Next President, Cat Fight, Hillary Clinton vs Condoleezza Rice
 

Whom would you vote?

Considering that neither Democrats or Republicans are fully satisfied with Hillary Clinton, she'd be a bad choice either way. Condi Rice is supposedly mildly pro-choice which isn't going to fly too well with conservative Republicans.

I would say that either vote is a complete waste.

Hillary Clinton is a joke.
She is the only one I have seen who panders even more than John Kerry, and that is saying a lot.
Condoleeza Rice actually seems to have a lot of potential. However, I think she might need a bit more experience first.

I will not even fucking vote in the next election if it's between those two.

If Hillary and Condi Rice run for presidency, Ralph Nader might have a chance to get elected.

i hate all the dumb girls who would vote for a woman for pres simply because they're women. y'know they hold some deep core values.

one thing that will be interesting to see if we ever do have a women president will be the dynamic created by an entirely new axis. by that i mean... currently we have a pretty much 2 sides to each issue as far as ideology goes, dealing with stuff like attitudes towards the role of government with respect to economics and foreign policy. it will be cool to see how the differences between males and females in terms of governing as the chief executive plays a role as well.

Kinda like the people that wouldn't vote for a woman just because she's a woman?

To quote Henry Rollins,
"I would absolutely love to see a black lesbian President, but for God's sake not Condaleezza Rice."

Condi will never be President as a Republican because the Republican party would never support a black woman as a candidate. It just won't happen.

exactly. it's totally ridiculous to make gender the only basis for decision for a position of such importance.

If Condi became the GOP nod, then I'd vote for her. However, I don't think it's her goal to become pres.

David Palmer and Christopher Walken need to run.

THAT is what people want.

It's not that I have something inherently against women, but...
Hillary seems bitchy, and Condoleezza seems too much like a "yes-woman."

Despite having incomplete factual information on the two, I probably wouldn't vote for either of them.

Soooo... the only difference between her and Duhbya is a dick and skin color?

I thought Hillary already had her 2 terms, too?

This thread is Hillarious... >_<

Warner '08.

I'm unsure I could vote for either with any source of conviction at all.

About the only woman qualified about now is Janet Napalitano, the governor of Arizona. Hillary is just nuts. Hell, I lean Democrat and she's way too liberal for me. Rice seems to be more talk than action, though, it's not like she gets the opportunity to do much in this administration. Still, I'd question her ability to be an executive at this point.

Besides, if it is Napalitano vs. McCain, then all of Arizona wins.

I strongly believe that Hillary Clinton is just too invasive and way too protectionist. If I had to, I'd vote for her, but frankly, there are a lot of people I would rather see in office. Condi is just no. Way too conservative.

Yea, and I hate all the dumb...uh....democrats for voting for Kerry because he's a Democrat. Jeez. What were they thinking.

I know I will not be voting for either. Because they both suck.

How come you stopped using caps.

I personally don't think this nation is ready for a female president. Not that I am a feminist or anything, but if we can't even get paid as much as men do in the same positions and we still have these stigmas that men are the politicians, I really doubt anyone with faith in the system would vote a woman in.

There are still a lot (and I mean a lot) of people out there who think that the women of this nation still belong in positions more "tailored" for their "needs."

If those two run, I would strongly recommend the voting-in of a third-party candidate. Any vote for either one of them is a waste.

My money is on Clinton. Not because I'd vote for a democrat, but because Karl Rove said it was likely she'd be nominated. And when is that guy ever wrong?!

Oh and it's a 50/50 chance if she's nominated. Maybe more because, like we have free elections anymore. I can't name a election in recent memory where there wasn't something a little fishy going on. Whether it was Nixon's goons breaking into democrat headquarters, or that eccentric yet love-able nut Ross Perot.

For the record, Rice has stated that she doesn't want to run for president.

I would vote for the losers, i.e. Libertarians, like I did last time, when the next election comes up. Certainly I wouldn't vote Clinton because she is pretty much nuts. Rice is, in reality, a "compassionate conservative", which would make her a better choice than, say, Bush, but... well, y'know. She is still a conservative.

obviously people are going to vote along party lines because they share ideology and values, but voting for somebody strictly based on their gender is just silly.

i don't know.

Condi isn't going to run which therefore makes that point moot, and I think that Hillary is nowhere near as qualified as Joe Biden or Evan Bayh. To clarify this, I do not feel this way because she is a woman, but becase Bayh and Biden have more experience in the senate.

Most of America is not going to vote for either of these.

A good portion of people hate Hillary Clinton, and a good portion of America just doesn't want a female president.

We'll see black president before a woman is what I've always heard.

QFT.

It seems to me that Condolezza is a bit... lacking in control and decisive decision making, but I guess as others have said, she's had little opportunity to showcase her talents.

Hiliary I haven't been following much, but since people apparently percieve her as 'too' liberal, I'll have to invesitage what her stance is on things and then form an opinion on her.

I'd vote for McCain in a heartbeat, but unfortunately Hell will freeze over before the Republicans will ever nominate him. They'd never dream of running someone who isn't 100% unquestioningly loyal to the party.

He's intelligent and actually gets things done, a total opposite to the GOP's stance on things. Zing!.

What about the 2000 Nomination though? Was hell getting chilly then? :doggy:

Neither will win. Condi wont run and Hillary wont have the support of her husband. Just think of everytime she sits in the chair and has to remember all that Bill did in there. Just for kicks if she ever did get in there do you think she would hire all male interns just to get Bill jealous? The next President will most likely if he runs Bill Frist. Long live Bill Frist!!!!

Bill Frist? What makes you so certain he'd win the GOP nomination, let alone the Presidency? Not only has he been fairly ineffective as Majority Leader, but he'd first have to get through the primaries even if he runs. In the primaries, even without Rice, he'd still have to get through both John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, as well as any other Republicans who are running, like Newt Gingrich, George Allen (the current frontrunner) and Mitt Romney.

Frist isn't going anywhere but home in 2007.

Frist is the one man who has no controversal cloud that surrounded him in his profesion. True it would be a very tough primary but he is still a candidate if he runs.

The proper response to this statement is "DUH". If someone is running for office, they are a candidate, yes. That goes with the territory of running for office.

But I will guarantee you right now that if he runs, Frist will not win the nomination. He lacks an effective ideological base to run on (Giuliani has the party moderates, McCain has the fiscal conservatives, Brownback has the religious conservatives, etc), he has no accomplishments to run on, and four years of failure as Majority Leader. In fighting over judges, for instance, he made himself look like an extremist, while McCain was the one who got a deal done out of that.

Frist faces simply too many opponents for the nomination who are more popular and better qualified than he is, with too little to counter their positives himself. He's got nothing. He loses.

And there's plenty of controversy that can be used against him if one wanted to. Allegations of possible insider trading, for instance.

If you want to pick a Republican Senator without any controversy attached to him, your best bet would be Richard Lugar.

If you read the story he sold the stock so that there would be no conflict of intrest. Thats what a responsible person does. As far as him no being popular enough to win. We have seen how an unpopular person can win his parties nomination with Bill Clinton. I'm not saying that Frist is Bill Clinton, and thankfully so, but he still has a strong chance. Don't count him out just because hes not McCain or Guliani.

Maybe Sean Hannity should run and really start a controversy. I'd like to see him in office much more than most.

I'm not counting him out because he's not McCain or Giuliani; I'm counting him out because he's Bill Frist. I've listed the problems he has associated with his being Bill Frist, starting with the fact that he's been a failure as Senate Majority Leader; if that's supposed to be a springboard to the White House, it's not a very good one.

If you're going to make comparisons between Frist and Clinton, it should be pointed out that Clinton was more popular with his party as a whole than Frist is now. Clinton also didn't have a recent record of failure, which Frist does.

And, most importantly, Clinton had an ideological base within his party to run on, the Democratic Leadership Council. What does Frist have?

You keep telling me I shouldn't count Frist out. Can you provide me with some kind of evidence of why I shouldn't?

As a woman, I can honestly say I would leave the country if either of those women got elected as President.

I wouldn't vote for either. Hillary because she is a wackjob and Condoleezza because she isn't running.

Maybe, but he'd get my vote too. Hilary Clinton is the nazi soccer mom from hell, and I don't know enough of Condehoweveryouspellhername Rice to make an educated decision on her.
I personally don't care whether the next president is a man or a woman, I just want the next president to be good.

I could never actually see Hillary making it past the Primaries, I have a feeling she would be stopped cold during that process. If by some struck of luck she did, I guess she would have my vote, but like the last election it would be done more on the basis of not wanting to see the other canidate in office then being particularly for them.

Bah, this isn't even a question for me. The answer is obvious.

The government will elect whom they want, then have the media call it. As much as I wish a woman was running the country instead of the dipshit we have, I don't want those two.

Kinda makes ya' wish that fictional television presidents were running the country. Bartlet and Makinzie. Ahhh, such a fantasy. Instead, we get stuck with a numbnut who picks his nose on national TV.

I would vote for Clinton, but I don't think either of them will run. Hillary will try, but she won't make it through.

As a Democrat, I have to say that if they set up Hillary to seriously run for the Presidency, they're asking themselves for another loss. It would not be a very smart move. Like John Kerry, Hillary is painted as this uber-l33t evil liberal when she's really not as bad as many people make her out to be. However, people still believe it, and that has grown into a reputation that can only HURT her. It's bullshit, but it's also the truth. People cannot stand her.

The only thing she DOES have going for her is that, well... she's a Clinton. These people know how to campaign. Get Bill and some of his pals that helped him win two elections behind her, and you have a force to be reckoned with. However, I think the problem is the candidate herself. She'd be the first woman President, which in some ways can help, other ways hurt her (think of all the old wrinkly men who would never vote for a woman. There's a lot of them out there, Democrat and Republican, and they make up a HUGE chunk of the vote!) Plus, there's so much biased hatred to begin with; you can't escape all of it, probably not enough to assure a win.

Bayh or perhaps Warner are the two I'd be on the lookout for.

And really, I'd like a fresh face as President. Someone we know very little about, or nothing at all.

If Hillary wins... it's gonna be Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton. At least 24 years of it. Let's put an end to that. We can either have Hillary get her revenge on the Bush dynasty or have a brand new (Democratic) name in the White House that is probably more excited to bring about real change than just establishing their name in the history of the US Presidency again.

A game where you can compete to be the US president
 

I am leaving this forum as I can not post urls

Just post the url here and I will post it for you ;)

OMG a race between Hillary and Condi? If either of them won, we'd be doomed. Those two make all women look bad. If a woman is going to become President, it needs to be someone, I dunno, competent.

I wish Howard Dean would run again (and win), that guy, while having a short fuse, is a political genius. He did a great job as governor and has a great track record when it comes to policy. Not that I agree with everything he says, but you can't expect that anyway. He's still the best choice.

Forget these two bimbos. Perish the thought!

I understand what you are saying, but I feel like there's a hell of a lot of men who between a woman and a man would vote for the man 100% of the time even if he was retarded.

I would just like to say that I firmly believe that if Hillary were to run for and win the presidency, it would be to exploit a loophole in the Twenty-second Amendment. Bill Clinton can't run for president anymore, but Hillary Clinton can. To the public, it will seem as if Hillary is in charge of the Executive Branch. But in reality, unbeknownst to all except those at the very, very top, it will be Bill who is making the decisions, coaching his wife every night in bed on what to say to her advisors the next day, "suggesting" whether or not to veto the latest hot-button issue bill, and "proofreading" all her speeches.

The front will never be exposed. Sure, there will be a few who become suspicious, but no hard evidence will ever be presented - most people will never be able to dig up enough proof to convince the world of the shocking truth, and those that are high enough on the ladder to bring down the Clintons would most certainly go down with them, and thus would never try. They will simply stay complacent and try to ignore the situation. And heck, if the U.S. isn't going through some huge crisis and they agree with the way Bill is managing things, they will simply think to themselves "Yeah, he's deceiving the country, but he definitely hasn't ruined it, so is it really such a bad thing?"

You bumped this thread to say that?

Stay gone.