This would be no less than a complete disaster for this nation...1 corrupt president with 10, 000 scandals was enough. Hillary was as big a part of the many scandals that Bill was- she might even be worse actually. It was her who hired the many private investigators (thugs) to harass Bill's women...and harass political enemies. Rose Law firm files were her doing, FBI files and retaliation against opponents with these files and more, etc.
I don't know who in their right mind sees a corrupt first lady (maybe the MOST corrupt first lady? have there been other corrupt first ladies?), and 1. elect her to the senate, and 2. think about voting for her as president. That's pure insanity. No other way around it. Especially at a time like right now...2008 as well. We're in a fight for our survival with islamic terrorism, and no one really thinks Hillary could face that challenge. It's a fight we can win, but will be seriously damaged if we were to elect Hillary. It's mind boggling that a first lady who has proven she was nothing but a liar when her husband was in office could even be a topic of discussion in regards to the presidency. It's not just mind boggling, it's scary as hell.
On the national stage, I don't think she could stand the pressure. She's too corrupt, she's too ill tempered, she's TOO liberal...most Americans that support her now are die-hard democrats that are already too far left as it is, or they're clueless citizens who don't follow any of this, but just think that Hillary is cool or whatever. No doubt, as time goes on, there will be a big campaign to alert Americans to her many scandals and her corrupt way in dealing with problems- letting everyone know that Clinton isn't a woman we can trust with her our security at a time like this, and she's really not a woman we can trust at all as our most powerful leader.
The fact that she is uber liberal, yet trying to look more centrist will come out as well, and most Americans won't stand for her view of the many issues facing us. Abortion, gay rights, defense, and more- Hillary is probably as liberal as they come, but trying to look centrist now by voting in the middle most of the time- she's an opportunist, we all know that...she wouldn't spend much time standing on principal, but rather would put the most effort into voting in a manner that makes her look a certain way to the voting public. That's always the sign of a poor leader- which is why President Bush has taken a stand on tough issues, he leads and acts on principal, not on what's politically best for him at that time. In the age of terrorism and this global war, we need a leader who will do just that- stand up for what he/she believes in and not waver. A Hillary Clinton is a disaster in that respect, and she would be a disaster for America.
The Atlantic has its own very interesting poll on Hillary in 2008.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200507/hillarypoll
Give me a few examples of Hillary's "far left" political beliefs.
Also, I tend to think Newt Gingrich is a better judge than you or I as to whether Hillary is a "political chameleon." And yet he seems to genuinely admire her.
Ahh! The generalizations!
"We're in a fight for our survival with islamic terrorism, and no one really thinks Hillary could face that challenge."
I do. Also, many Americans do. That's much more than "no one"! Temper your rhetoric to better reflect reality. It's okay to disagree, but not to just spout whatever comes to mind.
Josh, why am I your instructor on how to blog?
no one in their right mind thinks that when i said no one i meant NOT A SINGLE PERSON. no one, as in, no real majority...or even a large minority.
hillary would never be tough on terrorism...unlikely any democrat would be. this is why demcorats never get the military vote. because the men and women in uniform know theyre weak on defense, always have been, and probably always will be.
of course you like her...youre an uber PC gay man who supports a far left ideology. youd surely love clinton or any other politician with a (D) (and the word liberal) listed in their title.
i really hope youre kidding. socialized health care isnt far left?
gingrich has talked for yrs about how shes one of the most liberal membersof senate and that shes merely voting in a way that makes her look centrist to attract votes...another negative, since this makes it clear she has no convictions and merely votes to gain more power.
Josh-
I'm one of the least PC people I know, firstly. I think most readings from my blog would confirm that.
Also, Hillary's health care plan wasn't "socialized," it was for universal health insurance, not single payer coverage, which is the "socialist" system Canada uses.
Find me a quote where Gingrich says she's voting to make herself attractive to centrist voters.
Also, when you say no one...IT MEANS NO ONE. You always do this, you say it's some sort of humorous exaggeration. But it isn't humorous, it just makes you sound retarded. Ironically, you do it again in your response to me! "no one in their right mind thinks that when i said no one i meant NOT A SINGLE PERSON"
then you list a few ad hominem attacks on Democrats ("soft on terror" etc) with NO EXAMPLES! Josh, you will never make a meaningful contribution to political discourse without using facts, quotes, and examples. But you are apparently too lazy to do this.