<p>God I hope she doesn't win the dem primaries. But even if she does I highly doubt she could be president-</p>
<p>-As someone else said before, she's a prime example of Politics at work.
(e.g. Was she for the war or against it?)</p>
<p>-She doesn't know what shes talking about (remember the healthcare fiasco)</p>
<p>-She's not very socially intelligent unlike even GWB or many past presidents (remember the offensive gandhi joke?)</p>
<p>-She is NOT a strong person that could effectively lead america in terms of foreign relations in an increasingly globalized world (isn't completely because she's a woman either)</p>
<p>What do you guys think? Right now I'm leaning towards Obama but I don't know enough about him yet...</p>
<p>^ rofl. why didn't you just delete it?
um...I doubt that she'll win.
I don't really like her that much. Everytime she tells a lame stupid joke, the press makes a HUGE deal out of nothing.</p>
<p>I personally would rather see John Edwards or Barack Obama get the nomination, but I do think we need a Democrat in office. I would have a difficult decision to make if it came down to Clinton against Giuliani, but in the end I would have to vote for Clinton (especially because she has her husband as an advisor and he is a brilliant man and the best president of our generation, if not one of the top of all time). Furthermore, her running mate will likely be Obama or Edwards. I do think there is some bias against her because she is a woman. If she was a man the adjectives to describe her would be: competent, model citizen, articulate, and confident. Instead they are: aloof, lacking empathy, and a b****.<br>
Regardless, DEMOCRATS IN 2008!</p>
<p>While I do see (somewhat) your view, I don't really understand "why we need a Democrat in office". With Dems in control of the House and Senate, I'm not sure about giving them the presidency. Having either Obama or Edwards as a potential running mate doesn't sound any more attractive, either. </p>
<p>Well, the government is highly unefficient right now. Any bi-partisan talk is pure bs. If the Democrats control both the House/Senate/White House we will be able to make positive change in this country. Even then, it still will not be ideal, because we only have a slim lead in the Legislative branch in general. </p>
<p>Giuliani looks okay now, but once they start getting into his character/liberal social policies he might not even be the Republican nominee. He is just still riding off 9/11 hype, he was a strong leader then, but we need to move on. In contrast, a candidate like Obama or Edwards would signify the future of this country. They talk about the inexperience of both candidates, but where exactly is Giuliani's experience at that level? He was a mayor, the mayor of the most important city in the world, but still a mayor. Edwards and Obama both have more experience in the federal government than Giuliani.</p>
<p>"She's not very socially intelligent unlike even GWB "</p>
<p>Hillary comes across as articulate and professional, things that can never be said of Bush. Bush comes across as incompetent, awkward, impossible to trust/believe, and unable to speak in public. How that amounts to social intelligence I'll never know.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Edwards?! Never Edwards. He's a bottom feeding trial lawyer who helps drive doctors out of business. **** that sack of ****.
[/quote]
Hey? he represented his clients to the best of his abilities. Nothing wrong with that. He merely did his job and was damn good at it. Any person in power or who has risen through the ranks will perhaps have to make some questionable decisions. Perhaps he did, but now he is using his place in power to help others (he is into poverty awareness etc.) and furthermore, it is better to get your reputation and status through your own hard work than through what your family name is/connections (Bush).</p>
<p>Sorry, have to agree with neverborn; coming from a medical family, don't have much respect for malpractice/personal injury lawyers that become multi-millionaires, like Edwards. He already lost in 2004; I don't personally know any Dems who would vote for him.</p>
<p>Let's see: Clinton, Obama, Edwards? Doesn't sound like that great of a selection to me. I see a lot of moderates voting for Giuliani (R) this election.</p>
<p>willmington: Yes, he did. Edwards is a GREAT lawyer, and was able to convince a jury by pretending to conjure the spirit of a dead child. Edwards is also an immoral bottom feeder. You can be great at your job and be disgustingly immoral. Helping to drive doctors, especially neurosurgeons (there is ONE doctor in the Chicagoland area who does advanced neurosurgery anymore, the rest were scared off by trial lawyers), emergency surgeons (there are doctors that refuse to practice surgery in the ER for fear of being sued), and obstetricians/gynecologists (these people are who Edwards made money off of - suing ob/gyns for not detecting a disease like cerebral palsy before the baby was born) out of business is immoral and I would never vote for someone like that on moral qualms alone. </p>
<p>I also don't think Hillary should be elected. Not solely because I'm an extreme right-winger and she's a socialist weasel, either. I am just sick of dynasty politics. There has been a Clinton or a Bush in either President or Vice President since 1980. Personally, I like Giuliani a LOT.</p>