PDA

View Full Version : Ferraro foot-in-mouth disease?



pooltchr
03-11-2008, 05:18 PM
This is the same woman who was an unsuccessful vice presidential candidate, now saying if Obama was a white man, he wouldn't be where he is today!!!!!!
Obama fired a campaign aid for calling Hillary a monster. Hillary says the comment was out of line, but it's just one of those things that happens in the heat of campaigning.
I wonder if Geraldine knows that she might never have been on the Dem ticket if she hadn't been a female.
I have to admit it's kinda fun to watch the Dems stumble through this whole process. From not counting deligates from two states, to all the race-baiting, and feminatzi-ism, Hillary claiming to have years of foreign policy experience, the two of them trying to stain the other with NAFTA and war votes....this is better than the 3 stooges!!!! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif
Steve

LWW
03-12-2008, 04:29 AM
You forgot to add in the brewing election scandal in NY where Obama was said to receive zero votes in certain precincts ... and a recount shows he actually WON many of them.

Or the one in NH where the votes were moved by the Sec of State from a key carded vault to a school ... and then left unattended where a news crew found the many boxes, all opened.

Or the one where a wavering Hillary SD is all of a sudden exposed in a sex scandal.

And the leftists cheered on.

LWW

DickLeonard
03-12-2008, 07:10 AM
Pooltchr your right the Democrats are imating the two boobs we have in the White House exactly. Sad to say I think we could be looking at 8 more years of it.####

Deeman3
03-12-2008, 08:53 AM
Dick,

I don't know how the Democrats do it. They can take a stone cold mortal lock on an election and put up, perhaps, the two worse candidates in the history of politics, play race and gender cards and wonder why they lose. I am scratching my head here but wonder how they can manage this along with the ineptitude of the new congress. It's almost like the right has grimplins working in the party for them. Maybe they do. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Sid_Vicious
03-12-2008, 07:59 PM
Fact is, any kind of an honest thinking, non politically biased person would agree, "The statement by that lady was totally accurate." No way that a white contender against Hillary, without the wave of black voters which Obama has,,,they'd be up sh!t creek WO a paddle. it is what it is...sid

LWW
03-13-2008, 04:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sid_Vicious</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fact is, any kind of an honest thinking, non politically biased person would agree, "The statement by that lady was totally accurate." No way that a white contender against Hillary, without the wave of black voters which Obama has,,,they'd be up sh!t creek WO a paddle. it is what it is...sid </div></div>
Yes, but the DNC prefers dogma over truth, hyperbole over reason, intent over result, and despises free thought.

Their dilemma is that they rigged the nomination to guarantee victory for Hillary. They voided the will of the people in 2 states for bucking the system. They rigged the delegate count in a very Stalinesque manner where even if an upstart came into the mix and made a serious run the party elite could void ... again ... the "will of the people" come convention time.

Now, what they didn't consider is that a black man would rise to the top.

Now, they have to show their true colors towards minority voters ... house servants who should do as they are told in exchange for some table scraps ... or risk tearing the party asunder as the Clintonista mount an insurgency.

I said in November, 2006 we would witness the shortest parabola of power in US history with the DNC and they have done nothing to change my mind.

LWW

Deeman3
03-13-2008, 07:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sid_Vicious</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fact is, any kind of an honest thinking, non politically biased person would agree, "The statement by that lady was totally accurate." No way that a white contender against Hillary, without the wave of black voters which Obama has,,,they'd be up sh!t creek WO a paddle. it is what it is...sid </div></div>

This is not true. If Obama had only black support, no matter how much of the black vote he received, he would only be getting about 17% of the Democratic vote and, while he may have won a few mostly black populated states, would never have been competitive. On the other hand, if he had been white, with a message of hope as opposed to a candidate like John Edwards who played on people's poor economic situation while basking in a 5,000 sq. ft. mansion and profiting from the very system he critiqued, he may have been acceptable to a wider audience.

I agree he has had less scrutiny than some may have received but, so far, Hillary and her crew have been the ones to highlight his race while playing up the unfairness of the way a poor woman candidate has been treated and ganged up on. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

The bold truth is that the second place candidate who is offering the first place candidate would certainly not be in her position if she were a man, unless, of course, gay marriage had been legal in 1970. Anyone who thinks she would be here, in this race, and almost competitive if she had not married Bill, is delusional at best. How would anyone, woman or man move to NY, run for the Senate and win, unless they had a political organization like Bill's behind them? She got a pass over her association with Bill in NY and now expected it in the primary.

To say Obama is not an unusually talented man, regardless of color, is not fair. He is far too liberal for me, but to say he is only there because of his race is wrong. While it certainly helps him in a few small percentages of the electorate, that is countered by those who won't vote for him for the wrong reasons.

Ferraro is not a racist, she's just playing a card for Hillary. What is so unexpected about that?

LWW
03-13-2008, 09:22 AM
Well said.

LWW

Deeman3
03-13-2008, 12:23 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sid_Vicious</div><div class="ubbcode-body">,,,they'd be up sh!t creek WO a paddle. it is what it is...sid </div></div>


Respectfully, just where do you think the Democratic Party is finding itself about right now?

In addition, is it a fair question that some Democrats are asking themsleves right now:

"If Hillary is such an experienced leader with great organizational skills and knowledge of political process, why is her campaign run so poorly and Obama appearing to be the one with those very skills she chides him for not having?"

I freely admit that if Obama were not running, she would garner support other than women with facial hair and men with a persecution complex. However, is she now in the process of appearing to marginalize all democratic voting segments that have not supported her? This, on its face, would appear to be a poor strategy even if women with wallets like it. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/blush.gif

wolfdancer
03-13-2008, 02:10 PM
"How would anyone, woman or man move to NY, run for the Senate and win, unless they had a political organization like Bill's behind them?"
That's not exactly true...if you think back to Bobby Kennedy, the avg. Joe's candidate (poor boy from Mass. makes good). AND, I guess it helped, being a Democrat.
Still Ny'rs are much more sophisticated about who the elect, then say...California where a "B" movie star, RR, and a steroid using immigrant action "hero", Arnold, can get elected Gov....while a former song and dance actor, George Murphy, won a US Senate seat, and a child movie star, Shirley Temple (Black) was appointed an ambassador....and oddly enough, they were all Republicans.
I'm not sure what their qualifications were besides looking pretty on the big screen....unlike say, a former Rhodes Scholar,GQ cover boy,All-American, Captain of champion Olympic Basketball team, Sullivan award winner, NBA All-Star, Hall-of Fame,...Bill Bradley....who also studied Political Science at Princeton, before he ran for office.
And then there's that failed CEO, with the "slow down, curves ahead" filter in his brain...that.....oh well, another 9 months...while we gestate a replacement boob.

Deeman3
03-13-2008, 03:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"How would anyone, woman or man move to NY, run for the Senate and win, unless they had a political organization like Bill's behind them?"
That's not exactly true...if you think back to Bobby Kennedy, the avg. Joe's candidate (poor boy from Mass. makes good). AND, I guess it helped, being a Democrat.

I still think if Bobby had not been a Kennedy (like being a Clinton but with real money) he might not have been appointed by his bro and then elected.

Still Ny'rs are much more sophisticated about who the elect, then say...California where a "B" movie star, RR, and a steroid using immigrant action "hero", Arnold, can get elected Gov....while a former song and dance actor, George Murphy, won a US Senate seat, and a child movie star, Shirley Temple (Black) was appointed an ambassador....and oddly enough, they were all Republicans.

All very good points but most had some fame, a thing Hillary (aside from a couple of news articles and a small part of the watergate investigations), had little of except for Bill's fame and power. I do give you a nod that not many women could realize a 1,000 percent appreciation on an investment deal in 8 months (mee and you are great examples of that!)

I'm not sure what their qualifications were besides looking pretty on the big screen....unlike say, a former Rhodes Scholar,GQ cover boy,All-American, Captain of champion Olympic Basketball team, Sullivan award winner, NBA All-Star, Hall-of Fame,...Bill Bradley....who also studied Political Science at Princeton, before he ran for office.

Hillary had no good moves to the right, like Bradley did and was a weak rebounder!

And then there's that failed CEO, with the "slow down, curves ahead" filter in his brain...that.....oh well, another 9 months...while we gestate a replacement boob.

But, but, but, but my oil stock did so well...:)


Finaly, how could you disparage Shirley Temple? You are, sir, un-American and an obvious woman hater. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/shocked.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
</div></div>

Deeman3
03-13-2008, 03:46 PM
Wolfdancer,

Of course, I am gleefully polking fun at the recent Obama/Clinton war but seriouly don't know if he can stand up to the Clinton machine and I am genuinely interested in seeing how it plays out. It's better press than Ann Coulter.

On a more serious front, if you have seen the tapes of Obama's
preacher, how will that go down? I know McCain has stupidly not denounced one of his Christian endorcer's anti-semetic positions or at least the man himself but how do you listen to that guy for 20 plus years and not leave the church? Honestly, if my preacher (I don't have one in particular) was talking a bunch of anti-black hate retoric would I be "safe" in staying in that church and issuing a campaign of hope/reconcilliation as my message?

I know the right wing will make some hay out of it but I bet Hillary will use it in some way. If you heard the recorded sermons, some were downright leud (He mimed the rear ending of Monica by Bill, really!) and some just anti-white, GD the USA. It can be argued that Obama does not agree with that message but after 20 years, is that not a thing his wife, kids and others after such long and bitter exposure, would not "appear" to shape his/their world view?

I am not saying he feels that way but many will certainly use this as a weapon against his judgement and not just in the coming general election.

By the way, who is your replacement boob? I'm now looking for a new candidate to support. :0 I want to stick it to the man. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/frown.gif

pooltchr
03-13-2008, 07:15 PM
Dee,
If it's handled properly, it could be the downfall of Obama. The real question to be asked is "Why would anyone volunterily continue to attend a church where they didn't believe the messages being preached?" If you can't come up with a good answer, then the only conclusion you can draw is that Obama feels much the same way.
I really think the Dems will end up destroying each other, long before McCain even has to take a shot!
Steve

LWW
03-14-2008, 02:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">On a more serious front, if you have seen the tapes of Obama's
preacher, how will that go down? </div></div>
The thinking left will disown him.

The rest will either:

-Ignore it.
-Blame Bush.
-Blame Rove.

LWW

Gayle in MD
03-25-2008, 11:43 AM
Funny thing about this thread is that it entirely overlooks the Democratic enthusiasm, greater Democratic fund raising success, and the trend of Republicans jumping ship, from the voting polls, to the Congress.

Pennsylvania is reporting unprecedented numbers of voters changing over to the Democratic Party.

Regardless of how much more the Democrats screw up, by backing the wrong candidate, the war, and this economy, will be the pressing issues when Americans vote, and neither will be looking very good in November, IMO, hence, McCain, who readily, and so brilliantly advertised that he didn't know Sh**t about the economy, and was more than willing to stay in Iraq for another hundred years to win the war on terror... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cry.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif is far from what most Americans embrace in policy preference, at this time.

Given that some of us know the the real base of AlQaeda is in Pakistan, and also know that big oil is making a killing, while the rest of us are paying more and more at the pump, partly due to Middle East instibility, much of it created by Republican policies, and this war presently represents over ten trillion dollars of debt, and four thousand dead, I'd estimate the most McCain can hope for is approximately 30% of the vote, and we all know who they are. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif


But then, it's been years since major combat operations were declared over in Iraq, by the chimp, right? Mission Accomplished, hellova job, Dick! Keep those oil meeting burried!

Gayle in Md.

Deeman3
03-25-2008, 12:26 PM
I see your McCain forgetting that Iran has no Al Queda and raise you Hillary having false memories of landing under gunfire and having to duck bullets....Is a poor memory on one occasion a trump to dozens of lies and false memories?

You are, of course, right. No matter how bad the Democrats mess up, most of the left will support them and no amount of infighting will have any impact on the November election. Please keep the fight alive as long as possible. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

The war represents over ten trillion in debt? I think it has a few complications other than the war. Wait until Barack gets us out of the Middle East and we have no oil, at any price.

Don't worry, as usual, we can tax our way out of this in a few months.

We are still in Germany and Japan 70 years after WWII, why have we not withdrawn from there by your timetable? After all, several Democratic Presidents had the chance to do so. Is being there at a very reduced level for many years not the thing to do to protect international interests? I believe, even Hillary, as wild as her memory seems to be would not propose 100% withdrawl in the timetables the left politics demand her to publically do now. Of course, unless she was under a shower of bullets once again.

pooltchr
03-25-2008, 06:28 PM
Dee,
I think the Dems have a real mess to try and clean up. Hillary built her entire campaign on her non-existant 35 years of experience. Now it seems she needs to embellish her resume in order to make it fit her own facts.
Obama, the darling of the MSM, is now showing signs of his strong socialist leanings, and worse, is starting to look like a serious racist. If you get a chance to read his book, you might be surprised about some of his comments about "white folks".
Yes, the sheepish dems will support whichever nominee the party picks (votes won't matter, this will be a backroom decision by the powers that be in the party).
Of course, the Reps haven't really come up with a candidate that is much better, but he may well win simply because the Dems are split and doing their best to destroy each other.
I don't think there will be a lot of happy citizens during the next 4 years regardless of who wins.
Steve

Majic
03-25-2008, 10:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is the same woman who was an unsuccessful vice presidential candidate, now saying if Obama was a white man, he wouldn't be where he is today!!!!!!
Obama fired a campaign aid for calling Hillary a monster. Hillary says the comment was out of line, but it's just one of those things that happens in the heat of campaigning.
I wonder if Geraldine knows that she might never have been on the Dem ticket if she hadn't been a female.
I have to admit it's kinda fun to watch the Dems stumble through this whole process. From not counting deligates from two states, to all the race-baiting, and feminatzi-ism, Hillary claiming to have years of foreign policy experience, the two of them trying to stain the other with NAFTA and war votes....this is better than the 3 stooges!!!! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif
Steve </div></div>
It was a very silly thing to say and a counter to that would be that if Hillary was not married to Bill where would she be? It cold go on and on. I wonder how Ralph Nader is gonna affect the Dem ticket this time.

Deeman3
03-26-2008, 07:14 AM
Steve,

One thing I did like yesterday was Chelsie's response to the question about Hillary's reaction to the Monica scandal, "It's none of your business!"

She is probably the most honest and decent thing in the Clinton campaign. Now, I might vote for her one day.

ONe thing for sure, politics has become so nasty these days, I really do feel for any of them that try for public office.

I agree with you, we have no good choices but McCain is the lesser of the evils I see.

SKennedy
03-26-2008, 09:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Steve,

One thing I did like yesterday was Chelsie's response to the question about Hillary's reaction to the Monica scandal, "It's none of your business!"

She is probably the most honest and decent thing in the Clinton campaign. Now, I might vote for her one day.

ONe thing for sure, politics has become so nasty these days, I really do feel for any of them that try for public office.

I agree with you, we have no good choices but McCain is the lesser of the evils I see. </div></div>

I really enjoyed your post previous to this one. You "hammered" it!
As for little Ms. Clinton.....I don't have a problem with her answer and I did not hear or see any tape on the matter, but I understand the individual who asked the question is very pro Hillary and was asking the question in an attempt to show how strong Hillary is. It was not someone from the right.

Gayle in MD
03-27-2008, 07:41 AM
I think Geraldine's comments, and Sid's comments, were right on target. I'm proud that she refused to make any apologies for them, and stood her ground, and also think that Sid is right on target, IMO, since most of those black votes would all be going to Hillary, and many of the white male votes, also, if men were not so threatened by the thought of a woman president.

Obama wouldn't be where he is if he were white. His meager accomplishments would be seen as nothing to crow about, if he were white. The press, and many other Americans would be far less forgiving of Obama, if people weren't so afraid of being accused of being racist.

Hillary Clinton is correct when she states that she has been vetted. The biggest problem that any Democratic candidate will face will be the Republican Attack Machine, which she has absorbed in spades for years, and I can think of none who have managed to succeed in spite of it, with flying colors, as Hillary has.

Likewise, George W. Bush, an ex coke head alcoholic, who skipped out of serving in Vietnam with Daddy's help, would never have even been Governor had his name been George W. Smith, let alone President.

Further, I have yet to hear Hiullary make any statement directed at race, and Bill's statement about jackson winning South Carolina, branded as a racist statement, most certainly wasn't racist, as even Jessie Jackson stated.

The reason why Obama has been embraced by the press, is because the Washington Press hates the Clintons. Since most of the Washington Press is Republican, that shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

No white candidate, man or woman, would be given the soft treatment Obama has recieved, and in fact, had Bill and Hillary embraced such a minister as Obama's Reverend, included him in their campaigns, and shared a relationship with him for thirty years, they'd have been tarred and feathered and ran out of the country given his hateful, racist anti-American statements. I'm sick and tired of blacks demanding that whites get down on their knees, give up their jobs, and beg forgiveness, over a few poor choices when speaking, while they themselves display reverse discrimination, blatantly. Imagaine is whites tried to hold a Miss White America! A White Coalition? A White College Fund?

To say that Hillary would not be in her position if she were a man, is a statement which cannot be proven, given that many of those who heard her speech as Valedictorian of her class, in one of the top colleges in this country, predicted that she would be the first woman president. I don't recall any such predictions for W., and further, if there has ever been a president who could never have made any mark of exceptionalism to be elected to any political office, who had absolutely no business even running, but for his name, it was W., and his failures and incompetence have surely proven that!

Less scrutiny against Obama hardly covers what I have witnessed. The spin against both Clintons has been unfair, and distorted, IMO, while Obama has been given a bye altogether. The ability to orate, is hardly a determining talentsufficient to remove this country from the mess created by George Bush and the Republican Party.

Four thousand dead, and OBL is still recruiting, and threatening.

Gayle in MD
03-27-2008, 08:03 AM
There is little doubt that our economic woes are in great part due to the debt Bush has created to pay for this war, and his tax breaks, not to mention the huge waste of American dollars, which somehow either vanished, or ended up in the hands of insurgents, or American Fascist Corporate War Profiteerers.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The war represents over ten trillion in debt? I think it has a few complications other than the war. Wait until Barack gets us out of the Middle East and we have no oil, at any price.

Don't worry, as usual, we can tax our way out of this in a few months.
</div></div>

If given a choice of raising money through taxes, to solve our problems, energy and otherwise, versus sending our troops to die in another country's civil war, I'll gladly pay the higher taxes any day.

As for Germany and Japan, anything other than maintaining an Embassy in foreign countries, is a waste of taxpayers money, IMO. This is just the kind of waste that we should be eliminating.

Hillary's statement war partially true, as there apparently were, real safety concerns about that trip, according to the former Press Secretary. OTOH, Iraq was never involved with al Qaeda, or 9/11. I believe most voters will place greater concern over McCain being confused over just whom it is we are fighing against in Iraq, and which country is supporting them, than whether or not Hillary exaggerated about an incident that occured over ten years ago. I often can't recall events which happened last week, in exactitude, and my life is far from being the eventful life of a First Lady, who traveled to eighty foreign countries, years ago. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Deeman3
03-27-2008, 08:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think Geraldine's comments, and Sid's comments, were right on target. I'm proud that she refused to make any apologies for them, and stood her ground, and also think that Sid is right on target, IMO, since most of those black votes would all be going to Hillary, and many of the white male votes, also, if men were not so threatened by the thought of a woman president.

</div></div>

I still disagree that American won't elect a woman, just not this women. Even now, most of the hate toward her is coming from within the Democratic Party, at most from the far left. Later, it will come from the right.

Of course, what is getting her now is exposition of her many lies, the "under gunfire" just being thje most obvious which rational persons can't sweep away in light of photos, film, witnesses. This is a pattern that goes from the rediculous, named after Edmond Hillary, to her daughter dodging falling towers, to being clueless that Bill was "playing around".

Now the biggest scandal I have seen, she is related to Angelina Jollie. Have you seen these two women? Even Bill could tell you there is no relation of one to the other. I mean, have you seen Angelina? Have you seen Hillary? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Gayle in MD
03-27-2008, 08:54 AM
She's not the one who found the connection to Jolie. That came from one of those websites which research various people's geneology.

Who is Edmond?

Many lies? Hillary is far from having the US franchise on lies. That award goes to the chimp, and his oil friends, Dickhead and Condosleeza! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

I never thought we'd be considering a presidential candidate who's wife intimated that she was not proud of AMerica until her husband became a nominee for President! Worse, a man who is nicknamed Dr. Jeckle in the Senate Office Building!

Hillary would do the best job. But alas, we've become a country that allows the press to shoose the President, and they don't like Hillary, but she's managed to rise above everything they've thrown at her, and has accomplished more than any woman since Elenor Roosevelt. I can assure you, no one will ever be contemplating whether or not smile/nod Laura can win the election for president! Hillary is by far the toughest of the three, and the most intelligent. Atleast she knows who the Iranian radicals ARE!

Gayle in Md.

Deeman3
03-27-2008, 10:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">She's not the one who found the connection to Jolie. That came from one of those websites which research various people's geneology.
Of course I was joking about that.

Who is Edmond?

Sir Edmond (sp?) Hillary was an Englishman who, along with Tenzing (sp?) Norgay, was the first person to climb Mt. Everest. Hillary claimed she was named after him. Unfortunately, she was born a few years before his historic climb.

Many lies? Hillary is far from having the US franchise on lies. That award goes to the chimp, and his oil friends, Dickhead and Condosleeza! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

So, if true, you want to support another person who lies, this one with the exception of proven lies, not just coloring information?

I never thought we'd be considering a presidential candidate who's wife intimated that she was not proud of AMerica until her husband became a nominee for President! Worse, a man who is nicknamed Dr. Jeckle in the Senate Office Building!

If there is evidence of McCain turning into Mr. Hyde, I'll help pay for his shave or help impeach him. I am not considering a candidate who's wife believes as you say. I am not supporting Obama.

Hillary would do the best job. But alas, we've become a country that allows the press to shoose the President, and they don't like Hillary, but she's managed to rise above everything they've thrown at her, and has accomplished more than any woman since Elenor Roosevelt. I can assure you, no one will ever be contemplating whether or not smile/nod Laura can win the election for president! Hillary is by far the toughest of the three, and the most intelligent. Atleast she knows who the Iranian radicals ARE!

All good points except, of course, Elenor nor Laura have never considered their White House experience qualifiers for running for President. I admit, if they ran, I'd support Hillary.



</div></div>

eg8r
03-27-2008, 11:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To say that Hillary would not be in her position if she were a man, is a statement which cannot be proven</div></div> And neither can the stupid statements about Obama, not being where he is if he was white, be proven.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">given that many of those who heard her speech as Valedictorian of her class, in one of the top colleges in this country, predicted that she would be the first woman president. </div></div> Who gives a crap about her speech in college, it means nothing. There are women all over the country that say they will be the first female president but none of them were "lucky" enough to marry Bill Clinton.

eg8r

SKennedy
03-27-2008, 01:07 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To say that Hillary would not be in her position if she were a man, is a statement which cannot be proven</div></div> And neither can the stupid statements about Obama, not being where he is if he was white, be proven.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">given that many of those who heard her speech as Valedictorian of her class, in one of the top colleges in this country, predicted that she would be the first woman president. </div></div> Who gives a crap about her speech in college, it means nothing. There are women all over the country that say they will be the first female president but none of them were "lucky" enough to marry Bill Clinton.

eg8r </div></div>

While it certainly is a tribute to someone to graduate top of their class at a "top" college, it takes a real leap to believe that makes one qualified to be President. And while my wife didn't graduate at the top of her class, she was very near it, and this also from a very large "top" college also. Yet, she was dumb enough to marry me. And to this day I regret not entering the political arena so that she could bask in the sun light of "our" politcal success.....with me as the chief dog catcher and her scooping up the dog mess in the kennels.
My point, aside from pissing off certain folks, is that really smart people don't run for the office of President. She (Hillary) is a smart woman, no doubt about that, but that alone doesn't quailify someone to be "my" President. And as far as the "woman" issue and all us white sexist males who refuse to vote for her because she is a female? Condy Rice! I'd vote for her! Heck, she's not only a woman, but black as well. I could not only show I'm not a sexist, but can also get rid of any guilt feelings I may have for the potential that my ancestors may have owned or mistreated slaves, etc.
Kennedy for Dog Catcher 2012....cuz I married a smart lady!

Gayle in MD
03-29-2008, 10:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">All good points except, of course, Elenor nor Laura have never considered their White House experience qualifiers for running for President. I admit, if they ran, I'd support Hillary.

</div></div>

Deeman,
The longer I know you, the smarter you become! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif