Hillary is looking better to me with each passing day.

Add me to that list.

This is pretty bizarre. People so politically opposed all cool with Hillary. I'm sad we can't have her.

This is pretty bizarre. People so politically opposed all cool with Hillary. I'm sad we can't have her.

But we could have. The Democrats could nominate her as their candidate for President in their convention.

It would be called a floor fight deluxe.

But we could have. The Democrats could nominate her as their candidate for President in their convention.

It would be called a floor fight deluxe.

It would be called.......

Democrat intelligence? Oxymoron?

This is pretty bizarre. People so politically opposed all cool with Hillary. I'm sad we can't have her.

I have only voted for a Republican once in my life and am a lot more of a centrist than a supporter of the extreme right or left. Unfortunately I ignored Obama's history and now really regret it. I have come to understand that he is far left, at heart, but has had to temper that inclination somewhat in order to get reelected. If he gets a second term he will not have anything to stop him from following his worst instincts and I fear for the USA if that happens.

I suspect the rest of the world would breathe a collective sigh of relief if it, somehow, got Hillary as POTUS. We've seen quite enough of Obama, and Romney sounds disastrous.

Alas, it's not to be. I'm not even sure if she wants it now (which ain't going to happen) and I reckon she probably definitely won't want it four years from now.

This is pretty bizarre. People so politically opposed all cool with Hillary. I'm sad we can't have her.

In 1992 I said that if the American people are stupid enough to elect that snake oil salesman from Arkansas I would move out of the country. Fifteen months after Bill Clinton was sworn in I moved overseas and didn't move back to the USA until March 2002. So I am not a Clinton lover. That said, Obama is such a train wreck that I have a much higher opinion of Hillary now that I would ever have thought possible.

Of course, as Sec of State, Hillary gets to avoid a lot of hot button domestic issues, and anything she does now is just "following orders from Obama". That means the past 3.5 years she hasn't been able to do much to look bad and that works in her favor.

This is pretty bizarre. People so politically opposed all cool with Hillary. I'm sad we can't have her.

In 1992 I said that if the American people are stupid enough to elect that snake oil salesman from Arkansas I would move out of the country. Fifteen months after Bill Clinton was sworn in I moved overseas and didn't move back to the USA until March 2002. So I am not a Clinton lover. That said, Obama is such a train wreck that I have a much higher opinion of Hillary now that I would ever have thought possible.

Of course, as Sec of State, Hillary gets to avoid a lot of hot button domestic issues, and anything she does now is just "following orders from Obama". That means the past 3.5 years she hasn't been able to do much to look bad and that works in her favor.

optically she looks quite bad and whatever she utters is nothing but her master's voice. nothing left of the former intellectually brilliant lady.

I think her older non-pretty appearance gives here gravitas and I think most of the public agrees. Her popularity figures are through the roof. But I think some years from now there will be diminishing returns on that. No I don't think she'll ever be president and I believe her (sort of) that she doesn't want to bother with seeking it out again. On the other hand, four years out is a lot of time for plastic surgery!

She quite often looks scruffy... which is far from gravitas. But compare her with the super-slick Romney (so super-slick I wouldn't trust him an inch), and an Obama who looks as if he has an ear over his shoulder to catch what his minders say, and she's brilliant.

She quite often looks scruffy... which is far from gravitas. But compare her with the super-slick Romney (so super-slick I wouldn't trust him an inch), and an Obama who looks as if he has an ear over his shoulder to catch what his minders say, and she's brilliant.

Let's not get carried away with Hillary, now. If you want brilliant, check out Condoleeza Rice.

But compare her with the super-slick Romney (so super-slick I wouldn't trust him an inch),

That is the reason that Romney put me off at first, but compared to everyone he is running against, he does not look so bad.

She quite often looks scruffy... which is far from gravitas. But compare her with the super-slick Romney (so super-slick I wouldn't trust him an inch), and an Obama who looks as if he has an ear over his shoulder to catch what his minders say, and she's brilliant.

Let's not get carried away with Hillary, now. If you want brilliant, check out Condoleeza Rice.

She has never shown any interest in running for political office, and it's clear she never will. Hillary, on the other hand, at least WANTED to be president.

She quite often looks scruffy... which is far from gravitas. But compare her with the super-slick Romney (so super-slick I wouldn't trust him an inch), and an Obama who looks as if he has an ear over his shoulder to catch what his minders say, and she's brilliant.

Well there is added appeal to her now that we can't have her. If she had actually had the cajones to challenge Obama this time, her warts would have come up again. I wonder if she could have beat Obama this time? I don't know but I understand why she didn't do it. It would have divided the democratic party in a very unpleasant way.

She quite often looks scruffy... which is far from gravitas. But compare her with the super-slick Romney (so super-slick I wouldn't trust him an inch), and an Obama who looks as if he has an ear over his shoulder to catch what his minders say, and she's brilliant.

Let's not get carried away with Hillary, now. If you want brilliant, check out Condoleeza Rice.

She has never shown any interest in running for political office, and it's clear she never will. Hillary, on the other hand, at least WANTED to be president.

Hey, doesn't Condeleeza bat for your team (or would that be my team )? Now there' a thread I'd like to see your input on, if she ever finds herself in that position. Or maybe even VP.

She quite often looks scruffy... which is far from gravitas. But compare her with the super-slick Romney (so super-slick I wouldn't trust him an inch), and an Obama who looks as if he has an ear over his shoulder to catch what his minders say, and she's brilliant.

Well there is added appeal to her now that we can't have her. If she had actually had the cajones to challenge Obama this time, her warts would have come up again. I wonder if she could have beat Obama this time? I don't know but I understand why she didn't do it. It would have divided the democratic party in a very unpleasant way.

I'm not so sure of that. Maybe she'd have united it as they all kicked Obama to the curb.

She quite often looks scruffy... which is far from gravitas. But compare her with the super-slick Romney (so super-slick I wouldn't trust him an inch), and an Obama who looks as if he has an ear over his shoulder to catch what his minders say, and she's brilliant.

Well there is added appeal to her now that we can't have her. If she had actually had the cajones to challenge Obama this time, her warts would have come up again. I wonder if she could have beat Obama this time? I don't know but I understand why she didn't do it. It would have divided the democratic party in a very unpleasant way.

I'm not so sure of that. Maybe she'd have united it as they all kicked Obama to the curb.

Maybe. But she couldn't do it, and frankly, it would have inflamed race issues WITHIN the party. The last thing the party needs now to take on the republicans.

She quite often looks scruffy... which is far from gravitas. But compare her with the super-slick Romney (so super-slick I wouldn't trust him an inch), and an Obama who looks as if he has an ear over his shoulder to catch what his minders say, and she's brilliant.

Let's not get carried away with Hillary, now. If you want brilliant, check out Condoleeza Rice.

She has never shown any interest in running for political office, and it's clear she never will. Hillary, on the other hand, at least WANTED to be president.

Hey, doesn't Condeleeza bat for your team (or would that be my team )? Now there' a thread I'd like to see your input on, if she ever finds herself in that position. Or maybe even VP.

OK, maybe she is a lesbian. I don't know. If she is, she's a deep closet case. She won't ever hold an elected office, anyway, so not really relevant for her. If you're asking could an OPEN lesbian or gay man be elected as president or VP today? No, absolutely not possible. Nor could an open ATHEIST or AGNOSTIC. If Condie is a closet lesbian I think she would be ethical enough to reveal it to any vetting committee for VP, and that would rule her out in today's world. There are reports McCain wanted her but rejected her based on lesbian rumors.

She quite often looks scruffy... which is far from gravitas. But compare her with the super-slick Romney (so super-slick I wouldn't trust him an inch), and an Obama who looks as if he has an ear over his shoulder to catch what his minders say, and she's brilliant.

Well there is added appeal to her now that we can't have her. If she had actually had the cajones to challenge Obama this time, her warts would have come up again. I wonder if she could have beat Obama this time? I don't know but I understand why she didn't do it. It would have divided the democratic party in a very unpleasant way.

I'm not so sure of that. Maybe she'd have united it as they all kicked Obama to the curb.

Maybe. But she couldn't do it, and frankly, it would have inflamed race issues WITHIN the party. The last thing the party needs now to take on the republicans.

Yeah, there is the race thing to consider. The Blacks wouldn't be too happy. Ironically the whites get called racists all the time and voted for him overwhelmingly, and if they ever show him the door it certaintly won't be because of race. Blacks OTOH voted for him because he was black, and would keep him simply because he's black, despite his record.

If you're asking could an OPEN lesbian or gay man be elected as president or VP today? No, absolutely not possible. Nor could an open ATHEIST or AGNOSTIC.

I disagree. If they were not flouncy and had a lot of charisma, they could get elected. A stereotypical gay man could not IMO, but that will be true far into the future.

If you're asking could an OPEN lesbian or gay man be elected as president or VP today? No, absolutely not possible. Nor could an open ATHEIST or AGNOSTIC.

I disagree. If they were not flouncy and had a lot of charisma, they could get elected. A stereotypical gay man could not IMO, but that will be true far into the future.

I hope you're right but I don't believe it. Suppose Gavin Newsom was gay, which he's not, and he had gathered the experience to be president. Could he be elected as president now as openly gay? I say NO WAY. I find your reference to flouncy as a stereotypical implication about gay people offensive and disgusting. It would be like saying a Jew could be elected if he wasn't stingy. The level of homophobia shown on this forum (from the opponents of equal gay civil rights) is truly revealing.

If you're asking could an OPEN lesbian or gay man be elected as president or VP today? No, absolutely not possible. Nor could an open ATHEIST or AGNOSTIC.

I disagree. If they were not flouncy and had a lot of charisma, they could get elected. A stereotypical gay man could not IMO, but that will be true far into the future.

I hope you're right but I don't believe it. Suppose Gavin Newsom was gay, which he's not, and he had gathered the experience to be president. Could he be elected as president now as openly gay? I say NO WAY. I find your reference to flouncy as a stereotypical implication about gay people offensive and disgusting. It would be like saying a Jew could be elected if he wasn't stingy. The level of homophobia shown on this forum (from the opponents of equal gay civil rights) is truly revealing.

Bad analogy. A better one would be "It would be like saying a Jew could be elected if his common speech wasn't peppered with Yiddish".

Exactly, A Jew with a yiddish accent could not get elected, but a Jewish Gavin Newsom could - especially if he got back together with his hot ex wife.

Exactly, A Jew with a yiddish accent could not get elected, but a Jewish Gavin Newsom could - especially if he got back together with his hot ex wife.

I don't know any highly placed American Jewish elected officials who speak with a Yiddish accent. I also don't know any highly placed American gay elected officials who are flouncy. I remain offended. You are promoting a fixation of a negative stereotype that obviously is something in your brain filter, and it is indeed ... telling. It doesn't actually reflect any particular problem with American gay elected officials, the few that do exist. I consider this a kind of unconscious homophobia. You really don't think you have it, which makes it kind of more interesting. It suggests to me, when you think gay, you think flamboyant. That negative association is stuck in your mind, at the very top. You don't think of people like Alan Turing:

I lived in San Francisco for many years. Let's face facts, most gay guys are not exactly macho.

I lived in San Francisco for many years. Let's face facts, most gay guys are not exactly macho.

So you have perfect gaydar then? I find your statement incredible. Do you think you knew everyone who was gay that you ran into in SF? Sure you noticed the flamboyant ones. A MINORITY. Yes I know the facts better than you about that, so no, I don't "face it"; I think you harbor bigoted stereotypes that are NOT true. Maybe that makes it easier to rationalize opposing equal civil rights for your fellow citizens.

You are turning this into yet another gay thread. This is not the place to argue about whether most gay guys are effeminate. It is a thread about the upcoming election.

You are turning this into yet another gay thread. This is not the place to argue about whether most gay guys are effeminate. It is a thread about the upcoming election.

I did NOT start the gay related thing here. Another poster did. Conversation flowed from that, and now it hit a point where you aren't comfortable with responding about it anymore. That is fine, but that is your issue, don't project the blame on me about it. If you're not comfortable with where a thread went, just don't respond.

If you're asking could an OPEN lesbian or gay man be elected as president or VP today? No, absolutely not possible. Nor could an open ATHEIST or AGNOSTIC.

I disagree. If they were not flouncy and had a lot of charisma, they could get elected. A stereotypical gay man could not IMO, but that will be true far into the future.

I hope you're right but I don't believe it. Suppose Gavin Newsom was gay, which he's not, and he had gathered the experience to be president. Could he be elected as president now as openly gay? I say NO WAY. I find your reference to flouncy as a stereotypical implication about gay people offensive and disgusting. It would be like saying a Jew could be elected if he wasn't stingy. The level of homophobia shown on this forum (from the opponents of equal gay civil rights) is truly revealing.

Give it a rest <deleted>.