Thread: Why Hillary?

Originally Posted by Smitty0311

September 13, 2007

Military contributions shift — away from the GOP


Washington Monthly ran a fascinating series of pieces a couple of months ago with the perspectives of active and retired U.S. troops explaining what they’re looking for from Democrats. Most of those featured seemed less than enthralled by the Republican Party — which assumes it “owns” the military vote — but there was some lingering hesitation about Dems.

The conventional wisdom suggests it’ll be a while, a long while, until Dems are drawing considerable support from those in uniform. But if contribution patterns are any indication, it may not be that long after all. (via Time)

Assessed favorably this week by the war’s lead general, the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq appears to be causing a surge of another sort — and one that’s not positive for President Bush or the Republican Party. Since the start of the Iraq war in 2003, members of the U.S. military have dramatically increased their political contributions to Democrats, marching sharply away from the party they’ve long supported. […]

“People are saying now enough is enough,” said Lt. Col. Joyce Griggs, an intelligence officer who said she spent two months in Baghdad earlier this year, speaking for herself and not the Army. “If you’re a soldier, you’re going to do your job, do what you’re commanded to do. But that sentiment is wide and deep.”

The shift is more than just a few percentage points. In 2002, the last full cycle before Bush launched the Iraqi invasion, the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics found that 23% of military members’ contributions went to Democrats. So far in 2007, that number is 40%. READ MORE.......

Military contributions shift — away from the GOP - The Carpetbagger Report

Originally Posted by RASTAMAN

September 13, 2007

Military contributions shift — away from the GOP


Washington Monthly ran a fascinating series of pieces a couple of months ago with the perspectives of active and retired U.S. troops explaining what they’re looking for from Democrats. Most of those featured seemed less than enthralled by the Republican Party — which assumes it “owns” the military vote — but there was some lingering hesitation about Dems.

The conventional wisdom suggests it’ll be a while, a long while, until Dems are drawing considerable support from those in uniform. But if contribution patterns are any indication, it may not be that long after all. (via Time)

Assessed favorably this week by the war’s lead general, the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq appears to be causing a surge of another sort — and one that’s not positive for President Bush or the Republican Party. Since the start of the Iraq war in 2003, members of the U.S. military have dramatically increased their political contributions to Democrats, marching sharply away from the party they’ve long supported. […]

“People are saying now enough is enough,” said Lt. Col. Joyce Griggs, an intelligence officer who said she spent two months in Baghdad earlier this year, speaking for herself and not the Army. “If you’re a soldier, you’re going to do your job, do what you’re commanded to do. But that sentiment is wide and deep.”

The shift is more than just a few percentage points. In 2002, the last full cycle before Bush launched the Iraqi invasion, the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics found that 23% of military members’ contributions went to Democrats. So far in 2007, that number is 40%. READ MORE.......

Military contributions shift — away from the GOP - The Carpetbagger Report

Carpet Bagger News? LMAO! Wow, some unknown news site is really a credible source.

Originally Posted by Flyhigher

The First Lady has a huge responsibility, and I am not sure if you have any knowledge about politics at all... That was an idiot remark...

Quite a lot actually. Equating First lady to that of a Vice President or something is rather dumb. The first lady is like the queen of england. She talks a lot of shit, but does little in and of itself.

I still fail to see how being First Lady gives this woman any qualification for being president. Let alone Senator.

READ FINE PRINT AT BOTTOM 552 VETERANS...AGAIN THIS IS WHY POLLS ARE BULLSHIT. ITs liek asking to guys if they are married and saying its a poll of Married men in a America....

Originally Posted by noneof yourbusiness

READ FINE PRINT AT BOTTOM 552 VETERANS...AGAIN THIS IS WHY POLLS ARE BULLSHIT. ITs liek asking to guys if they are married and saying its a poll of Married men in a America....

"?" Please clarify this for me, sir.

Originally Posted by satv365

Quite a lot actually. Equating First lady to that of a Vice President or something is rather dumb. The first lady is like the queen of england. She talks a lot of shit, but does little in and of itself.

I still fail to see how being First Lady gives this woman any qualification for being president. Let alone Senator.

The key here is your inability to do any research... All you have said is give me, give me something... You don't have the ability to research this amazing woman... I think you have and your just upset that she will be the next President... Well, like I said, Mexico for 8 years and you won't have to worry about who's President...

Originally Posted by Flyhigher

The key here is your inability to do any research... All you have said is give me, give me something... You don't have the ability to research this amazing woman... I think you have and your just upset that she will be the next President... Well, like I said, Mexico for 8 years and you won't have to worry about who's President...

Without a doubt, sir, I will concede that Hillary is a very succesful woman. With that, I'd also like to add that she has already been president. It's very possible she could become the first Female president to "actually" be elected.
But there is just as much a chance she won't. We'll see what happens.

Originally Posted by Flyhigher

The key here is your inability to do any research... All you have said is give me, give me something... You don't have the ability to research this amazing woman... I think you have and your just upset that she will be the next President... Well, like I said, Mexico for 8 years and you won't have to worry about who's President...

Youv failed to give me an reasons to beleive being the first lady makes someone qualified to be president? Whose angry now?

I could care less who gets elected. Noone I ever vote for does, as of yet. Waste your vote on socialism, and big government.

YOu have yet to tell me one reason being first lady equates to being a good president. Let alone a senator.



If you think her failed commitee to push forward "hillarycare" is an example you need to think again. This woman is underqualified, in my eyes. Her time as first lady does not reflect any kind of qaulifications to be president of the United States.

Originally Posted by satv365

Youv failed to give me an reasons to beleive being the first lady makes someone qualified to be president? Whose angry now?

I could care less who gets elected. Noone I ever vote for does, as of yet. Waste your vote on socialism, and big government.

YOu have yet to tell me one reason being first lady equates to being a good president. Let alone a senator.



If you think her failed commitee to push forward "hillarycare" is an example you need to think again. This woman is underqualified, in my eyes. Her time as first lady does not reflect any kind of qaulifications to be president of the United States.

Well, I am very happy that all of the people like you are on the Bushwagon...
Whew, lucky for Hillary!

Originally Posted by Flyhigher

Well, I am very happy that all of the people like you are on the Bushwagon...
Whew, lucky for Hillary!

Im not on the Bushwagon. Im a big criticizer of Bush Policys and the war. Just cause I dont like a democrat dosnt mean im a republican.

Or do you think in two parties too, like the rest of the sheep?