Condi v. Hillary

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

nicholsfornixon

The Fly
Joined
Nov 4, 2004
Messages
144
Location
Tacoma, WA
I think it's important that we not vote for a woman just for the sake of voting for a woman. It's got to be the right woman. Frankly, I don't think Hillary would make a good president. I think she is far too divisive of a politician (you think we're divided now, you just wait...), far too liberal. I also don't think she has the guts or the experience to deal with foreign policy crises. And her lack of foreign policy experience will damage her credibility with our armed forces. Condoleeza Rice on the other hand would be a perfect female candidate. Her vast experience on foreign policy issues, and the fact that she is a hawk who would not hesitate to use force to defend American interests, would allow her to be a much more effective and successful president.
 
No I think that this is good standalone.

I think that Condi is more than qualified to be president, a most talented and brilliant individual.
 
Last edited:
There are many, many criticisms of Condi among the Republicans in Washington. She has made a number of blunders and has a very low likeability factor, but her biggest problem is that outside of Bush personally, I don't see her as having any kind of support in the Republican party at all.

I don't believe that America is anywhere near ready to elect a woman, much less a black woman.
 
Hmm, what about a Giuliani / Condi ticket?

Of course that could be awful for electability, the evangelicals would go nuts, but one could compensate by making inroads with the moderates.
 
Last edited:
Never gonna happen in a million years.

Giuliani is pro-abortion rights and pro gay-rights and the Republicans just got elected based partially on "values." He will never get the support of the party because they have to pander to the right and he is far too centrist. The Dems could put up a centrist and there would be no difference between the candidates at all. I don't see the right wanting to risk it. Moderation is out the window.

Condi isn't liked within her own party outside the administration.

Jeb is a more likely suspect at some point.
 
The rise of The Christian Right has been one of the most worrying developments in the last few decades. They made a monster and it will probably end up swallowing the party whole.
 
I read an interview with Condi a while back, around the time Bush was first elected. It was in Oprah's O Magazine (don't laugh, I read it at my mother-in-law's house. When all else fails, blame the in-law's! ;) ) Anyway, it was a good interview. She mentioned that she has no interest in running for president or veep in the future, and that she really enjoyed lecturing and teaching at university... I forget which university.

Anyhow, she is an accomplished woman, brilliantly whip-smart, but after her testimony to the 9-11 commission... I don't know. I get the impression that she is too easily backed into a corner. I get the impression, after watching her, that she wanted to say more. But that's just the feeling I get in my gut, and it's opinion so I'm probably way off with my remarks here.

Apparently, she is an accomplished pianist (though modest) as her parents were musicians! :D The name Condoleeza is a take on the musical term "con dolcezza" which means to play sweetly and with softness.
 
Spare us, I saw for 8 years how a Clinton ruined this nation, with his anti-family policies and his indiscretions which only further eroded morality in society.

When we impeached and disbarred him, we should have also throw in the bonus of deporting him.

Hillary doesn't have a chance now, us newly mobilized Christians which devoutly respect the unborn and traditional marriage will never vote for her.

Hillary and the Hollywood Libtard crowd are now in the back of the bus, us oppressed Christians which just recently reclaimed our Christian nation (in the last 72 hours or so) are done with her and her far-left radical agenda. Us Christians stayed silent when in 1999 NBC put Will & Grace on at 8:30 p.m., the family-hour, and started promoting the immoral lifestyle as joke fodder. Us Christians stayed silent when Queer As Folk came on television and showed a young pack of nightclub-loving men revel in their promiscuity, and episode #1 showed a 15 year old boy being with a 29 year old man. Us Christians stayed silent, but the pressure was building inside and the backlash happened on Tuesday. In one day, we picked up the whole Hollywood Libtard crowd, threw them to the back of the bus with their far-left out of touch politicans, and that is where we intend to keep them. We didn't throw them back there only to let them creep back up to the front in 2008 pushing their family-wrecking filth. We're not going to let Hillary in the Oval Office, we're being kind as it is even letting her remain in the country. Decent values are coming back, traditional marriage will stay intact, and this newly formed Christian movement has no need for Hillary the purveyor of Hollywood smut.

It's a new day folks, filthy programming like Howard Stern, Jerry Springer and Will & Grace will be off the air and replaced with decent Christian family programming. Families will once again be able to turn on the radio or television and not be embarrassed to listen or watch together.

The abominable scourge of Internet pornography will end with the expansion and ENFORCEMENT of the Online Decency Act. Pornographers who expose the public to this sickening material will be behind bars where they belong.

You can be with us or against us, but you had BETTER believe one thing:

Christians are DONE sitting at the back of the bus.
 
Condoleeza is an interesting character but not President material IMO. As much good press as she gets there have always been rumblings behind the scenes about her work as NSA as being less than stellar. I also always get the impression that blacks respect her but don't like her b/c of her Republican affiliation. Powell gets respect for some reason but Rice doesn't get as much resepect from blacks. That's just an observation/ impression and not 100% fact. If she can't get the black vote, then her appeal as a candidate of any kind goes down IMO.
 
Last edited:
Let me guess, you are not a homophobe because you are not afraid of gay people?

But they could gay you up and turn you to vice and sin.

But there is a solution, surrender your free will and become a believer.

Have strength in numbers, marry young and get your woman to pump out babies, then work your arse off to support six kids through high school, and pay more taxes because everybody is doing it.

I will continue to watch sinful programs like Buffy with their occultist themes and -gasp- gay character, I will also continue to be sexually attracted to women because thats what works for me, and then when I see wholesome Christian programing I turn it off because that is my choice. And I will respect the choices made of individuals of consentual age.

Who is this bible thumper, the one that has not made a single reference to the bible?
 
I agree with you in a lot of ways, but you also make me smile. I see that this is true, but I also wonder if you're so generous as to include ALL Christians in your mix.
 
I do not include all christians there, just people of any faith that feel that their religion should be forced upon everybody.
 
I don't honestly give either one a snowball's chance in hell of getting either spot on a ticket, let alone actually being elected.
 
A_Wanderer said:
I do not include all christians there, just people of any faith that feel that their religion should be forced upon everybody.

I don't believe that anyone's religion should be forced on anyone, or that religion in general should be. If you don't want to watch Will and Grace then don't watch it. I'm Christian, I don't believe homosexuality is right, but I think Will and Grace is funny. I really like that show. So, sue me. That's just my choice to watch it.

I guess I just don't freak out about a "gay" theme like most. You know a "gay" theme and gay people can be downright funny at times. Anyway, I like to see how other people think.

There is some stuff that destroys people, like pornography, and breeds criminals, but I don't see how Will and Grace breeds criminals. Gay people don't hurt me.
 
Last edited:
I agree, FuManchu - Condoleeza, though highly intelligent, is not presidential material. Her track record is... meh.

Back to my gut instincts of earlier, I think she took the fall at the 9/11 Commission hearing. I just don't think she was, or could have been, very forthcoming in her statements. I know I am not alone in feeling this way. I think at the end of the day, what happened was damning to any possible future as someone higher up the white house ladder.
 
I agree. I would hate to see the day that is like GOP_Catholic says it will be. One reason is that I know DARN well that LDS people would be treated inhumanely, too, by these Christians...I just know it, because we already are. Christians don't even treat each other well, especially when they don't want to accept them as Christians.
 
Hey hey, hush that fuss, everybody move to the back of the bus... OK. I know. This isn't bang and clatter. But for some reason "rosa parks" has been stuck in my head lately... :sexywink:
 
Interesting that no one has really mentioned Hillary -- that the focus has been Condi. I frankly don't think either is electable for president. Both bring up deeply negative feelings from the general population regardless of whether it's warranted or not. I'm not sure we have any women who would be strong enough at this point to really make a run for president.

I mean, I supported Elizabeth Dole's run for president in 2000 at first before it went belly up. But now what? Are there any women out there that have a legit shot at president based on what they are doing now? Maybe Nancy Pelosi but I can't think of anyone else at this point, which is a really a shame. We could use a good woman in the White House.
 
sharky said:
Both bring up deeply negative feelings from the general population regardless of whether it's warranted or not. I'm not sure we have any women who would be strong enough at this point to really make a run for president.

I don't think this is the main thing that works against either of them.

Americans just elected possibly the most divisive president in history, and demonstrated that so long as you can get your base fired up, you can win the electoral college (no matter how narrowly).

But at this time, I do not feel either of them has a viable chance. Unless they ran against each other, lol, in which case Hillary would take it all the way.
 
adam's_mistress said:


I don't know, but I know one thing's for sure. GOP is sick of riding in the back of the bus.

:lmao:
 
anitram said:
Giuliani is pro-abortion rights and pro gay-rights and the Republicans just got elected based partially on "values." He will never get the support of the party because they have to pander to the right and he is far too centrist. The Dems could put up a centrist and there would be no difference between the candidates at all. I don't see the right wanting to risk it. Moderation is out the window.


Arnold got elected by the GOP as a pro-abortion candidate. As soon as conservatives learn to avoid getting baited into these silly abortion litmus tests, GOP candidates could take all offices.
 
arnold would never have gotten elected in a Republican Primary in California.

for that matter Arnold would do better in blue states than red states
 
Back
Top Bottom