Xenophon
Gone and forgotten
Hillary is tanned and rested, just waiting for her shot.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Modicum?
You would do well to learn your own history.
Clinton veered back to the middle big time - his approval by voters happened in spite of anger within the liberal wing of his own party who thought him conceding to the demands of the Republican Congress.
Go back and study up on the transformative welfare reform battle. Clinton sounded like a small government republican -and his approval numbers went up because of it. In effect, he told the liberals to stuff it, as well as outmatched Newt in the PR battle during the budget face off.
Clinton was a far superior elected politician than anything Obama has shown to date. Perhaps Obama will figure this out and veer to the middle just as Clinton did, and not be taken down by the liberals - who most of America disagrees with.
Clinton also had a rocky start, as you'll recall. Clinton, elected by a mere plurality, took his early lumps and rebounded - as you point out, by tacking to the center. That is not to say Obama will take Clinton's path, but I'm sure he's well aware of it. Only time will tell.
Correct- Clinton had a rocky start to be sure, but he was also more intelligent and capable than Obama - far quicker on his feet and able to alter course - much to the chagrin of Republicans who wanted him defeated.
Yes - I said Clinton was more intelligent and capable than Obama. Obama, minus teleprompter, has yet to prove himself intelligent, and certainly during his first 8 months, has proven a terribly incapable leader.
We shall see if he can remedy these shortcomings...
Hillary.Does Obama Face a 2012 Challenge In His Own Party?
Hillary is tanned and rested, just waiting for her shot.
Y'all just loved that general election between Rudy and Hillary, didn't you?
2012 is practically an eternity away in political terms. The only prediction I'd make at this point is people making predictions will most likely end up eating their hats.![]()
True. Clinton's health care program went down in flames, and he returned to actually have an over 60% approval rating by the time he left office, in spite of the sex scandal. Obama really does want to lead more like Clinton, with at least a modicum of bipartisanship. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that will be possible until the Republican Party gets its act together. It's counterproductive for him to continue to try to reach out to Republicans when they are currently being run by radicals, their leadership kowtowing to the loudest voices.
Modicum?
You would do well to learn your own history.
Clinton veered back to the middle big time - his approval by voters happened in spite of anger within the liberal wing of his own party who thought him conceding to the demands of the Republican Congress.
Go back and study up on the transformative welfare reform battle. Clinton sounded like a small government republican -and his approval numbers went up because of it. In effect, he told the liberals to stuff it, as well as outmatched Newt in the PR battle during the budget face off.
Clinton was a far superior elected politician than anything Obama has shown to date. Perhaps Obama will figure this out and veer to the middle just as Clinton did, and not be taken down by the liberals - who most of America disagrees with.
Watching obama crumble before our eyes is definitely becoming fun to watch. I'm less concerned about him now than I was before. Soon he will be relegated to the "complete joke of a President" category, and his remaining time in his one and only term will be nothing more than a token presence in the White House.
I saw it coming...![]()
As a Democrat, Hillary Clinton does have the potential to challenge Obama in 2012
Thankfully, no republican has that potential
Clinton has an IQ in the mid 170's, Obama'a is mid 120's. He may want to govern like Clinton, but he just doesn't have the brains for it. Mid 120's isn't stupid by any means, but Clinton is at the extreme end of the bell curve.
Hillary would be the POTUS today--& all of us could sleep much better. Because one thing she isn't is an America hating--socialist.[/B][/COLOR]
As a Democrat, Hillary Clinton does have the potential to challenge Obama in 2012
Thankfully, no republican has that potential
There are rumblings that Joe Scarborough might even throw his hat in the ring due to lack of centrist Republicans. Frankly, I like him as one of the saner, no-nonsense conservatives, but the poor guy has had his face on television far too long, and the opposition (whomever that might be) would rip him apart in no time by putting up on the Internet every controversial word Scarborough has ever uttered. (See my post under MEDIA re Internet Perils. The next two cycles are gonna be a bitch for any candidate.)
Clinton also had a rocky start, as you'll recall. Clinton, elected by a mere plurality, took his early lumps and rebounded - as you point out, by tacking to the center. That is not to say Obama will take Clinton's path, but I'm sure he's well aware of it. Only time will tell.
Correct- Clinton had a rocky start to be sure, but he was also more intelligent and capable than Obama - far quicker on his feet and able to alter course - much to the chagrin of Republicans who wanted him defeated.
Yes - I said Clinton was more intelligent and capable than Obama. Obama, minus teleprompter, has yet to prove himself intelligent, and certainly during his first 8 months, has proven a terribly incapable leader.
We shall see if he can remedy these shortcomings...
I'm not sure about the intelligence factor, but without knowing Obama personally the indicators are that they are probably about even. The question is whether Obama is more of a damn the torpedoes risk taker than Clinton, or whether his early losses will make him more willing to work on incremental change as Clinton did. IMO it's a question of temperament, not intellect. Not much in his record to draw from, so how he will react to a few major defeats is the mystery. Stay tuned, it's going to be an interesting 3 1/2 years.![]()
Correct- Clinton had a rocky start to be sure, but he was also more intelligent and capable than Obama - far quicker on his feet and able to alter course - much to the chagrin of Republicans who wanted him defeated.
Yes - I said Clinton was more intelligent and capable than Obama. Obama, minus teleprompter, has yet to prove himself intelligent, and certainly during his first 8 months, has proven a terribly incapable leader.
We shall see if he can remedy these shortcomings...
I'm not sure about the intelligence factor, but without knowing Obama personally the indicators are that they are probably about even. The question is whether Obama is more of a damn the torpedoes risk taker than Clinton, or whether his early losses will make him more willing to work on incremental change as Clinton did. IMO it's a question of temperament, not intellect. Not much in his record to draw from, so how he will react to a few major defeats is the mystery. Stay tuned, it's going to be an interesting 3 1/2 years.![]()
This is a long article, one for printing and bedside reading, but it clearly points out the similarities between the Clinton and Obama styles, with Obama even going further on such things as teacher tenuring (he wants to abolish it as means testing), and affirmative action (to include ALL disadvantaged students, not just blacks).
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/magazine/23clintonism-t.html
I'm not sure about the intelligence factor, but without knowing Obama personally the indicators are that they are probably about even. The question is whether Obama is more of a damn the torpedoes risk taker than Clinton, or whether his early losses will make him more willing to work on incremental change as Clinton did. IMO it's a question of temperament, not intellect. Not much in his record to draw from, so how he will react to a few major defeats is the mystery. Stay tuned, it's going to be an interesting 3 1/2 years.![]()
This is a long article, one for printing and bedside reading, but it clearly points out the similarities between the Clinton and Obama styles, with Obama even going further on such things as teacher tenuring (he wants to abolish it as means testing), and affirmative action (to include ALL disadvantaged students, not just blacks).
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/magazine/23clintonism-t.html
Moving affirmative action to an economic basis instead of racial? That would make a ton of sense.
Y'all just loved that general election between Rudy and Hillary, didn't you?
2012 is practically an eternity away in political terms. The only prediction I'd make at this point is people making predictions will most likely end up eating their hats.![]()
True. Clinton's health care program went down in flames, and he returned to actually have an over 60% approval rating by the time he left office, in spite of the sex scandal. Obama really does want to lead more like Clinton, with at least a modicum of bipartisanship. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that will be possible until the Republican Party gets its act together. It's counterproductive for him to continue to try to reach out to Republicans when they are currently being run by radicals, their leadership kowtowing to the loudest voices.
Modicum?
You would do well to learn your own history.
Clinton veered back to the middle big time - his approval by voters happened in spite of anger within the liberal wing of his own party who thought him conceding to the demands of the Republican Congress.
Go back and study up on the transformative welfare reform battle. Clinton sounded like a small government republican -and his approval numbers went up because of it. In effect, he told the liberals to stuff it, as well as outmatched Newt in the PR battle during the budget face off.
Clinton was a far superior elected politician than anything Obama has shown to date. Perhaps Obama will figure this out and veer to the middle just as Clinton did, and not be taken down by the liberals - who most of America disagrees with.
Sounds UnAmerican to me.Watching obama crumble before our eyes is definitely becoming fun to watch. I'm less concerned about him now than I was before. Soon he will be relegated to the "complete joke of a President" category, and his remaining time in his one and only term will be nothing more than a token presence in the White House.
I saw it coming...![]()
You are a joke and an embarrassment as a citizen.
Clinton also had a rocky start, as you'll recall. Clinton, elected by a mere plurality, took his early lumps and rebounded - as you point out, by tacking to the center. That is not to say Obama will take Clinton's path, but I'm sure he's well aware of it. Only time will tell.
Correct- Clinton had a rocky start to be sure, but he was also more intelligent and capable than Obama - far quicker on his feet and able to alter course - much to the chagrin of Republicans who wanted him defeated.
Yes - I said Clinton was more intelligent and capable than Obama. Obama, minus teleprompter, has yet to prove himself intelligent, and certainly during his first 8 months, has proven a terribly incapable leader.
We shall see if he can remedy these shortcomings...
Clinton has an IQ in the mid 170's, Obama'a is mid 120's. He may want to govern like Clinton, but he just doesn't have the brains for it. Mid 120's isn't stupid by any means, but Clinton is at the extreme end of the bell curve.
True. Clinton's health care program went down in flames, and he returned to actually have an over 60% approval rating by the time he left office, in spite of the sex scandal. Obama really does want to lead more like Clinton, with at least a modicum of bipartisanship. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that will be possible until the Republican Party gets its act together. It's counterproductive for him to continue to try to reach out to Republicans when they are currently being run by radicals, their leadership kowtowing to the loudest voices.
Modicum?
You would do well to learn your own history.
Clinton veered back to the middle big time - his approval by voters happened in spite of anger within the liberal wing of his own party who thought him conceding to the demands of the Republican Congress.
Go back and study up on the transformative welfare reform battle. Clinton sounded like a small government republican -and his approval numbers went up because of it. In effect, he told the liberals to stuff it, as well as outmatched Newt in the PR battle during the budget face off.
Clinton was a far superior elected politician than anything Obama has shown to date. Perhaps Obama will figure this out and veer to the middle just as Clinton did, and not be taken down by the liberals - who most of America disagrees with.
Wow, you're not clueing me in about Clinton. I used to laugh when he was described as a liberal, not just by FUXU newscorp network either, but by all of the corporate media right-wingers. I had such hopes, especially in the second term that he might try to turn around some of the idiocy, the drug war, and get rid of the death penalty. But he went along with republicans, when he could have, like Reagan did with Democrats in Congress, vetoed the hell out of everything. He could have massively stopped the slide, prevented much of the wholesale giveaway of the American standard of living.
Clinton's right-wingedness, was a primary reason that I didn't care for Hillary, and voted for Obama.