So if Hillary declines who will it be ?

Albeit horribly. The border shore states(NJ/NY) always got a negative view from me as a Northerner. Prices are expensive, there's literally few attractions. Lest your one of the many Wall Streeters, in which case you're good. (Central NJ did look nice from a township perspective for what it's worth).

I feel like if we could clean up Philadelphia, Pennsylvania would return to her glory as the Keystone State. That said, we have the worst governor race among the States right now. 3 moronic Governors who want to raise taxes to pay for education. No, let's not look for savings. Let's not look to expand higher level education. Let's just raise taxes to give to our Philadelphia school district donors! After all, they do such a fantastic job with their broken schools.

 

Strange, that is the same thing I say about the GOP candidates.

 

on the subject of Coumo I can see him carrying the NE and but in the rural and suburban areas he is going to have the same problems I see Christy having

 

Bossy I wouldn't mind so much, she's an establishment centrist. Biden? I'd get my papers in order and prepare to move to somewhere in Asia for my remaining years, but wouldn't be in a great big hurry. Warren? I'm on the next plane out.

 

Clinton scares me, if she were prez today Putin would be using the nuclear glow as a nightlight however I am certain if she had been elected in 08 the country would be much better off than it is today

 

And with all this talk about her femininity, you are neglecting to mention that she is BRILLIANT, and probably knows more about consumer finance than anyone else in the country, not that consumer finance has much to do with an American economy that is completely dependent on it, how would that be a useful skill.
And Elizabeth is a fabulous speaker, she would rip a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)bag like Paul Ryan so many new ones in a debate, that people might be thinking one of them was his vagina.....

 

You have -got- to be kidding. How exactly are you founding that claim?

 

She's a Harvard professor, and her specialty is consumer finance regulation.
I've met her and I've heard her speak, and watched her debate, she is brilliant, and would be a formidable candidate, she turned Scott Brown from the most popular politician in Massachusetts, to quivering loser who is taking his political career to another state.
This is a woman who went to public colleges, who went on to teach at Harvard, and whether you consider Harvard to be the top University in the US or just second or third, that's quite an accomplishment.

Just listen to her http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQG9DiEVAIY

 

and she had to lie to get the position. That aside being an academic does not qualify to run a country, the 2 positions have absolutely nothing in common.

 

Hatred for the three-term governor of New York shoud not be a factor. Andrew is very unlikely to run against Mario.

 

That's a pretty feeble lie, of course. Discredited by a conservative Republican primary source:

 

She was a clear beneficiary of affirmative action her entire career during the height of discrimination on women's behalf during the 80s and beyond, married into academia (not to mention the -true- indian ethnicity issue), has no material record of any accomplishment in the private sector, where actual practitioners are the true experts in consumer finance or any other legal field. It's a bad sign for a law student to have a summer clerkship at a prestigious firm in law school and then either not get invited back, not choose to go back, or not do several years of training in a legitimate firm post law school. In the video, she merely repeats leftist agitprop, especially her incredibly biased, simplistic and erroneous summary of the mortgage collapse. There is nothing remotely resembling "brilliance" in it, just the same old leftist talking points rehashed.

That college is more widely available to and attended by the middle class than it ever has been in history partially invalidates her claims about obstacles to middle class mobility. That there are no institutional impediments to anyone in this country succeeding or failing to whatever degree they choose invalidates the rest of it. For someone who has been a plain beneficiary of a "leg up" her whole career to claim that despite all those preferences and programs that helped her still existing and functioning in full force that something has changed based on mere raw income distribution statistics in an ongoing technology boom is thoroughly disingenuous.

She is completely unqualified for any political office other than perhaps a local school board. That the people of Massachusetts elected her is a testament to the extreme naivete and poor judgment that kept Ted Kennedy in that seat for so many years.

 

If the disgruntled folks alienating from America are unable to ween themselves off their whining about the President Americans twice elected, or the President Americans are likely to elect, they'll merely increase the probability of her election.

Most Americans don't like TPs and their constant bellywhinging.

Find an attractive candidate that shares the values and priorities of Americans, unite behind her/him, and Americans just might elect her/him.

That's how elective, representative democracy works.

The hardcore fanatics need to ask themselves, "Do we want to win an election, or a dung-flinging contest?" - and not go with their strength.

 

so you are in agreement with me that she lied on her applications?

 

What am I supposed to agree to? You'll have to explain what you believe she lied about on whatever applications you are referring to.

 

if you are really that ignorant about her history then what are you basing your opinion of her on ?


Cherokee genealogist Twila Barnes, whose group of researchers has done more than anyone to document Elizabeth Warren’s false claims to be Cherokee, was incensed at Warren’s continued insistence that she is Native American:

Let me make one thing clear. Your Native American issue has not been put to rest.

You say your “ancestry” played no roll in your hiring. That is not the only issue. You were listed as a minority in diversity reports. That is an issue. You admit you made the schools aware of your “heritage.” They counted you as a minority in their reports to the federal government when the criteria to list you as such had a two part requirement – you had to have both the ancestry and maintain tribal ties. Something you did or said led the two schools in question to believe you met those requirements despite the fact you didn’t….

You continue to skate around the issue by repeating the same story you heard growing up. You say you didn’t ask for documentation because you were a child. Excuse me, but you were not a child when you started “checking the box”; listing yourself in law directories as a minority; or were counted as a Native American for diversity reports.

You were instead, an adult, 37 years old, and a lawyer, when you professionally “became” Native American. To make matters worse, your mother was still alive. Maybe children don’t ask for documentation, but adult lawyers should….

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/0...tive-american-issue-has-not-been-put-to-rest/

And people wonder why conservatives consider Democrats to be low information voters.

If you think this BS will fly well in a National campaign by all means support and nominate her. However this issue will be front and center in the media once again and with Obama's ratings and trust levels dropping daily it won't be pretty for the Dems.

 

I confess to ignorance as to the specific pretexts you use to call her a "liar", of course, not to her actual history.

There is no evidence that Senator Warren ever lied about her family's tradition regarding Indian lineage. Undocumented claims of Native American ancestry, especially those based on family lore, are very common in Oklahoma, which ranks second in the U.S. in number of Native American residents and third in percentage of population of that descent, according to U.S. Census data. Nothing unusual about that. As Warren asked, “What kid asks their grandparents for legal documentation to go along with their family stories?”

Nor is there any indication that she ever was awarded any preference because of her acknowledging a Cherokee and/or Delaware ancestor.

Again, as Charles Fried, the conservative Republican and Reagan's Solicitor General, who was on the Harvard appointments committee that reviewed Warren, said, any suggestion that Warren "attained her position and maintains her reputation on anything other than her evident merit is complete nonsense."

Your authority is Twila Barnes the lady whose dubious ancestral claims were inadvertently exposed by conservative talk-show entertainer Laura Ingraham?

(Incidentally, "blood quantum" is irrelevant to qualifying for Cherokee tribal membership. That is based upon the Dawes Rolls. I'll let you educate yourself on that.)


Please.

You may hate Senator Warren, Democrats, or anyone whose ancestry is not precisely documented, if that suits your transparent ideological agenda, but you should at least be able to hang your headdress on an authority more authoritative that somebody who merely claims to be a "Cherokee genealogist" with no documentation as such, nor even as a Cherokee if you insist on official validation. Ms Barnes cannot provide that for herself. The fact that Genealogy.com has banned her because of racist sentiments she was expressing on their American Indian forum should clue you in if nothing else can.

You have thoroughly Bundied yourself.


.

 

I don't think there is any question she is on the fence. Who'd WANT to be president entering one's 70s? Reagan did, but he got plenty of sleep during meetings.

I dunno, but we'd think of somebody. Maybe Alec Baldwin.

 

Actually you're spreading a lie now, and why does being brilliant disqualify a person, what should the qualifications be ?
Do you think we were better off with an intellectually challenged individual in White House?

- - - Updated - - -

Ok, so you prefer stupid candidates..... that's why you vote Republican....

 

reading the tea leaves it looks like the rumors that Hillary has decided not to run are true. Seems as if Media Matters and Move On are floating the Warren trial balloon. I for one certainly hope so, it will be Sanford/Colbert Busch on a national level

 

When I get some extra time, I'll try to help you improve your sense of humor!

 

The reality is that Hillary Clinton is, by far, the most common name being mentioned as the next president, by Hillary haters, Hillary lovers, and Hillary neutrals.

No one is seriously proposing any viable alternatives.

She is not evidencing the senility that some feel made Reagan a great president but, as Kurt Vonnegut observed, "There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don't know what can be done to fix it. This is it: Only nut cases want to be president." "This was true even in high school. Only clearly disturbed people ran for class president."

All that remains to be seen is whether Hillary is nuts. If she is, she's got the job.

 

darn that sounds familiar ......oh yeah she had it in 2006 as well

 

Unfortunately, brains are no longer a factor. When a pile of (*)(*)(*)(*) like Obama gets elected, it is obvious that many voters do not care whether or not they have brains.

 

The funny thing is you just described the last five Republican presidents, and the low information people who voted them in.