called Homeland Security? The President should have more pressing matters like the economy or healthcare.

I believe that most people are more worried about jobs and whether they can afford healthcare than whether we will get attacked again. I am voting for the future and not the present in the next election, I hope everyone else does the same. It is time to get rid of things like Social Security and place that money into people's 401k plans so people have it to retire with.


My only problem with electing people who come from powerful families is that it happens way more often than not. It's kind of how the system is set up: the son of a respected senator coming from a wealthy family gets a law degree and eventually decides to walk in dad's footsteps. If more of our leaders were poor or middle class guys who had to work their way up, then it would be a lot easier for us. Unfortunately, things haven't turned out that way and we're going to have to listen to their positions on the issues beyond anything else.

Hell, Kennedy's dad achieved his legacy by bootlegging and working hand in hand with organized crime. Nixon's dad, on the other hand, ran a small lemon farm. Yet, we still look at JFK as someone who understood the plight of the working man and Nixon as a mean old grouch who didn't give a shit about anyone.

As for Clinton vs. Giuliani, I don't know if I would choose Hillary over Rudy. Personality-wise, I think I prefer Hillary by a very thin hairline margin (which to me says very little for her because I loathe Giuliani). However, I don't really know where they stand on anything other than domestic issues. Hillary keeps throwing out the usual Democratic talking points on Iraq, but hasn't admitted any fault in voting for it. Giuliani, from what I understand, wants to keep us in Iraq and has no real ideas for handling it except to continue what we're doing.

[shoe1985]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
As for Clinton vs. Giuliani, I don't know if I would choose Hillary over Rudy. Personality-wise, I think I prefer Hillary by a very thin hairline margin (which to me says very little for her because I loathe Giuliani). However, I don't really know where they stand on anything other than domestic issues. Hillary keeps throwing out the usual Democratic talking points on Iraq, but hasn't admitted any fault in voting for it. Giuliani, from what I understand, wants to keep us in Iraq and has no real ideas for handling it except to continue what we're doing.


If I remember correctly, from a past interview with Hillary, she said she was duped into voting for the war because of the belief that there were WMDS in Iraq. This has of course turned out to be false and everyone has admitted to it.

What can you do now? We are in war and if we leave we are in trouble. Deadlines need to be made and let Iraqis control Iraq.

[Lynn7]

No one has ever duped Hillary. She is all about strategizing. She really has no core philosophy about this stuff. If she gets in she will raise taxes for sure and create massive programs. That is for sure. The problem is that she is a horrible manager (see her health care fiasco) and she will just make huge bureaucracies that cost the tax payers bundles of money and she will get to be the first female president and will fly around in Airforce One. The only good thing is that if she gets in it will only be for one term and the bad thing is that she will be a disaster.

Shoe, you said don't I prefer someone who worked to become president and compared Bush (silver spooned son of Bush) to Obama. Well all I have to say is that although Bush came from wealth he didn't work less than Obama. They both went to college. They both had jobs later. They both served in elective office.

But, I would prefer to have a president who actually has some experience in the world. Mitt Romney is someone like that who has run companies and ran the Olympics. He at least has some knowledge of real management and real economics as opposed to pie in the sky theories of how things should be if we lived in a eutopia. But I think Mitt is also from a background of wealth so he would be disqualified by you if I am right about that.

[shoe1985]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Shoe, you said don't I prefer someone who worked to become president and compared Bush (silver spooned son of Bush) to Obama. Well all I have to say is that although Bush came from wealth he didn't work less than Obama. They both went to college. They both had jobs later. They both served in elective office.


Being able to study George W for one of my classes I learned a lot about the man. W didn't do much work. He would start a business, it would fail, his dad would bail him out. In college he was a D student and the main reason he got into the college that he did was because of daddy. His dad did pretty much everything for him and his brother. His name got him into every office he has held. He is no leader that is for damn sure.

I am studying Obama now, so I can't really say a lot about him yet, but I am finding it hard not to like the guy, similar to the Republicans are trying to do now.

I am preparing for the next elections by reading up on all the candidates, what they voted for, and how I feel they will serve this country. I have looked at Hillary, Rudy, Mitt Romney, and a few others. I like Mitt Romney also, but I still like Obama the best.

We need someone with fresh ideas because the way this country is headed, we are going to need more than experience.

My top 3 things I am looking for in the next President:
1. Economy - I want to see if the person has enough good ideas to keep everyone from college to non college educated people to succeed.
2. Healthcare - We all need it, and it has become a right for us all.
3. Immigration - This goes with the first two. Illegals are running the healthcare system dry for those who can't afford it, and pushing wages down.

The war is not a big topic for me. As long as we keep funding where it is at and start actually making the Iraqis meet deadlines, it should be fine. Of course that won't happen because certain people have too much money invested in the country, oil people?

Lynn, don't think about security in this election because the President has people in charge of that, Homeland Security anyone? FBI? CIA? If they keep doing the great job they have been, things will be fine.

Now I could make a change and go Republican or Independent if I see a candidate I can get behind. I don't see that though. I am getting sick of all this bickering by Repubs and Dems, and I want to see some actual work get done. Both sides are corrupt, but I have been doing some research and it seems that the Dems are pushing for lobbyists to be banned or something to that effect, while Repubs won't allow it, too much money missing from their pockets?

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by shoe1985
Being able to study George W for one of my classes I learned a lot about the man. W didn't do much work. He would start a business, it would fail, his dad would bail him out. In college he was a D student and the main reason he got into the college that he did was because of daddy. His dad did pretty much everything for him and his brother. His name got him into every office he has held. He is no leader that is for damn sure.

I am studying Obama now, so I can't really say a lot about him yet, but I am finding it hard not to like the guy, similar to the Republicans are trying to do now.

I am preparing for the next elections by reading up on all the candidates, what they voted for, and how I feel they will serve this country. I have looked at Hillary, Rudy, Mitt Romney, and a few others. I like Mitt Romney also, but I still like Obama the best.

We need someone with fresh ideas because the way this country is headed, we are going to need more than experience.

My top 3 things I am looking for in the next President:
1. Economy - I want to see if the person has enough good ideas to keep everyone from college to non college educated people to succeed.
2. Healthcare - We all need it, and it has become a right for us all.
3. Immigration - This goes with the first two. Illegals are running the healthcare system dry for those who can't afford it, and pushing wages down.

The war is not a big topic for me. As long as we keep funding where it is at and start actually making the Iraqis meet deadlines, it should be fine. Of course that won't happen because certain people have too much money invested in the country, oil people?

Lynn, don't think about security in this election because the President has people in charge of that, Homeland Security anyone? FBI? CIA? If they keep doing the great job they have been, things will be fine.

Now I could make a change and go Republican or Independent if I see a candidate I can get behind. I don't see that though. I am getting sick of all this bickering by Repubs and Dems, and I want to see some actual work get done. Both sides are corrupt, but I have been doing some research and it seems that the Dems are pushing for lobbyists to be banned or something to that effect, while Repubs won't allow it, too much money missing from their pockets?

And I'm sure your professor was very objective about George W. His dad did not get him elected to be president. Bush Sr. was known as a nice guy but he was not known as a great president. Bush Sr. did not get George W elected as governor. Everyone thought George W was nuts to run against Ann Richards who had been a very popular governor in Texas. The Dems in Texas spoke highly of George W before he ran. The media even liked him cause he had been a good governor in Texas and brought the two parties together.

If you know anything about those colleges everyone gets in cause they know someone or because they fit into a minority group to even numbers. He was a c student. C is average as far as I know. I do know that when he was at college he was not serious about too much. HE sounds so different from the kids I went to college with who were all very serious about their studies :rolleyes:

Now did you hear Hillary did not pass her bar exam the first time she took it up north? She passed it in Arkansas from what I heard. Does that mean she is not smart enough to be president? Does that mean she was not successful?

[shoe1985]

Originally posted by Lynn7
And I'm sure your professor was very objective about George W. His dad did not get him elected to be president. Bush Sr. was known as a nice guy but he was not known as a great president. Bush Sr. did not get George W elected as governor. Everyone thought George W was nuts to run against Ann Richards who had been a very popular governor in Texas. The Dems in Texas spoke highly of George W before he ran. The media even liked him cause he had been a good governor in Texas and brought the two parties together.

If you know anything about those colleges everyone gets in cause they know someone or because they fit into a minority group to even numbers. He was a c student. C is average as far as I know. I do know that when he was at college he was not serious about too much. HE sounds so different from the kids I went to college with who were all very serious about their studies :rolleyes:

Now did you hear Hillary did not pass her bar exam the first time she took it up north? She passed it in Arkansas from what I heard. Does that mean she is not smart enough to be president? Does that mean she was not successful?

In Pa George Sr. is actually considered a good president. We actually did well with him in office, better with Clinton, poor with George W. Many people voted for George W because of his father's name.

I guess it depends on your job and education you have really. My dad worked at a factory his whole life, retired good. My brother works at the same factory and is doing well, but not as well as my dad did.

Something many people forget is that we need to make an American not just for college educated, but for those without college too. This is were smaller jobs come in. Why do you think people complain so much about manufacturing jobs going overseas? These are jobs that those who couldn't go to college for certain reasons to at least have a chance at doing something to make it in life.

Not everyone does great the first time, that is what makes America great. We are taught to keep trying and never give up.

[Moviefan1234]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Now did you hear Hillary did not pass her bar exam the first time she took it up north? She passed it in Arkansas from what I heard. Does that mean she is not smart enough to be president? Does that mean she was not successful?

That isn't a very sound argument considering the fact of how challenging bar exams are in comparison to normal college midterms, papers, and final exams. There are many people who are very intelligent who struggle on the bar exams. College, on the other hand, is really not that hard as long as you put your time in your classes and prepare for the exams.

[shoe1985]

So I watched this Democracy Convention and wasn't too impressed with anyone. Everyone seemed to try and outdo the other. People are flip flopping worse than Kerry and Bush did the last election. Hopefully someone does better on the Republican side.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Moviefan1234
That isn't a very sound argument considering the fact of how challenging bar exams are in comparison to normal college midterms, papers, and final exams. There are many people who are very intelligent who struggle on the bar exams. College, on the other hand, is really not that hard as long as you put your time in your classes and prepare for the exams.

I am not judging her as being stupid but people need to apply the same standards to people. George W graduated college with a BS and an MBA. He attended college before his dad was VP or President so let's say he got in to Ivy League colleges cause of connections but the connections weren't higher than most kids who attended back then. And even Chelsea Clinton has benefited from her parents' connections so its not like the Dems are pure of using connections. Gore too.