Is Hillary Clinton A 'Weak' Woman?

Not necessarily weak, but have a limitation of power, so as not to become corrupted by it. Since so many weak people with power, are overtaken by corruption of power.

feh!

who needs that backwards, dirty, canadian energy anyway?

let those *** have it! I don't want my exhaust smelling like maple syrup, either.

Frack away my friend!

I'm probably in a minority, but I don't believe that whole Power corrupts ***. I think people are either *** or they aren't. Politics just tends to attract a disproportionate amount of ***.

And generally good people don't like to have power over others, so that per-disposes them away from such pursuits.

Power only corrupts those who let themselves be corrupted.

Sounds like Darth Vader...

Actually, the ideal president (in my mind) is one who unites (most of) the nation to his/her ideals. Those ideals are the ones that get him elected, but it is how the person projects himself and creates harmony, even towards and with his opponents, that counts (in my book).

Bush Jr. did it. (Iraq/Afganistan wars did it for him)

Clinton did it. (Medicare/Welfare reforms did it for him)

Bush Sr. did it. (NAFTA and taking over Reagan's popularity did it for him)

Reagan did it. (Carter's failure did it for him from day one, plus it helped that he was a very likable character)

Obama lost it from day one. Carter lost it a lot later than Obama did, but xstill he lost it early in his career.

I don't give a rat's *** what color or sex a person is, it is how they project themselves to me and the rest of the world that truly matters, and how well they lead and unify people.

United we stand, divided we fall.

What we really need is a female black President that is gay. Save us about 12 years of time.

If you don't vote for her. You are a racist check. Sexist. Check. Homophobic check.

The perfect candidate.

The best policy is when you are able to articulate it in one sentence.

All we need is Oprah to come out as a lesbian. Can we make that happen ?

Keep in mind that Obama did manage to get elected twice, even using unpopular topics and platforms, which shows, regardless of individual opinion, that there was enough unification to do so, and that even admittedly, under those same topics, Democrats and Republicans aren't nearly as divided as they appear, since there has been compromise and middle ground.

A racially biased sexist homophobe. With the wrong curtains in your living room.

My curtains are fabulous !

We're gonna disagree on that. Obama didn't unite the country in harmony and song, true, but Dubya did not have overwhelming support for his wars. Our intervention in Afghanistan was fairly supported at first, I'll give you that, but a large proportion of the country (and the world) were not the least bit interested in Iraq.

And ANY President could've united the country by being in office during 9/11 and subsequently promising military vengeance against al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Also, wasn't NAFTA Clinton's thing? I remember it being a big talking point during the '92 election, which Bush, Sr., lost, so I'm not sure how you can call that a win for him.

Except that people who admit that they voted for Obama (not many people do that, they are too ashamed to do so) admitted that they voted "for the lesser of two evils."

Heck, Pleebo even went and said that Obama only won because the Republican's gave a weaker candidate.

The last two elections was not "may the best man win" but "may the worst man lose." Not really showing much unity or leadership ability there.

So basically the Republicans need the opposite of Hillary Clinton.

The anti Hillary if you will.

Black (or some minority) man relatively attractive smart. Proven leadership.

That sounds like a slogan. Slogans should never be policies. Excessive complexity is bad, but excessive simplicity is bad, too.

c.f., "No new taxes."

Situational.

You have to see it in a less narrow minded way: this woman just insulted me, she went quite far in the insulting, but she's not worth my time yet I have to give my feelings about it. I have to dismiss her completely so I'll use a sexist answer.

The bottom line is, Hillary is nothing in the grand scheme of things, unlike Putin. He could have just ignored her existence altogether but he made a joke instead. It's childish at worst.

Power corrupts. The idealistic individual takes power, uses it to their end and relinquishes it before they're completed devoured by it. The tyrant seizes power and refuses to relinquish it slowly becoming more and more corrupted by the nature of arrogance.

Also, King is delusional again. Our presidents have almost always been divisive figures, our nation has always been divided since being founded and largely the ideal running through America is that while we may not agree with others that we respect the integrity of elections and the democratic process. We're a nation of people from different backgrounds and social classes, naturally we're going to disagree.

Bush II a uniter? Yeah, that Gore debacle didn't happen I 'spose and the few months post-9/11 came from the emotional vulnerability of our nation being attacked. Then Iraq happened and ***-all about Bush.

Read: I don't like the President or my Congressman but I do respect the position and our system of government. With increasing polarization channeled by money, this no longer really applies. When you don't respect the office of the President or the democratic process guess what happens?

Bush was still capitalizing off of the attacks of 9/11. I didn't agree with him on the Iraq war, but I still supported him (last policy I supported him with, I was against nearly all others afterwards).

True. Bush was very unpopular just prior to 9/11, and he unified US during and after the fallout. I can't say that Obama can do the same thing if it happened (which it did, if you think about it. Benghazi showed how divisive Obama is).

NAFTA was Bush's baby. Clinton ran with it after he got elected, but it was Bush who created it.

Bush lost because people figured out he wasn't Reagan V2. Plus the fact that he pretty much backed out of what he pledged on ("no new taxes") on his only term that pretty much sealed the deal on America.

Rubio?

And none of the republicans will admit they voted for the weaker of the two candidates. Hell, most of them can't even contend any kind of platform he had, and voted strictly for Romney because he was a republican nominee.

McCain had a chance... if only he hadn't picked Sarah Palin. Probably could have done a better job with Ted Nugent.

Democrats picked holes in Obama's initial platform speeches for presidency, but like the Republicans, there are blind followers, who want to believe simply because "Democrat" means everything that isn't "Republican" to them.

Possible.

So, are you saying that any pre-Obama president never got their projects/policies done because of rampart bipartianship in the nation? Nobody in the history of Presidents was able to unify Congress enough to get one major thing done?

And you call me delusional? Maybe you have extreme short-term memory...

Nah, I fully agree with you here.

Nonsense. You're letting your prejudice get in the way. Banghazi was nothing like 9/11. 9/11 was the perfect storm in terms of motivating the citizens because it was the first foreign attack on our home soil (pretending that embassies and consulates aren't technically US soil, of course) in decades.

Also, US citizens have grown increasingly skeptical of going to war after Bush's bungles with Afghanistan and Iraq (which Obama did little to improve during his first term -- I won't deny that). Expecting Benghazi to be another 9/11 is ridiculous. There's a good reason why the Korean War is called the forgotten war and it was because we were still burned out from WWII: same principle applies here.

I'm not sure "figured out" is the right term. Bush, Sr., had been the acting President for most of the Reagan's second term, if not longer. Quite a lot of Reagan's policies were Bush's handiwork. Had people still been looking to have Reagan in office, he'd have been a shoe-in in '92, but the cultural climate had changed radically by that point (for a non-political proof of this, look at the complete sea change that took place in popular music between 1990 and 1992).

Like I said before, the last 2 presidential elections wasn't about voting for the "best man" but voting against the "worst man."

I didn't agree with McCain, I think he is a loon, but he is always better than Obama.

I didn't agree with Romney, I think he is too much of a businessman, and not enough leader, but he is always better than Obama.

If the 2012 Republican nominations happened all over again, I would have put my money on Herman Cain over everyone (including my own Governor, Rick Perry). Liberals saw a real threat in him and politically assassinated him really early in the game before he gained any real traction. Every single one of those sexual harassment accusations were false, and a few admitted that they were paid by the DNC to say the things they did, but they were reported after the presidential election.

Nah, McCain we lucked out on. No way that loon could have done better than Obama.

It was a hopeless choice in 2008, Obama being the lesser of two evils.