Hillary was well known to have had a lot of input in Bill's presidency, and it's probably reasonable to expect Bill to have a similar amount of input to hers. I think people planning to vote for Hillary are basically hoping for a similar presidency to Bill's.
Apart from that, though, Bill Richardson is the only Democrat who's running who's really qualified.
I think people planning to vote for Hillary are basically hoping for a similar presidency to Bill's.
And I think they would be in for a rude awakening. They are not interchangeable. I still miss the boom times and the social realities of the '90s, but it's not going to be a redux, any more than Bush II was a duplication of Bush I.
Governors generally make good presidents, yes. They can actually say they know how to govern.
No, they're not interchangeable, but Hillary was actually part of Bill's presidency. Maybe it wasn't the case, but a lot of people had the impression it was basically a joint office. George W. was running some business or another into the ground when his dad was president.
I'm afraid, though, that she may get treated like a vice president, and vice presidents are typically good at winning primaries and lousy at winning general elections. Normally, it takes a governor or possibly a general to win a general election (which is why I voted for Wesley Clark in the last primary). I do think she's something of a special case, and I think Obama is, as well. I don't think Edwards is; if he wins the primary, I think we're looking at another Republican president, followed shortly by a majority of lunatics on the supreme court.
I do like Obama, and I think he has a decent chance in the general election, but if it looks like Richardson has a chance in the primary, I'm voting for him, because I think he has the best chance in the general election.
I think you're exactly wrong about Edwards. He doesn't have extensive political experience, but old fuddy-duddies know who they want to vote for by looking at them, and they're gonna vote for a white man. And if there's a chance we're gonna pull a few states out of the south, we're going to have to have a man from the south. I'm starting to wonder if we're better off running Edwards against Romney.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
branchandroot![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-10-08 03:19 am (UTC)Apart from that, though, Bill Richardson is the only Democrat who's running who's really qualified.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-10-08 03:41 am (UTC)And I think they would be in for a rude awakening. They are not interchangeable. I still miss the boom times and the social realities of the '90s, but it's not going to be a redux, any more than Bush II was a duplication of Bush I.
Governors generally make good presidents, yes. They can actually say they know how to govern.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-10-08 04:16 am (UTC)I'm afraid, though, that she may get treated like a vice president, and vice presidents are typically good at winning primaries and lousy at winning general elections.
Normally, it takes a governor or possibly a general to win a general election (which is why I voted for Wesley Clark in the last primary). I do think she's something of a special case, and I think Obama is, as well. I don't think Edwards is; if he wins the primary, I think we're looking at another Republican president, followed shortly by a majority of lunatics on the supreme court.
I do like Obama, and I think he has a decent chance in the general election, but if it looks like Richardson has a chance in the primary, I'm voting for him, because I think he has the best chance in the general election.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-10-10 03:37 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-10-08 02:57 pm (UTC)