Hillary Clinton launches White House bid: 'I'm in'

[Rickypt]

Originally Posted by markolas

She's acting like a presidential candidate already.

Seriously, my first reaction was "She's such a bitch." She's definitely trying to play both sides of the fence, no matter what she really thinks. Will it backfire? Who knows? This is kind of a weird presidential race. For the first time, the Republicans don't look like they have a sure-fire win right off the bat. McCain is too old now, and I think is perceived as kind of unstable; Guiliani will be eaten alive over his affairs, marriages, and liberal social views; Mitt Romney is a Mormon, which will not go over well with the evangelical/fundamentalist Christian base, who view Mormons as non-Christians. I don't know a hell of a lot about Mike Huckabee, but I wonder if he's actually too reactionary to be electable, if that's possible. Then there's talk that Newt Gingrich might run, but I think he's even less electable, so...

I think Hillary will probably be the Democratic candidate; Obama is unelectable. I can see a Clinton/Edwards ticket, and of course I'd vote for it, but Hillary's love for the gays runs hot and cold, and we need to remember that she's not exactly our friend.

Yep to most of this (although I think Obama is electable). Thing about this latest with Clinton is that it shows she can't even take a strong stand on something basic. To me, the question "is homosexuality immoral" is a gut question. You have an opinion one way or another. She wants to be president of the U.S., but says it is not for her to decide if it is immoral or not.

I find her answer to be repugnant.

[Rickypt]

Look, Republican Senator John Warner managed to make a clear and firm statement:


"I respectfully but strongly disagree with the chairman's view that homosexuality is immoral," the senator said. "In keeping with my long-standing respect for the Armed Services Committee hearing process, I will decline to comment on the current policy until after such hearings are held."

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Rickypt

. . . I find her answer to be repugnant.

She is repugnant - I predict she will have an official answer on this as soon as her people (amongst the best in the world mind you) determine what side of the fence to fall on. Personally, I think she will say she does not think it is immoral. And, in this instance, the question was irelevant.

[markolas]

Originally Posted by Rickypt

Look, Republican Senator John Warner managed to make a clear and firm statement:


"I respectfully but strongly disagree with the chairman's view that homosexuality is immoral," the senator said. "In keeping with my long-standing respect for the Armed Services Committee hearing process, I will decline to comment on the current policy until after such hearings are held."

Ooh, yeah, that makes her look even worse.

[Rickypt]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

She is repugnant - I predict she will have an official answer on this as soon as her people (amongst the best in the world mind you) determine what side of the fence to fall on. Personally, I think she will say she does not think it is immoral. And, in this instance, the question was irelevant.

You make a good point. The question was kind of irrelevant. The question should be more like "how would you approach your policy decisions around gay issues"? Because it really doesn't matter if she finds homosexuality to be immoral as long as she could separate those feelings and make policy based on the right factors.

[BombaySapphire3]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3
Take a look at some of the polls .Barack is already starting to.

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Don't shoot me I'm just the messenger. It ain't gonna happen babe.

he just took Iowa!!!! we shalll see...

[gldstwmn]

I wonder if it's the Oprah factor... Anyway, we've got a way to go yet.