Hillary Clinton for President

[Gaspar]

America's economy is failing to produce jobs, increase growth or raise confidence, and it will likely get even worse next year. Our federal government's spending has increased to $3.7 trillion this year from $2.98 trillion in 2008. Publicly held national debt is up by $2.4 trillion in less than two years, to about 63% percent of GDP from 40%, and is expected to reach 70% by 2012. Add in the unemployment rate, which has remained above 9.4% for over a year, and America is clearly failing economically.

Next January the economy will be further depressed by increasing tax rates. The top income tax rate will rise to 39.6% from 35%, and the phase-out of itemized deductions and personal exemptions will effectively lift the top bracket to about 40.8%. On New Year's Day the tax on dividends is scheduled to go up to 39.6% from 15%, and come 2013, ObamaCare will add another 3.8%.

Other bad public policies will further drag down the economy. ObamaCare will increase individual costs and expand the deficit. Failing energy policies, from Washington's inept response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill to its effort to limit tapping America's oil supplies, will drive up our use of imported foreign oil beyond the current 67% of our country's oil consumption.

***
Add together all these increases in government regulation, spending and taxes and a dim employment outlook, and the result is a dramatic national decline in support of the White House, Congress and their administration of our national policies.

So what can be done to change America's policies and make our economy stronger? For one thing, we could elect a president with different thinking. Almost any Republican candidate would have that, and, as we will see in a moment, there is one obvious Democrat who would change our course too.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704518904575365482705270718.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLESecond

Sentiment is growing, and the Clinton's will NEVER pass this opportunity up.  While I would rather see a more conservative president in the next term, Hillary would certainly do a better job than President Obama.  Chances are that she's already scrap-booking this article.

[RecycleMichael]

I said that two and a half years ago. I could of used the help on this forum back then.

[nathanm]

Oh, look, it's the Wall Street Journal ignoring facts once again!

I was reading an article last night about how once someone is set in their opinion, providing contradictory facts usually merely serves to further cement the opinion. The WSJ is the epitome of that concept, although I prefer to believe that the underlying study was wrong and that people really do listen to facts and change their opinion to accommodate new information.

[GG]

With James Carville the Clinton's point man coming out with the poll last week saying 55% of likely voters think President Obama is a socialist Hillary running for President could happen.   

Here's a link:  http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/230874/55-percent-likely-voters-find-socialist-accurate-label-obama

[heironymouspasparagus]

Histrionics.  If he weren't so ugly, one could think that Rupert suffered from Histrionic Personality Disorder.

WSJ is surprising anyone these days???

How could that be??

You do remember that Rupert Murdoch OWNS the Wall Street Journal, don't you?

Another outsider with undue influence on our internal affairs.

If it were Acorn, there would be wild, radical ravings of near psychotic volume and duration.

Nathan, sorry...that study was right.  Just look at Oklahoma.  Proof; when 97% of county commissioners were convicted, the people of the state re-elected many of them.  Denial ain't just a river in Egypt....

[rwarn17588]

It's also no secret the Wall Street Journal wrote some of the dumbest and most reactionary editorials even before the Murdoch buyout. SSDD.

The Wall Street Journal news division is often cited for greatness. The editorial department, not so much.

[Gaspar]

With James Carville the Clinton's point man coming out with the poll last week saying 55% of likely voters think President Obama is a socialist Hillary running for President could happen.   

Here's a link:  http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/230874/55-percent-likely-voters-find-socialist-accurate-label-obama

Carville is in full gear behind Hillary now, and even though he's a beloved liberal nut-job, he can dish a lot of damage when he wants to.  The man has power and that's why people hire him as their behind the scenes pit-bull.

Funny how all of the old Clinton Guard within the current administration are starting to do and say things that damage the President.

Erskine Bowles, former White House chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, and the current Democratic co-chair of President Obama's fiscal commission said Wednesday that the president's health care bill will do very little to bring down costs, contradicting claims from the White House that their sweeping legislation will dramatically impact runaway entitlement spending.

"It didn't do a lot to address cost factors in health care. So we've got a lot of work to do," said Bowles, speaking about the new health law, which was signed into law by Obama this past spring after a nearly year-long fight in Congress.

Bowles, speaking at an event hosted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said health care costs are still going to "really eat us alive."

[Gaspar]

I said that two and a half years ago. I could of used the help on this forum back then.

You were right.  She was/is the better of the two.  I will still never vote for her, but now I fear that there is no Republican (or certainly Libertarian) candidate strong enough to stand against her.  The Tea Party has effectively fractured the conservative vote, and they will be effective in driving the mid-term elections, but they will only cause damage in a presidential race.

Hillary has been a victim of this administration, but has still acted with poise and grace.  I think people already view her as presidential.  If for nothing more than the ability to bite her tongue and hold her head up while those around her did stupid stupid things.

[RecycleMichael]

You were right. 

I never tire of hearing that. 

[Conan71]

Oh, look, it's the Wall Street Journal I'm ignoring facts once again!

I was reading an article last night about how once someone is set in their opinion, providing contradictory facts usually merely serves to further cement the opinion. The WSJ is I am the epitome of that concept, although I prefer to believe that the underlying study was wrong and that people really do listen to facts and change their opinion to accommodate new information.

FIFY.

I've rarely, if ever seen you modify your opinion on here even when provided with strong contradictory evidence.

[Gaspar]

FIFY.

I've rarely, if ever seen you modify your opinion on here even when provided with strong contradictory evidence.

Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction. – Blaise Pascal

[Conan71]

I said that two and a half years ago. I could of used the help on this forum back then.

I agreed.  Even though she's caustic and has problems with conditional honesty (which politician doesn't?) I found Hillary a whole lot more predictable and palateable than President Obama.  I think it's finally dawning on people who supported President Obama how little anyone really knew of him, and how little leadership experience he actually had.  He's been a people's advocate and agitator, but never a leader of any sort. 

I knew where the Clintons stood on issues, I knew they were capable of being pragmatic, and it's hard to argue that the Clinton Presidency was not a good eight years for most Americans.  Other than his personal foibles, I think history will be kind to President Clinton.

You heard it first here: given a choice between Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin, I'd vote for Clinton.  We don't need someone else with no real leadership skills who is simply a talking point machine for others who are pulling their strings.  Given a choice between Hillary or McCain I could have gone either way, McCain is a RINO in my book, at least I knew what to expect out of Hillary and I figured she would keep a realistic approach to Iraq and Afghanistan.  I felt McCain would have extended the two conflicts as long as possible.

I'm curious how much different things could have been with the Obama Administration if they had taken the reigns at a time of better economic prosperity and less global conflict.  Unfortunately, I believe his Presidency will be remembered with as much fondness as Bush II, Carter, and Harding.

[nathanm]

strong contradictory evidence.

When you define evidence as unsourced speculation and rhetoric, I do indeed have an unwillingness to change my opinion in response to evidence.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Rwarn,
I won't argue that.  It does seem like it has gotten worse - just my thought.

[Gaspar]

I agreed.  Even though she's caustic and has problems with conditional honesty (which politician doesn't?) I found Hillary a whole lot more predictable and palateable than President Obama.  I think it's finally dawning on people who supported President Obama how little anyone really knew of him, and how little leadership experience he actually had.  He's been a people's advocate and agitator, but never a leader of any sort. 

I knew where the Clintons stood on issues, I knew they were capable of being pragmatic, and it's hard to argue that the Clinton Presidency was not a good eight years for most Americans.  Other than his personal foibles, I think history will be kind to President Clinton.

You heard it first here: given a choice between Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin, I'd vote for Clinton.  We don't need someone else with no real leadership skills who is simply a talking point machine for others who are pulling their strings.  Given a choice between Hillary or McCain I could have gone either way, McCain is a RINO in my book, at least I knew what to expect out of Hillary and I figured she would keep a realistic approach to Iraq and Afghanistan.  I felt McCain would have extended the two conflicts as long as possible.

I'm curious how much different things could have been with the Obama Administration if they had taken the reigns at a time of better economic prosperity and less global conflict.  Unfortunately, I believe his Presidency will be remembered with as much fondness as Bush II, Carter, and Harding.

I would have to agree, with the exception that in a race between Clinton and Palin I would vote for Palin.  Not because I support a Palin candidacy in any way, but because I know it would result more in the dismantling of bureaucracy and it would send a message to the Republicans, who will be in charge of congress at that time, not to repeat the big government actions of the past.

I think Palin would make a dreadful president, but she poses no threat to democracy.  Hillary will want to take the failed ObamaCare system and reform it into HillaryCare II.  She will however take control of border issues, and is less likely to push amnesty or stand in the way of business and commerce.  I think she learned that lesson from Bill.  The best thing he ever did was get out of the way and let the good times roll.