HaloScan.com - Comments

Can't wait to see the band at Hillarys Inauguration in 09.

http:// www.chicksrockchicksrule....l07_lubbock.wmv
It's Time | 01.22.07 - 8:13 pm | #

Let's look past the person, and at the issues....

http://gaelicstarover.blogspot.c...ll-way- off.html

-
Daithí | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 8:14 pm | #

Hey John, I know this is off topic, but check it out!

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireSto...tory? id=2811492
seriously | 01.22.07 - 8:14 pm | #

"Hillary Reaches Out"

*jumps back*

No thanks lady I know where that hand has been.

You made nice with Rupert (the Demon) Murdoch.
CD | 01.22.07 - 8:15 pm | #

And WHAT is with that photo of Hillary? It's freakin' me out!
seriously | 01.22.07 - 8:15 pm | #

Ok, in all seriousness, I know Hillary is intelligent and I feel she would make a good, competent president. BUT, is she "electable?" Could she carry some red states? This is where I'm not certain that she should be the candidate. I'm partial to Edwards. I think he could swing it.
seriously | 01.22.07 - 8:17 pm | #

now that she wants our votes, of course she wants to "chat".

she's a reprobate. she'll never get my vote. ever.
darladoon | 01.22.07 - 8:18 pm | #

this is the corporate candidate.

this is the candidate for the status quo.

there are better candidates, the best being kucinich.

learn it.

live it.

know it.
Anonymous | 01.22.07 - 8:18 pm | #

anyone think hillary actually cares about the working class?

at least edwards says he does.
darladoon | 01.22.07 - 8:19 pm | #

Hillary was happy to share the stage with avowed Israeli fascist Avigdor Liebermann at the Brookings Institute recently.

She voted for the war with Iraq and she cheered on the Israeli destruction of Lebanon and the slaughter of 1300+ civilians.

No thanks.
Justaguy | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 8:19 pm | #

There's nothing spontaneous about Hillary. She is calculating and never seeming genuine. She won't win. Somebody, perhaps Richardson, will seem more real and genuine to the public.
Biggus Diggus | 01.22.07 - 8:19 pm | #

yeah, kucinich is again probably the best candidate.
darladoon | 01.22.07 - 8:19 pm | #

However you feel about Hillary, do not underestimate her intelligence.

Definitely. Hillary may be many things, but dumb ain't one of them. She's highly intelligent, and I do not doubt her capability to perform as an effective president. Though she's certainly not my first choice, nor my second, I would think it goes without saying that she's a highly intelligent woman who would mark an immeasurable improvement over the twit that currently resides in our White House illegally.
Karen | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 8:19 pm | #

now that she wants our votes, of course she wants to "chat".

Some of us here in New York remember her "listening tour" of the State back in 2000.

Trying calling one of her offices in 2007.
Daithí | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 8:20 pm | #

Sorry John, but wishy washy Hillary is a closet Republican.

The person I'm voting for is Barack Obama. This man has been a straight talker since day one, while Hillary has been too careful not to hurt anyones feelings over the years.
Ralf | 01.22.07 - 8:20 pm | #

It's a pity that Senator Clinton refused to "chat" with Jonathan Tasini last year.

http://tinyurl.com/2ugwkc

Perhaps, we could have had a serious election.
Daithí | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 8:23 pm | #

Her candidacy is supported by Rupert Murdoch, who held a fundraisng breakfast for her on 18 January 2006.

I can't think of a better reason not to support her run. Or to consider her a viable candidate.
Also she's one of the 2 candidates the DLC has on offer. I object.
miss_kitty | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 8:24 pm | #

John, I hope you show this kinda support for Barack Obama.

What am I talking about... sure you will!

I hope!
Ralf | 01.22.07 - 8:25 pm | #

People keep forgetting what a masterful triangulator Hillary is.

My best guess is given time, she will carefully reach out to everyone. She's not "in it" to lose it, and losing it would be her reaching out to our far-left way too soon.

Do you think she's stupid enough to be labeled a "liberal" almost two years before the election?

That's just preposterous, and I wish the commenters and bloggers would realize this more, and not enable the smearing of this person from her own side.
Volum | 01.22.07 - 8:26 pm | #

I'm not on Hillary's side! When you aren't critical of people in your own party, you end up with a W in the White House.
Biggus Diggus | 01.22.07 - 8:28 pm | #

weeks of obama smearing as the runup to nationwide headlines of that catchy slogan 'im in it to win it' is the calculation only a devil would use. i dont care what she says, its not what you'll get.
cswat | 01.22.07 - 8:28 pm | #

I can't think of anything the Cons would fear more then a Hillary Trifecta.

Wouldn't that be wild.
Been there done that | 01.22.07 - 8:28 pm | #

Rupert Murdoch is supporting Hillary Clintons candidacy? The same guy who posted that smear in his paper "The New York Post" about Barack Obama?

If this is true, Hillary might as well hang it up.

Go Obama!
Ralf | 01.22.07 - 8:28 pm | #

I'm jotting all these comments down to compare them to what will be said a year from now.

(I know I'll be called a "troll" for this but)

It's my understanding that the majority of the commenters at C&L (and huffpo too) are just as knee-jerk'd as the commenters at NRO and Powerline.

The the flipfloppery begin.
Volum | 01.22.07 - 8:30 pm | #

I think U.S. business is yearning for The Clinton Boom years again. Unless your in the energy industry you have nothing to worry about.
Been there done that | 01.22.07 - 8:30 pm | #

I think I speak for many when I say "FUCK OFF, HILLARY."
mike | 01.22.07 - 8:31 pm | #

John, can you find another picture of Hillary? She's freaking me out with that crazed look on her face!

Not sure I can sleep tonight.
Ralf | 01.22.07 - 8:31 pm | #

I do NOT want my life to encompass an aristocracy of Bush I to Clinton I to Bush II to Clinton II!!! How's this to make it simple; NEVER elect another BUSH or CLINTON into the office of the White House EVER AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ian | 01.22.07 - 8:32 pm | #

a chimp and hillary walk into a bar...
Slayer | 01.22.07 - 8:32 pm | #

She's a bright woman, no doubt. But way too conniving. An absolute DINO.

If she gets the nod, it's going to be a helluva race with the thug candidate. And that's not a good thing.

It's bad...bad.
Bit NOLA | 01.22.07 - 8:33 pm | #

Great idea, Ian!

Go Obama!
Ralf | 01.22.07 - 8:33 pm | #

Hillary can and will win. She will have some trouble in the first Primaries - but she is a fighter and will win.

In two years we will have the first female President of the United States. It will be refreshing to have an intellectual in the White House again.

Clinton - Obama? Clinton - Richardson? Clinton - Feingold?

I would support any of the three scenarios above.
macaddict | 01.22.07 - 8:33 pm | #

Has anyone reached out to the DNC and let them know how the "majority" feels about this? They want a Democrat in the White House, and I don't think they would care who it is. If we feel that she is not a candidate who could be elected, then she should not be supported by the party as a whole. I don't think infighting and a field too populated by Democratic candidates stands up to a Republican that is blindly voted into office by sheep believing that they are choosing a party, not a person.
Concerned? Nope, not really. | 01.22.07 - 8:34 pm | #

Last year she visited Portland, Oregon to raise money for her campaign. As is the tradition, a local canidate or two are invited to speak before the honored guest and share a photo as well as throw a few bucks back to the local canidates. Not Hillary.

She was to arrive solo, grab all the money, then leave town. What she didn't realize is that Portland has no problem getting hundreds of protestors on a moments notice to picket the event, reminding everyone of her pro-corporate, pro-war positions. Needless to say her campaign staff really f'ed up and the the press was really bad. She reluctantly threw a few bucks to the local dem party and ran out of town that same night.

I will never, ever, vote for Hillary. Besides, I'm really tired of the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton dynasty talk. We need a fresh, independent in the WH. Edwards fits that bill quite nicely. Wesley Clark as a running mate wouldn't bother me either.
Boring Scott | 01.22.07 - 8:35 pm | #

She's a bright woman, no doubt. But way too conniving.

Whereas, most politicians? Not conniving at all.

Please.
trashman | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 8:35 pm | #

A fighter for who, macaddict?

She's Wishy Washy!
Ralf | 01.22.07 - 8:36 pm | #

Love her. Go Hillary. Competent. Experienced. Saavy. Centrist. Woman. Smart. Hillary will be a great President.
m | 01.22.07 - 8:37 pm | #

"now that she wants our votes, of course she wants to "chat"..."
darladoon | 01.22.07 - 8:18 pm | #

right on. I forgot-after the Murdochian fundraiser (which was on Monday, the 17th of July-my bad), she went to a podium and declared That All Americans stood behind Israel and her 'defensive' actions against Lebanon [actually the text of that speech is totally disgusting http://www.ujc.org/ content_displ...rticleID=188305 ].

I wrote her to ask her not to include me in any pro-Israeli Zionist clap-trap, as she was not MY Senator-and I got a form letter back saying she had no time for non-constituents and their concerns.

Drop Dead Hillary. Too late for a chat now.
miss_kitty | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 8:37 pm | #

macaddict:
I'm with you on this one.

We've been taken through the looking glass now, and shooting for our [b]best chance[/b] at returning to reality is where we start.

Kucinich? I love the guy, but we know he's not prez material.

Biden? what a joke.. please, god no.

Richardson? An excellent candidate, and would make a supreme latino VP

Obama? Cinderella story. People know too little, so they project onto him what they want him to be.
Volum | 01.22.07 - 8:37 pm | #

im on your side of the fence, but a black man and a woman = worse chance of winning than John Kerry. look at the history book, white/male/protestant
sam | 01.22.07 - 8:38 pm | #

I don't think Hillary could ever win. But I won't vote for ANY republican, period. The democrats will be total fools if she gets the nomination. She has no chance to win. Too many people hate her. Probably the press is presenting her as the candidate for that very reason.

Even my 80 year old mother noticed how the news kept presenting Bushit as if he was already the winner prior to the election. sigh, swear, groan. And we know how they ruined Howard Dean just for his scream. How sick is that?
Ali | 01.22.07 - 8:38 pm | #

Why is everyone so afraid of Obama?

Oh... Forgot... He's a decent straight talkin' human being. Can't have that in the White House!
Ralf | 01.22.07 - 8:39 pm | #

How does someone who has the lead in all the polls, wiping the floor with McCain, have "no chance to win"?

Where are people drawing this conclusion from?
Volum | 01.22.07 - 8:39 pm | #

It'll have to come down to the wire before I will vote for Hillary and not solely because she's too conservative, but rather that she panders to the conservatives.
In 2008 I'm looking for some real and she isn't it.
mirth | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 8:40 pm | #

Will Al Gore look better and better, the longer we see/hear Hillary?
Blow Me, I'm Irish! | 01.22.07 - 8:40 pm | #

Ralf, bolding all of your comments is as annoying as doing all caps. Knock it off.
miss_kitty | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 8:40 pm | #

Volum do you really think Hillary could win?

I agree with your reality check points.
Ali | 01.22.07 - 8:40 pm | #

Ali | 01.22.07 - 8:38 pm |

I agree completely. The press will choose the candidate they think is most likely to win, and the American people will follow that prediction until it becomes fact. We are sheep. Baaaaaa.
Concerned? Nope, not really. | 01.22.07 - 8:41 pm | #

Ralf:
I'm not afraid of Obama. But I'm really not interested in the flavor of the month. And his track record is lacking.

Give him time and experience and he may well be a true leader. But I really have to discount anyone the MSM tells me I must watch this early in the game.
Boring Scott | 01.22.07 - 8:41 pm | #

Sorry Kitty.
Ralf | 01.22.07 - 8:42 pm | #

Does anyone have a take on the "greenery" outside Hillary's living room? How long ago was this video made? Not that it really matters.

I'm just noticing...
djr | 01.22.07 - 8:42 pm | #

I don't see her winning a popular vote...sorry...too much baggage (not her fault, either)...and she's HARD on the ears....
Blow Me, I'm Irish! | 01.22.07 - 8:42 pm | #

I %100 believe that Hillary can win.

Will she? this is what I will have no part in predicting.

But if the far-left keep attacking, and the GOP keeps solidifying and unifying their support for 1 candidate, our fractured support will once again falter, and we'll have McCain in 2008.

I would never suggest holding your tongue, but maybe being more calculated, skeptical and careful with words is the right idea.
Volum | 01.22.07 - 8:42 pm | #

I haven't heard "It's all Clintons Fault" in a while. Maybe she can win it.
Been there done that | 01.22.07 - 8:44 pm | #

There's no question she has experience, money, friends, etc. She even has a former president for her husband who was great at bi-partisan work.

But I think the problem is that she offers no hope, just more of the same. I would prefer to vote for someone who thinks differently from the status quo group, such as Feingold or Obama, to make a real change for the better as president.

And sure Obama is a bit of a wishy washy panderer, but he won't do things he doesn't believe in.
Kaorimoch | 01.22.07 - 8:44 pm | #

I don't even understand most of these comments. You would NEVER vote for Hillary? You mean you would vote for a Republican over Hillary? How ridiculous is that? Even if you think Hillary is just a full on politician (which seems to be what most of the comments are about), she would bring a lot of wonderful, people with her and - yes, she is smart as a whip. If you read Reich's book about being at Yale (? I think that's where they went) with Bill and Hillary - Reich said Hillary was the smartest of the three of them and we all know Bill and Reich are no slouches. And, it would be amazing to have a woman in the White House.

That said - she is NOT my choice for the Democratic candidate. I'm like Carter was in 2004 - I want the candidate that can win but...I think Edwards/Clark would be my choice. I like Gore, I love Feingold but I know he won't run...I don't know ANYTHING about Obama except he was supporting Lieberman, as I recall. I like him on a gut level response (and it would be fantastic to have a person of color in the White House) but I know nothing about his politics yet.
jillbryant | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 8:45 pm | #

bushclintonclintonbushbushclinton........One could be legitimately opposed to Hillary on that basis alone...
Blow Me, I'm Irish! | 01.22.07 - 8:45 pm | #

I will vote for any Democrat that runs in 2008. Democrats really do not reprsent my political views 100% but are a lot closer than republicans are.
Necadawg | 01.22.07 - 8:46 pm | #

The POTUS is the leader of the team, not the end of the game.

If Hillary wins, count on people like Feingold, Webb, Levin and others who we all love, to be right there with her on her team.

We have to sell the leader to the public, but it is the TEAM that will make all the difference (i.e cheney, wolfo, perle etc)
Volum | 01.22.07 - 8:46 pm | #

Sure the Republicans have a good chance of winning, we Democrats have too many candidates drowning each other out.

Kinda makes you think some of them are secretly right wingers.
Ralf | 01.22.07 - 8:46 pm | #

"Conniving" was just me playing nice.

She's a centrist republican, and I detest that in a dem.

I don't care who else is also "conniving." I hold them all to the same standard, which is, at least represent the core values of your damn party. She doesn't.

She takes the party further into thug territory.
Bit NOLA | 01.22.07 - 8:47 pm | #

"You would NEVER vote for Hillary? You mean you would vote for a Republican over Hillary?"

but I would never say that....Vote for a Repugnantcan? Never!
Blow Me, I'm Irish! | 01.22.07 - 8:47 pm | #

It's going to be Gore/Edwards.

Hillary broke her campaign promise to the people of New York when she said she's in it to win it - during her re-election campaign for her senate seat, she said she would serve out her term.
Bashful | 01.22.07 - 8:47 pm | #

I LIKE that she is so well known and has a history....everything about Hillary Clinton is out there, positive or negative...I am SICK of surprises from candidates.
m | 01.22.07 - 8:47 pm | #

She is shrewd. The way I see it, she ain't too far from kissy face Joe. Much smarter though.
Gulfport | 01.22.07 - 8:47 pm | #

Yes, Hillary is smart, but who's side is she really on?
Ralf | 01.22.07 - 8:49 pm | #

It depends on her platform. If she connects with people on issues that matter to them she can do it. As we know the Clintons know how to connect with voters. Personally I wasn't suffering during Clintons two terms. Not the least bit. Bush has been like standing in a building with the ceiling crashing down all around you. The Bush Wrecking Ball.
Been there done that | 01.22.07 - 8:50 pm | #

How does someone who has the lead in all the polls, wiping the floor with McCain, have "no chance to win"?

Where are people drawing this conclusion from?
Volum

Uh, our own echo chambers?

Persoanlly, I don't like Hillary. However, if she gets the nomination, I'll probably campaign like hell for her and vote for her. (My "unless" is if Hagel gets the Republican nomination.)

Does anyone have a take on the "greenery" outside Hillary's living room? How long ago was this video made? Not that it really matters.

I'm just noticing...
djr

Well, djr, then you're a little slow on the uptake, because the right wing wing nut blogs have been all over it.
marcos | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 8:50 pm | #

" It's going to be Gore/Edwards."

That's what I'm talking about! Justice would be served at last for Chimpy's First Stolen Term...
Blow Me, I'm Irish! | 01.22.07 - 8:50 pm | #

I notice no one is listing her accomplishments. Which are? A senator that rubber-stamped Bush's war and played kiss kiss with Sharon. An Ivy Leaguer riding on Bill's coattails just like Bush Jr with his Dad. Is that really what we want. Another President that didn't win the office on his or her own merit.

Richardson and Clark have more credentials and Edwards has the compassion to fight for the have nots because he knows what a struggle it was coming from a poor childhood.

A bad day for Hillary is when her $ 5,000 suit is feeling a little tight.
Fools on the Hill | 01.22.07 - 8:51 pm | #

What I want to know is this, why don't the people who are constantly bashing Hillary in her own party tell us what she has done that is so damn bad they have to keep bashing. The one and only reason democrats bash Hillary is because is a woman and they can't bring themselves to vote for a woman. THE MEN IN THIS COUNTRY HAVE SCREWED IT UP TIME AND TIME AGAIN WHAT IS SO DAMN WRONG WITH THEIR PREJUDICE THAT THEY DON'T WANT A WOMAN..SHE SURE AS HELL CAN'T DO WORST THAN THE MEN.
Marge | 01.22.07 - 8:51 pm | #

"Yes, Hillary is smart, but who's side is she really on?"
Ralf | 01.22.07 - 8:49 pm

Thank you Ralf. I appreciate that. and to answer your question, her own. And Rupert Murdoch's.
miss_kitty | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 8:52 pm | #

Has anyone gone over there and chatted with her? I haven't, but I wanted to et some input before I do.
IgnoranceIsNotBliss | 01.22.07 - 8:52 pm | #

I dislike Hillary because of her corporate, center-right values, not because of her intelligence. I have no respect for Democrats like Hillary, who still refuses to unequivocally disavow her politically calculated vote that sent our troops to die and be maimed in a war and occupation based on a pack of lies.

Because Hillary doesn't have the moral courage to do the right thing by our troops, I feel no obligation whatsoever to support her candidacy by any measure.

Continuing to vote for the kind of crap that Hillary is peddling only ensures more of the same. I expect better from Democrats. I've had a belly full it, and I refuse to rollover for the likes of these K Street pimps any longer.
fafnir | 01.22.07 - 8:52 pm | #

I won't vote for her in the primary(Richardson, either, for that matter), but if she's the candidate in November of '08 I'll hold my nose and vote for whoever my party's candidate is. I'm a yellow dog Democrat.

Gore's my first choice, followed closely by Edwards. Obama has to do more than just be charmin' before I give him serious consideration.
Andy K | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 8:52 pm | #

Regardless of my thoughts on Hillary, the discussions are a good idea, and I hope they will be revealing.
Batocchio | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 8:52 pm | #

Everyone was saying there was no chance Bill could beat Bush Sr. I didn't even like Clinton then. My first and last impression of him was that long drawn out speech he did where they were telling him to shut up and get off the stage. I didn't agree with everything he did during his two terms but he sure as hell beat a Bush Sr. regime.
Been there done that | 01.22.07 - 8:54 pm | #

Marge brings up a valid point. Bigotry is not dead by a long shot..
Blow Me, I'm Irish! | 01.22.07 - 8:55 pm | #

Don't forget: she's got eyes for Iran too.

http://hillaryphoto.cf.huffingtonpost.com/
dangovich | 01.22.07 - 8:55 pm | #

Andy K...glad to read you aren't on the Richardson bandwagon. He's my gov and I've written many times why I feel he is a terrible candidate. But we're in the minority here.
Gore/EdwardsorClark. That's where I'm pinning my hopes.
mirth | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 8:56 pm | #

Marge | 01.22.07 - 8:51 pm |

One word: Iraq!

And I've voted for Jenny G. in both gubernatorial elections in MI- primaries, too. Debbie Stabenow, too.
Andy K | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 8:56 pm | #

I didn't like her when she was in the White House the first time. If we could have a woman run, I'd prefer Oprah.
Bashful | 01.22.07 - 8:56 pm | #

Don't forget: she's got eyes for Iran too. dangovich | 01.22.07 - 8:55 pm |

Your sure about that?
Been there done that | 01.22.07 - 8:57 pm | #

"Our own echo chambers"

This is such a powerful comment I hope people really, really read it and think about what road we want to go down here.

You are so right on the money. Our own echo chamber here and at other left leaning blogs, are just as succeptible to falling down the rabbit hole as the people at NRO etc.

We don't want that wool over our eyes, and I hope hope hope that people are going to be concerned about rhetorical nonsense and the echo chamber.
Volum | 01.22.07 - 8:57 pm | #

"Thank you for registering.
The event is scheduled to begin at 7:00pm EST.
We will begin accepting questions at 5:00pm EST.
Please check back then.

Close Window"

I'm on ET time. It's 8:51 here. WTF? I can't get threw. Any suggestions?
IgnoranceIsNotBliss | 01.22.07 - 8:57 pm | #

THE MEN IN THIS COUNTRY HAVE SCREWED IT UP TIME AND TIME AGAIN WHAT IS SO DAMN WRONG WITH THEIR PREJUDICE THAT THEY DON'T WANT A WOMAN..SHE SURE AS HELL CAN'T DO WORST THAN THE MEN.
Marge

Well you've got a point. Plus, if we elected her, we wouldn't have to pay her as much.

I won't vote for her in the primary(Richardson, either, for that matter), but if she's the candidate in November of '08 I'll hold my nose and vote for whoever my party's candidate is. I'm a yellow dog Democrat.

Gore's my first choice, followed closely by Edwards. Obama has to do more than just be charmin' before I give him serious consideration.
Andy K

Andy K,

I've been reading a bunch of obvious smears about Richardson from suspected moonies. I respect your opinion, though. Why don't you like Richardson?
marcos | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 8:57 pm | #

i think the term 'live discussions' may be a misnomer.

her site says "Due to the anticipated volume of inquiries we will not be able to answer each question individually or guarantee a personal response. Questions may be condensed and answered together in order to respond to as many submissions as possible."

thats not live is it? it sounds more like pick your answers to me.
cswat | 01.22.07 - 8:57 pm | #

It seemed to me that Hillary was handed a Senate seat in exchange for the public humiliation she suffered at the hands of her husband's dalliance with Monica L., and never earned her Senate seat on the basis of any kind of merit. We've already had 6 years of one President handed the office when it wasn't merited at all, and I'll be darned if I'll vote to have that happen again.
Mark N. | 01.22.07 - 8:58 pm | #

The one and only reason democrats bash Hillary is because is a woman and they can't bring themselves to vote for a woman.
Marge | 01.22.07 - 8:51 pm | #

Uh Marge I believe you were the only one to bring up her gender.
Boring Scott | 01.22.07 - 8:58 pm | #

I have a lot of reservations about Hillary as well, but the one thing I will say is that none of us have REALLY heard her speak yet about a national agenda -- no one beyond NY constituents.

I'm skeptical, but ready to see what she does. I hope that she will be what all her supporters say she is.

I am encouraged by ALL the Dems this time tho... I mean the GOP has NOBODY this round. We've come a long way since Dems were wishing that McCain would jump parties... that guy has seriously shot himself in the foot.

(YAY)
codos | 01.22.07 - 8:58 pm | #

The Dems biggest problem is not appearing weak on Defense. If they can convince people they aren't they can win.
Been there done that | 01.22.07 - 8:59 pm | #

all I know is Clinton and Biden are the bottom of the barrel...which is why I'd place money on their Nomination as Pres/VP...
Frederick | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 8:59 pm | #

The only history I know of Hillary is of her being afraid to step on anyones toes and kissing up to Republicans.

Reason why Hillary is still be careful with what she says about Republicans, because first most of them are her friends, and second Nancy Pelosi already covered it, which gives her an excuse not to talk.

Wishy Washy!
Ralf | 01.22.07 - 8:59 pm | #

"And I've voted for Jenny G. in both gubernatorial elections in MI- primaries, too. Debbie Stabenow, too."

Same here Andy, but Debbie REALLY let us down on the Torture Bill...
Blow Me, I'm Irish! | 01.22.07 - 9:00 pm | #

The Dems biggest problem is not appearing weak on Defense.
Been there done that | 01.22.07 - 8:59 pm | #

As opposed to the Republicans and the wonderful job they have done to this country's security and the armed forces that will take decades to rebuild?
Boring Scott | 01.22.07 - 9:02 pm | #

mirth | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 8:56 pm |

Like Hillary, Richardson is too tied in with the DLC.

Somethin' funny about wing-nuts who think HRC is liberal- they base it all on her platform on health care. She think's we should nationalize it, just like those lefties who run Ford, GM and Chrysler.
Andy K | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:02 pm | #

She simply reeks of insincerity. I would love to vote for a woman like Pelosi or even Boxer...but Hillary ain't doing it for me.
c. atrox | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:02 pm | #

Handed a Senate seat? No one gets handed a Senate seat.
Many of the things said here about Hillary apply to Bill, yet most here voted for him and liked it. Bottom line: she'll look great whem she's up against Mc Cain, Romney, Giuliani, or (gulp) Cheney.
m | 01.22.07 - 9:03 pm | #

I mean the GOP has NOBODY this round. We've come a long way since Dems were wishing that McCain would jump parties... that guy has seriously shot himself in the foot.

(YAY)
codos

The Republicans have Hagel, but I doubt he'll survive their primary. And if he did, I don't know if he has what it takes to beat the Democratic candidate. Depends on who that ends up being. But in terms of being worthy of the job, then, yeah, Hagel, more than anyone else on the right.
marcos | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:03 pm | #

codos | 01.22.07 - 8:58 pm

Will they say she's a virulent Zionist? because if they do, you'll get your wish.
miss_kitty | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:04 pm | #

Can someone name any acomplishments Hillary Clinton made while in office?

Sorry Miss Kitty, I wont highlight anymore after this.
Ralf | 01.22.07 - 9:04 pm | #

Andy K, the reason wing-nuts think HRC is liberal is because she's a Dem - I don't think it's in their (the wing-nut's, that is) nature to distinguish.
Bashful | 01.22.07 - 9:04 pm | #

Let's also try to imagine what it will be like to live a country that has had only two different families holding presidential power for the past 20 + years! 1988-1992 Bush 1992-2000 Clinton 2000-2008 Bush 2008-??? Clinton. Don't we have representative Democracy here? Or is it an oligarchy? Hillary is too polarizing to win for the dems.
Johnny | 01.22.07 - 9:04 pm | #

Go ask the folks at Corning about her. She saved their ass.
m | 01.22.07 - 9:05 pm | #

This country has had their fill of Bush's and Clinton's. No more to both of these vile snowjob family groups.
km4 | 01.22.07 - 9:05 pm | #

Hillary your ship has sailed along time ago.Give it up!
Reality Check. | 01.22.07 - 9:05 pm | #

"Somethin' funny about wing-nuts who think HRC is liberal- they base it all on her platform on health care. She think's we should nationalize it, just like those lefties who run Ford, GM and Chrysler."

What could be more Pro-Business than nationalized health care anyway?
Blow Me, I'm Irish! | 01.22.07 - 9:05 pm | #

decades to rebuild?
Boring Scott | 01.22.07 - 9:02 pm |

The Dems are facing a hell of a lot worse scenario then Bill inherited his first term thats a given.
Been there done that | 01.22.07 - 9:05 pm | #

Ralf | 01.22.07 - 9:04 pm

Don't worry-upthread EVERTHING was bold-it was losing its punch

miss_kitty | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:06 pm | #

Go ask the folks at Corning about her. She saved their ass.
m | 01.22.07 - 9:05 pm | #

Yeah for Corning, but what about Cortland and Utica, and Auburn, and Oswego, and all the rest?
Frederick | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:07 pm | #

Glad you stopped Ralf. You were startling the cats.
marcos | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:07 pm | #

Shes' unelectable...so is Obama.
If you can't see that you just don't know the country that elected Bush ..TWICE!!
They vote with thier "feelings" (ugh!)
not thier heads. (just as well..)
And they don't "feel" a woman or a black should be president.
By the way ..I love Hillary...
but thats just a "feeling."
Yossarian | 01.22.07 - 9:07 pm | #

Wish Nancy Pelosi run for President!
Ralf | 01.22.07 - 9:07 pm | #

"Bottom line: she'll look great whem she's up against Mc Cain, Romney, Giuliani, or (gulp) Cheney."
m | 01.22.07 - 9:03 pm | #

Well that would be just swell- if she was runnin' as a Republican I'd wish her all the best, because as Republican's go she's tolerable.
Andy K | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:08 pm | #

What's the deal with Corning? Anybody want to clue me in, give me a link, or anything. Is it in her wikipedia bio?
marcos | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:08 pm | #

Andy K:
Yes Richardson is tied to the DNC and I challenge anyone to find anything of any consequence that he has accomplished in any of his various jobs. He's a fatcat do-nothing.
mirth | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:09 pm | #

Nicole Belle did you read my blog this morning and or read the post I JUST placed in my blog? Because I'm having a "Twilight Zone" moment -- and I've been too busy today to read more than this blog and Americablog. I guess many of us are channeling the same thoughts,

Good company to be in!
Clytemnestra | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:09 pm | #

Go ask the folks at Corning about her. She saved their ass.
m | 01.22.07 - 9:05 pm

So? Everything else she does should be overlooked because she saved ass at Corning? How much ass did she save?
Look at how much ass she's not saved by being a powerful wuss [read Iraq]. Rubber Stamp Hill.
miss_kitty | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:09 pm | #

miiss_kitty,

Tell us what you really think.
marcos | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:11 pm | #

Not trusting Hillary has nothing to do with the fact she's a woman. She and McCain have played politics so much this year and pandered so much I lost respect for both of them. He used to seem like a sensible moderate. And Hillary used to seem like a sensible liberal. Then Hillary started moving to the center and paying lip service and that turned me off. I think that's her problem.
Ali | 01.22.07 - 9:11 pm | #

The Clintons are BOTH more than bright people, without question---
Talented?....they win again.
Successfull?...I hope to shout! They made it from "nowhere" to "the top of the heap" AND FOR DAMNED SURE ARE GONNA STAY THERE, BY WHAT EVER MEANS THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH!

...by way of saying---" NOT A DIME....NOT A VOTE"!
oldgringo | 01.22.07 - 9:12 pm | #

Blow Me, I'm Irish! | 01.22.07 - 9:05 pm |

What I was gettin' at is that nationalized health care is a slam dunk, can't miss proposition. But for the insurance and pharmaceutical industries(and the smatterin' of Ayn Rand wannabes), who, when they see the facts, is against it?
Andy K | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:12 pm | #

One question:

Is Cue Ball going to be part of her administration?
marcos | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:13 pm | #

After eight years of Dubya is Hillary really that unappealing?

No, she wont be getting my vote, but if she wins the nomination there is only one Republican I couls consdier voting for and that is Chuck Hagel.

I very much prefer a Gore/Clark ticket, and Obama is also a strong candidate because he offers hope to so many people.

And no one seems to know that Vilsack is running.
odanny | 01.22.07 - 9:13 pm | #

You are right. She is centrist. But getting something done in Washington means dealing with those you don't like, and compromise. The Clinton days of huge surpluses, economic growth, rising incomes for lower and middle classes etc etc were pretty great IMHO. If that means compromise sometimes, so be it. Better than 'my way or the highway' rule, be it from the right OR the left. That doesn't work at all.
m | 01.22.07 - 9:14 pm | #

Well it seems Corning, in upstate NY gave her a big Campaign contribution...
Company Finds Clinton Useful, and Vice Versa

By MIKE McINTIRE and RAYMOND HERNANDEZ
Published: April 12, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/1...=rssnyt& emc=rss

---snip---
"...In April 2003, a month after Corning's political action committee gave $10,000 to her re-election campaign, Mrs. Clinton announced legislation that would provide hundreds of millions in federal aid to reduce diesel pollution, using, among other things, technology pioneered by Corning. It was one of several Congressional initiatives Mrs. Clinton has pushed that benefit the company.

And in April 2004, Mrs. Clinton began a push to persuade the Chinese government to relax tariffs on Corning fiber optics products, inviting the Chinese ambassador to her office and personally asking President Bush for help in the matter. One month after the beginning of that ultimately successful effort, Corning's chairman, James Houghton, held a fund-raiser at his home that collected tens of thousands of dollars for her re-election campaign..."
miss_kitty | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:15 pm | #

I guess if the soldiers gave her large campaign contributions, she work on legislation to bring them home...
miss_kitty | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:17 pm | #

I know where Barack Obama stands on about every topic, but does anyone know where Hillary Clinton stands?

She's a puzzle which I don't feel like playing with.
Ralf | 01.22.07 - 9:18 pm | #

Blow Me, I'm Irish! | 01.22.07 - 9:05 pm |

Posted too quickly. Continuin':

Nationalized health care isn't a very liberal proposition at this point. But the way she's smeared(or anyone else who takes the same stance) by the afforementioned interests, you'd think she was proposin' the raison d'etre of Rick Santorum: man-dog marriage.

Any Dem worth their salt has gotta support health care reform. Hell, a smart Republican- like Hillary- does just that to peel voters from Democrats.
Andy K | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:18 pm | #

It is not about a "conversation". It about getting you on a mailing list.

Nobody, Biden or Sen. Clinton or anybody else who has backed this War for so long is qualified.

Peace.
Human | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:19 pm | #

Thank you, M_K!

You are right. She is centrist.

That's what's funny. I should support her because she isn't too left. But I don't trust her because of the triangulation, trying too hard to be all things to all people. Someone compared her to McCain, and I think that's a somewhat apt comparison.

There's also her video game hearings she held with Joe Leiberman. That was complete bullshit. She's not going to get the gamer vote.
marcos | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:19 pm | #

It is not about a "conversation". It about getting you on a mailing list.
Human

Yep.
mirth | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:20 pm | #

Let's get real: Bankrupcy Bill - no vote (which is tacit support). NAFTA - husband passed it, she defends it. DLC big wheel. Centrist? That's a big negative there buddies. The MSM and the thugs have pulled the center so far right that a 2007 "centrist" is almost a right winger.

That being said, I'll vote for her over any repug.

We HAVE to keep her from getting the nomination. Or we'll STAY well and truly f**ked.
Anonymous | 01.22.07 - 9:21 pm | #

Nationalized health care isn't a very liberal proposition at this point. But the way she's smeared(or anyone else who takes the same stance) by the afforementioned interests, you'd think she was proposin' the raison d'etre of Rick Santorum: man-dog marriage.

Well, that's where compromise comes in. If you want health coverage, you have to fuck a dog.
marcos | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:21 pm | #

Will the real Hillary Clinton now stand?
by Ian Bell, January 23 2007

Most honest voters are perplexed come election time, but Americans are entitled to be baffled. The rest of us merely have to cope with a little spin and image-making. In the United States, the active minority that elects Presidents is treated to a near-existential question: just who, exactly, is this person who wants my support?

Hillary Rodham Clinton is so well-known the first name alone is supposed to be sufficient. Her eight years as First Lady to the man who did not have sex with "that woman", who lied to a jury, and yet left the White House as the most popular President in America's history, have been documented, somewhat. Now she bids to become the first woman to occupy the Oval Office. But the question sticks: who is she really?

Continue Reading:
http://tinyurl.com/yvl6qr
Ralf | 01.22.07 - 9:22 pm | #

Re: dog ...I think thats the other way around marcos
m | 01.22.07 - 9:22 pm | #

Go Edwards all the way.
Save the Constitution. | 01.22.07 - 9:22 pm | #

Ralf! You startled the dog this time! Stop it!
marcos | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:23 pm | #

"...She's a puzzle which I don't feel like playing with."
Ralf | 01.22.07 - 9:18 pm

and should you have to handle it-I suggest these- http://www.dick-blick.com/items/...-1002-3ww- l.jpg
miss_kitty | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:23 pm | #

Issues don't matter.
This country will NOT put a woman
or a black man in office.
How can anyone not see that?
Yossarian | 01.22.07 - 9:24 pm | #

" I guess if the soldiers gave her large campaign contributions, she work on legislation to bring them home..."
miss_kitty | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:17 pm |

YAHTZEE!
Andy K | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:24 pm | #

I think her campaign is behind this false info about Obama's education in Indonesia and now raising issues about his autobiography -- all of which were fully discussed in the intro to his book. She can't be trusted. She is a weather vane that swings in the direction of the wind -- and so transparent about it it's shocking everyone else doesn't see it. She uses dirty tricks and I will not tolerate it.

Site Monitor: Have you read further down the page? The "Hillary started Obama smear" was debunked by CNN today. Do not spread false rumors.

Edited By Siteowner
Ima Liberal | 01.22.07 - 9:24 pm | #

Re: Obama's education: You think that based on WHAT?
m | 01.22.07 - 9:26 pm | #

Ima Liberal

Wrong Ima. CNN has already tracked it down to the Moonies. You're not a moonie spreading rumors, are you?
marcos | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:26 pm | #

I hate to sound paranoid, but can anyone vouch for Ima?
marcos | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:28 pm | #

I think her campaign is behind this false info about Obama's education in Indonesia and now raising issues about his autobiography...
Ima Liberal | 01.22.07 - 9:24 pm |

You and Fox News.
Frederick | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:28 pm | #

So when the Pres acts like a King, we hate it, but we don't want Hillary 'cause she listens to everybody. Check.
m | 01.22.07 - 9:28 pm | #

It's not listening to everyone. It's trying to please everyone, especially when everyone wants different things.
marcos | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:29 pm | #

She's intellegent, she can win (anyone can win....can't you see?), will I vote for her ? --No way. A Goldwater Girl should speak volumes.
Anonymous | 01.22.07 - 9:30 pm | #

So when the Pres acts like a King, we hate it, but we don't want Hillary 'cause she listens to everybody. Check.
m | 01.22.07 - 9:28 pm |

As her constituent that contacted her offices often, I can vouch she doesn't listen any better than Bush...specifically on the topic of Iraq.
Frederick | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:31 pm | #

If Hilary wins in 08 and is reelected, that would be 36 years under Clinton/Bush rule.
Chris | 01.22.07 - 9:31 pm | #

I've never doubted her intelligence.She is a very smart woman...but that begs the question.Why did she vote for this war in Iraq...she should of seen through all that smoke.
mudshark | 01.22.07 - 9:31 pm | #

A Goldwater Girl should speak volumes.

I forgot about that! That's another reason I should love her. But I just don't.
marcos | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:31 pm | #

"So when the Pres acts like a King, we hate it, but we don't want Hillary 'cause she listens to everybody. Check."
m | 01.22.07 - 9:28 pm

Right she listens to everybody. Everybody with money and smooth-talking, well-dressed lobbyists.
http://www.haloscan.com/ comments...9537013#1503080
miss_kitty | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:32 pm | #

m_k, you're relentless.

You have no relent.
marcos | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:33 pm | #

Ima Liberal....it aint working....bzzzzzzzzzttttt....thanks for playin.
mudshark | 01.22.07 - 9:33 pm | #

Well, djr, then you're a little slow on the uptake, because the right wing wing nut blogs have been all over it.
marcos | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 8:50 pm | #

shit... you mean I have to start reading their crap on a daily basis? If I did, I'd have to print out the nutblog ludicracy on paper in order to wipe my ass.

I was only interested in opinions. Not trying to make a point. That's all. Not everyone here has your devious mind.

~peace.
djr | 01.22.07 - 9:33 pm | #

I'm seriously thinking that the Moonies have an astroturf campaign going on.
marcos | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:34 pm | #

mirth hearts miss_kitty

Tell 'em, Girl.
mirth | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:34 pm | #

djr,
I wasn't calling you a rat.
marcos | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:34 pm | #

Hillary is far too right wing, in addition to being far too much of a professional pol.

She's more interested in getting elected than anything else.

Hillary is a mistake.
TB | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:35 pm | #

I'm always surprised that given the state Santorum represented I would have thought he'd have said "man on sheep"
Clytemnestra | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:35 pm | #

She hasn't listened to what is now over 70 some percent the want out of Iraq. She is still stay the course. Go figure. This is just a marketing ploy. And isn't it a little strange that she didn't listen for what is going on 14 yrs now. This kind of toying with the masses what I don't like about the Clintons.
Fools on the Hill | 01.22.07 - 9:35 pm | #

good call Andy...
mudshark | 01.22.07 - 9:36 pm | #

Exactly, Andy. They're going to be or already are smearing all the democratic candidates. Be on the look out for the unsubstantiated smears.
marcos | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:36 pm | #

Yes Richardson is tied to the DNC and I challenge anyone to find anything of any consequence that he has accomplished in any of his various jobs. He's a fatcat do-nothing.
mirth | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:09 pm | #

Mirth and anyone else who's interested. This is his site, but it has some beginning background and some of HIS ACCOMPLISHMENTS. geez. It's good. Better than GW Bush any frigging day of the week.

http://www.governor.state.nm.us/...us/ governor.php
freebird9 | 01.22.07 - 9:37 pm | #

I think she'll get blasted when she goes online....as if.
mudshark | 01.22.07 - 9:37 pm | #

I like you marcos. You stimulate.
djr | 01.22.07 - 9:37 pm | #

The bitch slap of the right wing hit job that was the Obama crap is exactly WHY she will get my support....Kerry got killed cause he couldn't respond to stuff like that and the others will too....You gotta fight as hard as those fighting against you.
m | 01.22.07 - 9:38 pm | #

mudshark -- Ed Schultz asked today on his radio program ..."how will we know it's HER "we" are talking to... and not some flunky?"
Clytemnestra | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:38 pm | #

Thanks, djr. I sometimes come across as brusque when I don't mean to.
marcos | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:39 pm | #

Why not someone new? These are retreads.
Anonymous | 01.22.07 - 9:39 pm | #

Another Clinton in office would mean America being under the thiefdom of either a Bush or a Clinton for a total of at least 32 years, 36 if Hillary is re-elected (many now acknowledge that H.W. Bush pulled the strings as VP during the Reagan era), and they still say anyone can become President! What a pathetic joke!
Anonymous | 01.22.07 - 9:40 pm | #

Another Richardson link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Bil...Bill_Richardson

He looks impressive and I like what I'm reading about him, but I trust people like andyk enough to go slow before I give any money away. It's still way early anyway.
marcos | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:41 pm | #

Why not someone new? These are retreads.
Anonymous | 01.22.07 - 9:39 pm | #

Because the media/corporate America tells us who we are going to choose from. They give us a small list of possible candidates, they only talk about a handful from that small list on FOX, CNN, etc. and we choose from that. Works everytime.
Chris | 01.22.07 - 9:42 pm | #

There is nothing distressing about her being unfairly smeared by the right. It's time we stop helping people who can't be bothered to help us. For the record, I am actually a "moderate" who is fiscally a little conservative.

Single issues politics are not normally advisable. But when the single issue you are concerned about it is the one of the biggest issues of the day, one should use it as a pass fail test for canddiates. People like Edwards are not ideal candidates for their foolishness in the past, but they escape my "veto" for presidential consideration as they showed sufficient amount of remorse and self awareness of mistakes made. WIth HIlary, I do not see any of that.

And then even if you ignore that one issue, you have to wonder what has she done to give her a pass on that one issue? Has she helped other democratic progressives in the last few years. Has she stuck her neck out to help anyone in the progressive sphere which would grant her some kind of karmic payback in the form of some loyalty among the base? No. In 2004, just for the sake of her pesonal political future, she did very little to help get Kerry or other progressive dems get elected. Why? Because sitting idly even if it means the country goes down the tubes only helps her personally. That is, to me, reprehensible behavior compared to a foolish idealogue.
Joe | 01.22.07 - 9:42 pm | #

If you listen she says she wants the 'right' end to the Iraq tiff.
Doesn't say withdraw 'Now or 'Soon'
Quality affordable Health care? Doesn't say National Health.
Independent and free of foreign oil? Doesn't specify alternative energy. Could mean more drilling in the Gulf or opening up the Alaska thingy. Or taking Alberta and Venezuela by force.
Vague-O-Rama.

As for the greenery outside someone mentioned earlier-it's not lush-I guess the assumption is being made elsewhere she shot this 2 summers ago.
hate to burst any neocon's bubble, but that could easily broad leaf evergreen foliage, and it's been warm back there until a week or so ago. The soil is visible, and having worked in mostly high end properties-that's a tell. It's winter.
I'm betting it was recently done. Otherwise, they'dve done a night shot with the drapes closed and a fire burning.

Sorry wingnuts.
miss_kitty | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:44 pm | #

If somene who wants a favor starts being nice to you in the last minute after being cold and distant the last few years, will you give her the same shot as other nicer people who have been in your corner? If you only have a finite amount of time, and your other friends are also being attacked, why would you waste some of your time helping that cold and distant person who is being opportunistic instead of spending all tht time on your other friends in need?
Joe | 01.22.07 - 9:45 pm | #

joe and miss_kitty,

I guess you're right. That should be the acid test. If they're not trying to stop the war now, then forget them.
marcos | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:45 pm | #

marcos | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:41 pm |

He's too DLC fer me. He might not be the chameleon that HRC is, but still too tied in to the corporate interests to get my vote in the primary.

But, knowin' what I do about you(little, but maybe just enough), Richardson might be your kinda Dem.
Andy K | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:45 pm | #

Richardson will drop out, sooner or later.

Too much Gary Hart there.
TB | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:45 pm | #

How so, TB?
marcos | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:46 pm | #

I'm sure this has been said, but my biggest problem with HC so far is her "I'm in it to win" statement.

She should have said, "I'm in it for you, the American people."

Yes, that's my biggest problem because that mindset branches out to every decision she would make as Prez.

I might have actually given her some consideration further down the road had she said that.

BTW, I'm hearing female Latina friends already rooting for her. These women have never voted a day in their lives. HC will pick up a lot of votes on emotions alone.

And likewise lose a lot.
djr | 01.22.07 - 9:48 pm | #

TB Gary didn't drop out he did something stupid.
Clytemnestra | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:48 pm | #

Wishy Washy Hillary is as fake as they come.
Ralf | 01.22.07 - 9:48 pm | #

Richardson's more than "kind of" a hound. He's had more extra marital affairs than Rudy.

That would come out in the wash pretty qucikly, and pretty much get him out of the contestant pool.
TB | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:49 pm | #

Nancy Pelosi looks tough, Hillary Clinton looks wacked out of her mind in the pic, and fake.
Ralf | 01.22.07 - 9:51 pm | #

Ralf, ok, we get it already, you support "Obama."

I live in Chicago. What has done, but be born with mixed race, and happen to have a socially presentable appearance? Those are harsh words, but really man, give me a break. You can't criticise him without beind deemed a racist, but the guy is no where near being ready to lead this country.

Like it or not, it will first be a white female President, before a person perceived as "black" becomes President..jus sayin.

I agree with a previous poster, in assessing Hillary's triangulation. I can't stand the perception that the people who read this website have of her as being "conniving." Indeed, what politician doesn't have to be, in order to stay in the game? Perception might be reality, but I'm disgusted that even liberals fall victim to the fact that she's a woman with power, and you all chalk that up quite quickly as "conniving."

Disgusting. The greater good is accomplished through her decisions, which you people can't seem to get...in politics, things are set up years in advance; her triangulation on many issues to do everything in her power to N O T be susceptible to neo-con attacks of "liberal to the highest power" is working, even on you.

Her vote for criminalizing flag burning? She avoided a vote for Constitutional amendment to do so, which is utterly fascist, but she still managed to come out looking 'favorable' to conservatives; all the while knowing the vote wouldn't pass anyways.

It's politics people, not a fantasy world.

Hillary can win, and anyone underestimating her ability, harping for Obama is a complete dolt...and guilty of some of the same things as the neo-con jokers.
Destardi | 01.22.07 - 9:51 pm | #

"I'm sure this has been said, but my biggest problem with HC so far is her "I'm in it to win" statement.

She should have said, "I'm in it for you, the American people"..."
djr | 01.22.07 - 9:48 pm

Yeah.she might as well have said "I'm in it for me. And my rich pals who, coincidentally, are many of The Current Dictator's pals"
miss_kitty | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:51 pm | #

TB Gary didn't drop out he did something stupid.
Clytemnestra

You mean banging gals on the Monkey Business was a smart move?
TB | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:52 pm | #

no, TB that was only dumber than telling the press to watch him
Clytemnestra | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:53 pm | #

freebird9 | 01.22.07 - 9:37 pm | #

Thanks for the link.
I'll grant that Richardson is a nice guy. He'd be a blast at a party. And what fun with him driving 100+mph thru ABQ traffic because he hehehe has a lead foot and there are no consequences to his continual speeding in his phat black SUV. He'd also be fun to go shopping with, considering his lavish spending at the Gov residence.
Yes he would be better than Bush. But don't we want more than just that? Someone with qualification and determination to lead us back from the brink?
mirth | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:53 pm | #

Hillary's "Let's have a conversation" catch phrase for 2008 is going to wear as thin as Edward's "Son of a mill worker" in the 2004 campaign.

Ditch it sista, it's obnoxious.
Ruthless People | 01.22.07 - 9:54 pm | #

"The greater good is accomplished through her decisions, ... "

And which descisions are those, Destardi?I

t wasn’t just George W. Bush telling the world "every nation has to be either with us or against us."

In October 2002, during the debate about giving Bush authorization to invade Iraq, it wasn’t just Dick Cheney telling the world in that Saddam Hussein had links to Al-Qaeda. It was Hillary, from the floor of Congress.

And in February 2005, it wasn’t just John McCain claiming that democracy was taking root in Iraq, and that the insurgency was in its last throes. It was Hillary, standing right at John McCain’s side.

Yeah. So President Hillary would be soooooo much better about Iraq. Clap louder, everybody. Make it come true.
TB | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:56 pm | #

Richardson's more than "kind of" a hound. He's had more extra marital affairs than Rudy.
TB,

So what? Richardson is a great candidate! Bill Clinton is a hound and he was a great Pres!
As Democrats, we just shouldn't be as uptight about it as the Reich is.

BTW, Hilary would make a fine Pres!
GonzoD | 01.22.07 - 9:57 pm | #

lary's "Let's have a conversation" catch phrase..."
less People | 01.22.07 - 9:54 pm | #

It's a makeover. Or an attempt at one.
djr | 01.22.07 - 9:57 pm | #

Nicole,
Before I finish reading your article, much less the comments, let me tell you that I am a liberal democrat and totally support Hillary Clinton. The world needs to see America in a good light again, and Hillary has not only herself to show, but Bill. Imagine the cabinet she will put together!
Terry Olson | 01.22.07 - 9:58 pm | #

By the time it gets out GonzoD, he's fried with the general voting public.
TB | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 9:58 pm | #

I luvs me MIss Kitty.
Human | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 10:01 pm | #

"Richardson's more than "kind of" a hound. He's had more extra marital affairs than Rudy.
TB,

So what? Richardson is a great candidate! Bill Clinton is a hound and he was a great Pres!
As Democrats, we just shouldn't be as uptight about it as the Reich is.

GonzoD | 01.22.07 - 9:57 pm

And don't forget the King of Hounds, JFK...His presidency was one long booty call.
Also, Ike had a 'special lady,' as did FDR. and it's rumoured Mrs FDR had a 'special lady' as well.
miss_kitty | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 10:02 pm | #

Imagine the 4 - 8 years of continual screeching from the right we'll have to put up with Terry Olson. The almost nonstop BS that would take up most of the rhetorical energy of the left in defending.

Imagine her triangulating her demonstrably right of center positions with the even more radical right positions she will have to put up with, resulting in this country moving even further and further to the right.

No thanks.

I want a liberal. Not someone who SAYS they're a liberal.
TB | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 10:02 pm | #

I'll grant that Richardson is a nice guy. He'd be a blast at a party. And what fun with him driving 100+mph thru ABQ traffic because he hehehe has a lead foot and there are no consequences to his continual speeding in his phat black SUV.

It wasn't him. It was a NM State Police Officer. That has been reported over and over.
freebird9 | 01.22.07 - 10:03 pm | #

By the time it gets out GonzoD, he's fried with the general voting public.
TB

I don't think so. His biggest problem is going to be raising money. Clinton, Obama and Edwards are going to be able to raise so much more money than the others, it will become a 3 horse race. Sad, but true.
GonzoD | 01.22.07 - 10:04 pm | #

I'll repeat myself just because I may as well.

Top 3 anti-Clinton arguments and what they really mean:

"She's too calculating" = "It's OK for me to make all my arguments based on poll results, but she can't."

"No more dynasties" = "Only guys get to network with guys."

"The country's not ready for a woman president" = "I'm not ready for a woman president".

Richardson's a hack. Obama's a talented, way-too-green guy who hasn't run against anyone tougher than Alan Keyes. Edwards has evolved too little, too late. Kerry, Gore and Clark haven't really evolved at all; they had their chance, sorry. And if you're really thinking of voting for McCain, put yourself right up there with all those Nader voters.

Clinton isn't any more connected or calculating than 80% of her peers, and she's easily as smart & qualified as 90% of them. That pretty much leaves sexism. Europe's full of female heads of state and even South America's most socially conservative country is run by a woman now, so give it up and evaluate her fairly.
KingHorse | 01.22.07 - 10:04 pm | #

And don't forget the King of Hounds, JFK...His presidency was one long booty call.
miss_kitty | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 10:02 pm | #

If you call 1,000 days long, but I get your point. It wouldn't have ended there.
djr | 01.22.07 - 10:05 pm | #

TB..you have to GET elected, to DO anything in the first place.

Bill Clinton, IMHO, was a great President...IF it wasn't for the huge assholes who helped to taint the Clinton presidency, and harped on Bill's impropriety, maybe she wouldn't be painted in such a bad light.

Namby-pamby isn't the way you play politics, it never was. Hillary has the machine to win; and I excuse her aggression; I refuse to believe that people who are accusing her of a natural ambition inherent in most politicians, as ANYthing above or out of the ordinary; women haters everywhere. She has NOT done anything that a male politician hasn't done.
Destardi | 01.22.07 - 10:05 pm | #

Human | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 10:05 pm | #

TB -
here
http://orestia.blogspot.com/2007...am- clinton.html
and here
http://orestia.blogspot.com/2007...dy- failing.html

We are thinking a lot a like
Clytemnestra | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 10:07 pm | #

KingHorse | 01.22.07 - 10:04 pm
I haven't taken any of those three things into consideration in dismissing her as a candidate. They are not necessary. There are plenty of real reasons not to vote for her...
miss_kitty | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 10:08 pm | #

Compared to what we've had he was a fantastic president and I long for the days when he was president .... but I falt him and his people for loosing us the house, senate, NAFTA and the white house
Clytemnestra | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 10:08 pm | #

I watched Hillary talk ect. on the news today while working out at the gym .

I think she is going to WIN ! the media is going to push her and mostly .... Hillary is going to go for the throat ! and by this I mean her opponent -

Also ... Hillary's supporters lie in the woods . They are not vocal but they are out there .
Dlykos banned Susan | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 10:09 pm | #

Hillary: "Let's have a conversation"

I don't want to have a conversation, I want to kick some right wing ass for the last 6 and 12 years!
Ruthless People | 01.22.07 - 10:12 pm | #

Personally I think the years and years of right wing noise against the clintons and hillary specifically have affected everyone's view of her rightly, or more likely wrongly... Like it or not, chances are if you don't like hillary it can be traced back to Rush Limbaugh whether you want to admit it or not...

Also I think Hillary probably would make a good president, (not that it would be tough to be better than bush) but the shear cost of reversing the years and years of misinformation and the money/campaign she'll have to spend would be better off spent in other ways...
Blahsay | 01.22.07 - 10:12 pm | #

djr | 01.22.07 - 10:05 pm

I'm sure, if he hadn't been assinated, he'dve died in the saddle, so to speak. A lot of his horn-dogginess sprung from the fact he had Addison's Disease. And it was surprising he got as old as he did.

"...She has NOT done anything that a male politician hasn't done."
Destardi | 01.22.07 - 10:05 pm

And that makes it ok?

Right now what I object to about her is that she's a liar. And it'll be business as usual under her presidency (although the speeches will be done better) because she's a corporatist, in thrall to the same people Bush is.
miss_kitty | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 10:13 pm | #

Premier Hillary site -
hillaryskids

Peace.
Human | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 10:13 pm | #

Destardi | 01.22.07 - 10:05 pm |

As much as I like WJC, I can't help but bein' p.o.'d at his work on pushin' through NAFTA.

And havin' the well oiled machine w/the most fuel can be a good thing for the candidate, but not necessarily the candidate's party or the nation. Remember who had a machine like that in 2000?
Andy K | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 10:13 pm | #

freebird9 | 01.22.07 - 10:03 pm | #

It was a NM state police officer who stopped Richardson's speeding vehicle. He didn't recognize the Gov because of the blackened windows; every other law enforcement officer knows to give him a pass. Richardson is notorious for his speeding. This particular incident is what propmted Richardson's hehehe/lead foot comment printed in most NM newspapers. It was intended to be his apology and promise to slow down. THIS was reported over and over.
I, for one, am not eager for another arrogant president.
mirth | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 10:16 pm | #

" Like it or not, chances are if you don't like hillary it can be traced back to Rush Limbaugh whether you want to admit it or not..."

Blahsay | 01.22.07 - 10:12 pm |

Wow. Have ya read any of the other comments here?

I daresay that we on the left- the democratic wing of the Democratic Party- don't like her because she's TOO FAR TO THE RIGHT!
Andy K | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 10:18 pm | #

I think miss-kitty is on the mark with her veiws on HC....keep goin miss kitty...I'm just reading.
mudshark | 01.22.07 - 10:19 pm | #

Blahsay | 01.22.07 - 10:12 pm

Traced back to WHO?

Back away from the pipe
miss_kitty | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 10:19 pm | #

People have to understand that they are never going to find a candidate they agree with on every issue. When Bob Casey announced that he was running against Rick Santorum, the Governor - Ed Rendell(D)- was asked about Casey being pro-life. Rendell said that while you might disagree with Casey on 5 out of 25 issues, you would disagree with Santorum on 20 out of 25 issues. Rendell was right. I'd much rahter see Casey in the Senate than Santorum.
Yes, we all like to have our issues be the main focus of a politician, however there is room for different views. You never get everything you want, unless you're haliburton.
GonzoD | 01.22.07 - 10:20 pm | #

Thanks mudshark...It's the result of reading and not jumping on any bandwagons.
miss_kitty | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 10:20 pm | #

Yeah and pass it to me. Its been years.
Human | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 10:21 pm | #

Andy, I agree with the NAFTA crap..whole-heartedly.

it was Bush senior who initiated it right before Clinton took office, and I think Bill was too green in the beginning, and pushed it through anyways.

Bush didn't have a well-oiled machine; I want to make a point here, Hillary Clinton was laughed at by yours truly when she pointed out a "vast right-wing consipiracy," and many other liberals felt the same urge to upchuck also at that comment, but what do we know today that we didn't know in the 90's?

Well, goddamn, there really is a "vast right wing conspiracy," and it all started with Reagan's doing away of the Fairness Doctrine. They slowly built up a network of talk show hosts, and an infrastructure that started wayyy too early, and at a slow pace so it snuck up on ALL progressives; don't blame the Clintons for not recognizing what no one else did either...she recognized the conspiracy, but not the form it was taking.

The woman is going to win...it's not hopeful talk; it's there. The percentage will be the same as most previous elections; 50/50 almost, but she can win. Saying that alone, is a great thing for America...a female President, when the most backward countries have already had theirs. Disgusting.
Destardi | 01.22.07 - 10:22 pm | #

GonzoD | 01.22.07 - 10:20 pm

Thing is, I don't agree with much of anything Clinton represents and it isn't just itty-bitty things...
miss_kitty | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 10:22 pm | #

Thing is, I don't agree with much of anything Clinton represents and it isn't just itty-bitty things...
miss_kitty

And that's fine. I prefer Richardson myself. But I can see Clinton being a good Pres.
GonzoD | 01.22.07 - 10:24 pm | #

Thing is, I don't agree with much of anything Clinton represents and it isn't just itty-bitty things...
miss_kitty | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 10:22 pm |

Then don't vote for her. I am always amazed at the amount of time that people devote to someone that they don't like. That alone seems to infer different motives.
ashton | 01.22.07 - 10:24 pm | #

"The Democratic wing of the Democratic party"
Oh HELL yeah!
mirth | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 10:27 pm | #

"I am always amazed at the amount of time that people devote to someone that they don't like. That alone seems to infer different motives."
ashton | 01.22.07 - 10:24 pm | #

Have I gotta point out the topic of the thread?

Okay, maybe ya think if someone is here long enough, they're obsessed.

I think that it's part of a conversation. Some conversations are short, some are long.
Andy K | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 10:30 pm | #

miss kitty..who does have your ear as a possible candidate?
mudshark | 01.22.07 - 10:30 pm | #

In a race where the corporate media steered us into a choice between McCain and Clinton, I would vote for Clinton as the lesser of two evils. But, it seems to me that the basic intelligence test for determining the candidate ought to be whether the candidate supported going to war in Iraq, back when it counted, in 2002-2003. I was hearing that Obama, dispite his inexperience, came out against the war in 2002. Seemed painfully obvious to me that if there was this multitude of WMD in Iraq, that the neocons could have pointed Han Blix to an instance of same.

What, with our ground force capability bogged down, and tail costs of this fiasco projected by the Iraq Study Group at $2 trillion, we can't afford any more dumbbells in the White House.
NoBuddy | 01.22.07 - 10:32 pm | #

Miss_Kitty listed this site:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/1...=rssnyt& emc=rss

Wow, a politician voted for legislation that favored a company that donated money to his/her campaign? Stop the press.

I'm not pro-Israel, or anti-Israel, so I'm thinking you're almost taking an extreme stand, what with the comments including "Zionist clap trap." That's kind of scary, no disrespect.

That whole issue is explosive; should Israel have been formed? IMHO, no...should Hezbollah, and others be held at bay now? Most likely...What are you going to do, be labeled as a "Jew lover" because you try to do the right thing in 2006? I dunno..that's a hard question to answer.
Destardi | 01.22.07 - 10:33 pm | #

If she gets the nod - I'll vote for her.

I have substantially less against her than I do against the nicest of GOPers I can think of.

She's not my first choice for any number of reasons I could go into - but I think we all know that.

I DO however think she's perfectly electable, despite what some people might say.

First thing's first - look at the potential competition.

Most who voted for bush in '00 and '04 were still buying the lie of 'compassionate conservatism'. Also - Kerry was damnably uninspiring; but let's not go there.

At this stage of the game, after what will have been 8 years of Bush - the American people are going to be looking for someone more in the middle; McCain would have appeared an obvious choice to many - but he's bent himself back so far that he's practically licking his own err... well you get the idea...

Giulliani won't pass muster with the religious right (who they need to get anyone nominated)

So... we may very well see a Brownback or someone similar run...

Hillary can trash someone like that without breaking a sweat. The furthest right elements in America are losing traction, and fast. The harder they push us to keep Iraq going, the more people decide "Oh fuck this". They may not be enthusiastic liberals, but if they don't sense a change they like I suspect they'll either stay home or vote for our side.

I have a huge list of people I'd rather see as president than Hillary Clinton - but I have an even longer list of people I don't want to see be President more.

So basically, if Hillary becomes the nominee - we have to deal with a 'lesser of two evils' choice. And who knows - maybe she'll surprise us in a good way. It COULD happen, though I won't expect it to.

I dunno, we're a hell of a long way out yet. Lots of room for things to shape up, more people to join the race and to leave it too.
JJohnson | 01.22.07 - 10:39 pm | #

miss_kitty

Off off topic: I don't see where Addision's disease is connected to womanizing or an over-the-top sex drive. Everything I've read points to a decrease in sex drive.
djr | 01.22.07 - 10:39 pm | #

___miss kitty said:
Right now what I object to about her is that she's a liar. And it'll be business as usual under her presidency (although the speeches will be done better) because she's a corporatist, in thrall to the same people Bush is.
___

And I totally agree. They play politics like it's the damn Wheel of Fortune: "Big money! Big Money! C'mon big money!" And where does that leave the rest of us, the vast MAJORITY of us?

Kucinich has the best worldview of any candidate I've seen. Edwards is great, and obviously telegenic. I don't know about Obama. Has he been carefully avoiding taking stands? I really don't know that much about him.

I long for the day when no one gives a damn whether the candidate is black or white, male or female. Can you all imagine a female Asian Buddhist in the Oval Office? Would she name Buddha's birthday a national holiday? I wish!
knowbuddhau | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 10:40 pm | #

Destardi | 01.22.07 - 10:33 pm
Your comment is hyperbolic and polemic.
miss_kitty | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 10:40 pm | #

Yeah! What Miss Kitty said.

Night Night Miss Kitty.

xox
Human | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 10:45 pm | #

obama could whup billary in any debate.

obama never voted for this war. obama supported lamont. plus, obama's from my homestate of illinois.

we gave you abraham lincoln, ronald reagan, the nfl and the atom bomb.

i guarantee an illinoisan could do a better job of running this country than any fatcat texan shitbrain could.
bauer | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 10:45 pm | #

Slightly off topic:

Is this thread slowin' down 'cause it's slowin' down, or is it slowin' down 'cause "The Wes...", erh, "Studio 60" is on?
Andy K | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 10:46 pm | #

miss_kitty | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 10:40 pm | #

Is that what it is? I was trying to think of descriptive words.

mirth | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 10:48 pm | #

Someone's got a crush on miss_kitty, and I don't think it's matt_dillon.
Andy K | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 10:48 pm | #

bauer | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 10:45 pm |

And Hllary's was born and raised WHERE?
Andy K | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 10:50 pm | #

All of us right-thinking people do, Andy K.
That girl can lay it down.
mirth | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 10:50 pm | #

bauer even I could do a better job than shit for brains from Texas.
mudshark | 01.22.07 - 10:51 pm | #

I haven't read this comment thread, I'm just responding to the original post: speaking as a resident establishmentarian here, I do hope she gets the nomination, and if she does, she'll more than likely have my support, though I'm a split-ticket voter, so I make no promises. I would consider voting for McCain or Giuliani over HRC, but I don't think either will get the GOP nod.

Seriously, though, I think HRC would play well enough in Florida to put it in the blue column. I'm not sure about my state (Ohio), but she'll play better here than Kerry, and this time the Democrats will have a more friendly Ohio state administration with Strickland and Brunner instead of Taft and Blackwell. Those two states would make all the difference in the world; in fact, Florida alone could do it. I don't see her losing any state that Kerry took.
Gramarye | 01.22.07 - 10:51 pm | #

mudshark | 01.22.07 - 10:51 pm |

Them's some mighty easy words to back up there, partner.

Care to back it up by typin' the first three letters of the alphabet?
Andy K | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 10:53 pm | #

Some sure have short memories. The last few years of Clinton's Presidentcy was a disaster and topped off with Corporate fraud (Worldcom, Enron, Tyco, HealthSouth, etc. It was so bad that the idiot Bush was elected and the Dems lost control of both houses in Congress.

Is there really any difference between McCain and Hillary? They both are opportunists, straddling the fence. McCain kisses up to Falwell and Hillary kisses up to Murdoch and Sharon. McCain wants more troops in Iraq and Hillary wants more troops in Afghanistan.

None of us should forget how quickly Hillary was warmongering along with Bush.
Go figure | 01.22.07 - 10:54 pm | #

mirth...yeah..she's formidable....
mudshark | 01.22.07 - 10:54 pm | #

These comments favoring Hilary are not only sickening but very uninformed and premature. She is NWO and I would like to see an end to the Bush-Clinton aristocracy.

The Bush's and Clintons are long time friends and all of them are fucking criminals. Don't you people ever come out of your shells and do real research on these people?

Obviously some of these opinions are based on Main Sream media mouthpieces telling you what you want to hear. But don't you listen to me or anyone in main stream controlled media, do the research and you will change your mind I guarantee that!

Hilary is a slug cunted criminal like her husband and the Bush Crime family. They are all NWO minions like Obama, and Richardson. Follow the money and you will see the ties these criminals have to the NWO and criminals like Ruppert Murdock. I'm sure glad this election is not tommorrow because the truth will come out in time! FUCK HILARY UP HER CRIMINAL ASS with a telephone pole!
Globalstomp | 01.22.07 - 10:55 pm | #

Andy K...ummmmmmm
mudshark | 01.22.07 - 10:55 pm | #

the corporate press, just like repugs and corporatist dems, does not care what people actually want. they want hillary, so you must want her too, just 'cause they said so.
bascombe | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 10:55 pm | #

The same could be said about you, mudshark. I always stop on the scroll down to read what you have to say.
mirth | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 10:57 pm | #

Gore/Clark 08
Talcott | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 10:57 pm | #

I'll start ya out with "A". If yyou can get all 26, in order, and cough up $250,000, we can make ya one 'o' Georgie Boy's "pioneers".
Andy K | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 10:58 pm | #

mirth | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 10:16 pm | #

No sir, I live in NM. He has a driver who is a NM State Police Officer. That is WHO was speeding. I will find a link.
freebird9 | 01.22.07 - 10:58 pm | #

thank you mirth...I appreciate that
mudshark | 01.22.07 - 10:58 pm | #

AndyK...thers 26?
mudshark | 01.22.07 - 10:59 pm | #

"...Then don't vote for her. I am always amazed at the amount of time that people devote to someone that they don't like. That alone seems to infer different motives."
ashton | 01.22.07 - 10:24 pm

Ashton, I don't need you to tell me not to vote for her. She was never on my radar.
My purpose for-how do you put it-devoting my time on someone I don't support-is to try and point out to those open to it that she's a liar and a slimeball. She's walked the Bush line as long as that was popular then jumped over to the other side, as soon as she saw THAT was the popular way.
And what other motives would I have?

Here's my take on it:
She came into congress, a junior Senator, with the power and recognition old timers would have killed for. She could have used that power to muster opposition to the disastrous policies of the Bush Admin.
Instead she squandered it by rubber stamping his policies, for the most part.
She's a hack, and her allegiances are no better or higher than Bush's.

Anyway ashton, that's what sites like this are for. If you want to read "You go girl" commentary only, drop in at this website:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/

mudshark, I would vote for Nader, Mfume, Feingold or Kucinich.

I hear Barack Obama smokes...cigarettes
miss_kitty | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 10:59 pm | #

What's up with the tiny picture of an SR-71 Blackbird next to bascombe's post at 10:55 pm? Or am I the only one seeing it?
knowbuddhau | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 11:00 pm | #

Hyperbolic and Polemic?

Oh Please. Do you know what those words mean?

Who is the one who posted a perfectly legitimate posting about a conference in support of Israel?

Who used "Zionist clap trap?"

This board isn't to insult each other, but if anyone is blowing anything out of proportion, it's with the use of "Zionist clap trap."

Geez.
Destardi | 01.22.07 - 11:00 pm | #

djr | 01.22.07 - 10:39 pm
It was the meds they prescribed in the day. It also gave him a no sun tan...
miss_kitty | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 11:01 pm | #

The key here is to remember that "progressive" is supposed to be inclusive, and crazy people who are so liberal to support illegal immigration, and whatever else is on the radical side of liberalism, ignores things such as the implication of the tragedy of the commons, and the negative impact it has on the United States.

The one thing I learned from the democratic majority congress being kicked out in 94, was that WE can become THEM very easily...from a different angle. From reading some of you on this site, I really do find myself "in the middle" of the American voters.
Destardi | 01.22.07 - 11:02 pm | #

"Let's have a conversation"?????
She had 4 freaking years to have a conversation about how the REpublicans were pushing their agenda and bullying others into making stupid decisions. And she is one of the last converts to the "Iraq war probably isn't a good idea".

She had 6 years to talk about many things other than video games. Now she wants to reach out to us. If she was genuine, she would have done this before thiss last ditch effort to woo us for our votes.

I am not a classic lefty(pro death penalty and pro Voucher, among other things). BUt I do consider myself kind of liberal. So I should be one of those moderates she is trying to reach. But I actually thought she would be an OK President before she became a senator. Now, I find her to be just decent compared to a Lieberman , but clearly inferior to other Democratic contenders.
Joe | 01.22.07 - 11:04 pm | #

knowbuddhau | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 11:00 pm |

It's called a gravatar. There's a site, not operative fer far too long, now, where you can insert yer own. Somehow or another it shows up here.

I've been waitin' at least a month to add one.
Andy K | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 11:05 pm | #

Hilary is a slug cunted criminal like her husband and the Bush Crime family. They are all NWO minions like Obama, and Richardson. Follow the money and you will see the ties these criminals have to the NWO and criminals like Ruppert Murdock. I'm sure glad this election is not tommorrow because the truth will come out in time! FUCK HILARY UP HER CRIMINAL ASS with a telephone pole!
Globalstomp

Ever hear of Prozac?
GonzoD | 01.22.07 - 11:05 pm | #

gravaaavitaaarsssssssss
Frederick | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 11:06 pm | #

Bascombe, do corporations really want Hillary, or do they just want to jumpstart the negative crap from Hannity, Limbaugh, and every other wannabe neo-con harpie, to impact her?

Everything is so convoluted with people having an agenda.
Destardi | 01.22.07 - 11:06 pm | #

I don't like what Hillary has become, or perhaps what she always was that I chose not to see.
Rightie O | 01.22.07 - 11:06 pm | #

Hillary Clinton will be a great president....of Israel.
КЕВИH | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 11:07 pm | #

For me its the lesser of two evils, I thought Bill was awsome, but if its McBang and her, I'll hold my nose and vote for her....Gore where are you, we need you! My pick is Gore if he runs no question. But out of the ones confirmed as of this moment, I want Edwards/Obama the most.
Chimponator | 01.22.07 - 11:07 pm | #

Actually, I couldn't care less about either of them. I'm tired of these conniving pricks. I'd rather have a atheistic scientist for president.

Unfortunately, Issac Asimov and Carl Sagan are dead and Richard Dawkins is British.

But realistically, if either Obama or Clinton are nominated, I'm writing in Edwards or Clarke.
PorkyPine | 01.22.07 - 11:08 pm | #

well

thanks for giving her aritime on this channel. jeez.
Los Populistos | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 11:10 pm | #

GonzoD | 01.22.07 - 11:05 pm |

Wow, that was down so fast that I wouldn't have caught it w/out ya. Nice prescription, Doc.
Andy K | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 11:10 pm | #

Globalstomp, bascombe, whomever else, this is a great website for...seeing who has connections to what...be warned, it's very weblike..you might not be able to get back 'out.'

www.theyrule.net It's based on 2004 information, but..it's crazy.
Destardi | 01.22.07 - 11:10 pm | #

someone up thread said Gore /Clark.That would be an unbeatable ticket.....we should be so lucky.
mudshark | 01.22.07 - 11:10 pm | #

Talcott | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 10:57 pm | #

That's who I'm praying for.

freebird9 | 01.22.07 - 10:58 pm | #

I'm a NMican too. His driver, on this particular occasion, was acting at his bosses direction. If you read the papers, you will have read Richardson's apology and promise to slow the fuck down.

miss_kitty | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 10:59 pm | #

Not Gore?
mirth | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 11:11 pm | #

Destardi | 01.22.07 - 11:00 pm
Uh gee with a 15,000 or so word vocabulary, yeah, I know what they mean. Do you?

As for 'Zionist clap trap," I suggest you search out the speech she made AFTER the Rupert Murdoch fundraiser on 17 July 2006. I think you'll find that instead of being hyperbolic, I was UNDERSTATING the situation over views she expressed.
Here. I did it for you.
http://www.ujc.org/ content_displ...rticleID=188305
miss_kitty | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 11:12 pm | #

knowbuddhau | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 11:00 pm |

Let's see if mine shows up > > > > > >
mirth | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 11:13 pm | #

Clark would be nice as the veep candidate(I just see him gettin' lost in the primary mix).

The GOP seems to be losin' its grip on the military vote; IIRC, Clark was liked and respected by his troops.
Andy K | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 11:14 pm | #

Thankyou!!! for providing a link to her website. Yours is the very first link and when I did a google search the other day only hilary bashing sites came up.

The media were quick to make a big deal about her announcing online but conveniently didn't give a link so we could check it out.

Nonetheless, I will NOT support Clinton because she 1. can't win 2. is an insincere triangulator who can't be trusted. Yes, she's not Bill. I'd vote for him again. Instantly.

Also, I will not support my own fat headed senator, Mr. Jello-spine Obama because 1. he's a spineless follower who doesn't know how to lead. 2. he's too close to Lieberman and follows his example. 3. he disses the democratic party members. 4. rinse. and repeat.

Who will step up and run!!!???!!! So far the only hope is Gore.
Anonymous | 01.22.07 - 11:14 pm | #

"'This is not against the Palestinian people,' Clinton said as she gazed over the massive wall. 'This is against the terrorists. The Palestinian people have to help to prevent terrorism. They have to change the attitudes about terrorism.'"

http://www.lewrockwell.com/frank...nk/ frank34.html

All Palestians, Senator?

How many homes in Chappaqua have been bulldozed recently?
Daithí | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 11:16 pm | #

for those of you who haven't already seen this.......Clark... http://www.answers.com/topic/wes.../wesley-k- clark
mudshark | 01.22.07 - 11:16 pm | #

Okay, so she reached out, and she is smart- yeah, she reached out to the Dems, but has she reached out to VETS ? or American Families that have people over in Iraq ? How about the 911 families? How about saying Anything about Real Health Care Crisis ? How about Katrina ? Reach OUT about Anything that Matters ?...yeah...still waiting to watch more of her staged reach out...she ain't Bill....and she's not really a very good Democrat...not impressed...at all.
enigma4ever | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 11:16 pm | #

Anonymous | 01.22.07 - 11:14 pm |

I think she can win- I, for one, would vote for her if she were nominated.

But I don't know how she'll do in the primaries- I won't vote for her in the spring of '08. We Democrats have better to offer.
Andy K | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 11:17 pm | #

GonzoD yea, I know what I wrote and don't need a reminder by you, but I am passionate about the NWO criminals ruining this country. The last thing I'm going to do is take a drug that turns you into a zombie from big pharma who control half the population already turned to zombie slaves. If you have been researching these criminals as long as I have you would feel the same way. This acceptance of these criminals goes beyond belief and I have been researching these criminals since 1978 (low tech) and now they are in a position to ruin this country further with all their ties to the NWO. It's called passion and anger NOT.... depression and everybody should be mad as well.
Globalstomp | 01.22.07 - 11:17 pm | #

I'll let our primary season choose the victor. i think she's more than electable (ask a New Yorker) and if she gets the nomination, she'll get my vote. People said alot of the same things about Bill. Too moderate, yaddah yaddah and we did pretty damn well under him for 8 years.

If she wins, I will follow. I don't have to agree with her on every issue to know she's better than any one of the Republican candidates in the race.
Marco | 01.22.07 - 11:18 pm | #

Destardi | 01.22.07 - 11:02 pm
The key here is to remember that "progressive" is supposed to be inclusive...Not supporting human rights (immigration) is NOT progressive. Being "in the middle" of the American voters is definitely not progressive.

I don't know what you are doing trying to describe it, because I think it's quite possible you may not have a clue.
miss_kitty | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 11:18 pm | #

For the Gore fans (and I am one of his - NOW) remember the Gore of the 2000 election season. Much different Gore today. Would he revert back to the old Gore if he were to run again?

Just asking.
Marco | 01.22.07 - 11:20 pm | #

Daithí | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 11:16 pm | #

AIPAC-Speak, something Ms Hillary is very good at.
Zionist claptrap.
mirth | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 11:20 pm | #

marco...nope!
mudshark | 01.22.07 - 11:22 pm | #

"...Ever hear of Prozac?"
GonzoD | 01.22.07 - 11:05 pm

Really dude-I don't like the woman as presidential candidate, but jeez-that is OTT harsh.

And mirth, I am still upset with Gore not fighting in 2000. For that, we have the mess we're in today. He wasn't fair to the electorate by pussing out. I admire the work he's done since, and think he's probably an exemplary human being.
miss_kitty | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 11:23 pm | #

Personally, (and I'll probably get flamed because I'm not from the US) I would not vote for anyone who has started campaigning while bush is setting the world on fire. They should be concentrating on a solution to the problems he's created.

Why so soon? You're election is not until November 08 right?
Disgusting IMO
casam | 01.22.07 - 11:25 pm | #

marco...nope!
mudshark | 01.22.07 - 11:22 pm |

Ok. It's just too bad Gore of the last few years wasn't Gore in the 2000 race. I remember a lot of Green Party Nader voters saying the same thing about Gore and Bush - difference.

They couldn't have been more wrong.
Marco | 01.22.07 - 11:25 pm | #

Marco | 01.22.07 - 11:20 pm |
mudshark | 01.22.07 - 11:22 pm |

What's gonna be nice is that with Bush killin' Social Security privatization all by himself, we will never have to hear Al say "Lock-box," ever, ever again.
Andy K | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 11:26 pm | #

knowbuddhau | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 11:00 pm | #

----------------

don't tell me you have a problem with that...
bascombe | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 11:26 pm | #

"...How many homes in Chappaqua have been bulldozed recently?"
Daithí | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 11:16 pm

Better yet, how many Israeli Jews' homes have ever been bulldozed, in a punitive measure against a family member?

Hint: None, 0, zip, nada. As in "Not a One"
Anonymous | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 11:29 pm | #

What's gonna be nice is that with Bush killin' Social Security privatization all by himself, we will never have to hear Al say "Lock-box," ever, ever again.
Andy K | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 11:26 pm | #

LOL. But does Bush realize yet that it is indeed a government program?

Not so sure.
Marco | 01.22.07 - 11:29 pm | #

Unmasking the DLC (a very worthwhile read for all, especially supporters of gore, hillary, and all but 6 democratic senators)

01.22.2007 Stan Goff

The Democratic Leadership Council sees its main task in the coming period as marginalizing other Democrats who are not DLC-obedience-trained.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ st...lc_b_39287.html

bascombe | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 11:30 pm | #

Nothing is too harsh for Hilary if you knew her criminal past as much as I do GonzoD
Globalstomp | 01.22.07 - 11:31 pm | #

Intelligence means nothing when you don't stand up and apologize to the Iraqi people and admit that you were wrong for supporting the war. She can try to reach out as much as she can. She has to reach out with her heart and not her head.
TheRoadNotTaken | 01.22.07 - 11:32 pm | #

Globalstomp | 01.22.07 - 11:17 pm | #

What State Militia do you belong to?

Sorry, miss_kitty
GonzoD | 01.22.07 - 11:34 pm | #

bascombe | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 11:30 pm |

Try as they may, they're havin' a hard time marginalizin' Dr. Dean. DLCer Rahm Emmanuel ran, what, like 20-30 handpicked candidates? And 50% won? At that rate, with DLC supervision, the Democrats would win back the House...Never?

The grassroots are strong and growin' stronger. Hopefully they'll strangle the DLC annointed candidacy before it can grow.
Andy K | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 11:37 pm | #

miss_kitty | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 11:23 pm | #

I hear ya, but today's Gore is better than 2000's Gore. He's ready now for the job and I'm praying he's ask us to give it to him.
mirth | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 11:39 pm | #

Political strategy until 2008

Few things will be as important between now and the election primaries of 2008 as making sure the public knows about the Democratic Leadership Council. Teaching the public about the role and methods of this powerful clique of Democratic Party operatives could easily be the difference between a Democratic Party that calls for an end to the war in Iraq and one that doesn't.

A strategic imperative for the antiwar movement must be to push for the defeat of any and all DLC supported candidates, and to expose and eviscerate the power of this ruling class committee. This is possible using the communications media available to popular forces through the internet, and combining this networking capacity with aggressive grassroots education efforts.

[c&p from huffpo]
bascombe | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 11:39 pm | #

So Hillary's inviting us in for tea? A chat at her kitchen table? Some polite conversation? Yeeesh. My how her constancy shines through!

I've voted for every single Democratic Prezntial nominee for I don't know how many election cycles now--holding my nose half the time.

But I WON'T vote for Hillary if she's the nominee. She's a lawyer who can't read the Constitution--and as a Senator, she had every obligation to do better. It was her oath.

I used to be a fan--as was my whole family. But the breach of trust is far, far too great.

Of course she's intelligent. But "the Best & the Brightest" couldn't win the war in Vietnam--so what quality does Hillary possess that distinguishes her from any of them--or her rivals?

Nicole Belle seems to have a real lack of empathy for those damaged by Bush's war AND by Hillary's capitulation to George W's usurpation of Congress's Power to Declare War. By that I mean there's a disconnect, a failure to recognize the cost to Iraqis, and to Americans, and to this country.

The Founding Fathers empowered Congress with the Power to Declare War PRECISELY to prevent people like Hillary Clinton--the Best and the Brightest--and/or George W. Bush, the Blind and Willful--from substituting their flawed egos and blind judgment for the considered judment and distilled dialog forged by less ambitious and more responsive elected citizen Representatives.

Hillary failed to stand with her people. And now she presumes that "her" people have no other choice but to stand with her.

And she's very, very wrong.
SombreroFallout | 01.22.07 - 11:40 pm | #

You made nice with Rupert (the Demon) Murdoch.
CD | 01.22.07 - 8:15 pm | #

So, she had or breakfast or dinner with Murdoch, BFD!!!!

Pay attention to Bush and his cronies who he has been cohabitating with all his life. We need someone smart in the White House. Let's knock off this "someone nice to have a beer with" bullshit romantic mentality. We'll never get the right person as President.
garcia | 01.22.07 - 11:44 pm | #

The grassroots are strong and growin' stronger. Hopefully they'll strangle the DLC annointed candidacy before it can grow.
Andy K | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 11:37 pm | #
--------------------

I'm with you there. Dean's DNC ground forces put up 9 candidates that beat rahm's posers in the primaries, so they sent carville after dean on Nov8 to complain about not spending the DNC dry. the people told carville and the dlc to stfu. I luv'd it! You probably remember that. and it's growing.

people just have to remember that the DLC, DSCC and DCCC are not beholden to the people.
bascombe | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 11:44 pm | #

Black Commentator editor Bruce Dixon:

The DLC is the corporate-funded right wing of the Democratic Party. It was founded in the mid 1980s by a small group of mostly white, male, largely southern Democratic politicians, corporate lobbyists and fundraisers. The original clique included Tennessee Congressman Al Gore, Senators Chuck Robb of Virginia and Sam Nunn of Georgia, and Al From, a former political operative from the Jimmy Carter Administration. To them, the Democratic Party had become too open to the political voices of African Americans and Latinos, too respectful of the rights of working Americans and the labor movement, too responsive to the justice, peace and environmental movements.
bascombe | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 11:46 pm | #

Destardi,
I am a Vietnam era Marine vet and I dont' back down for no criminals politicians nor am I intimidated by any of them and I will go down fighting the whole way and your warning is a waste of time.
Globalstomp | 01.22.07 - 11:27 pm | #

What are you talking about? I posted the site that you might find interesting, with your talk of people in power and their corruption. www.theyrule.net

MISS_KITTY, my point with the post mentioning illegal immigration, was an indirect way of suggesting that you seem like a far left supporter, and while you're right to question my bad tie-in with your comment "zionist clap trap," anyone of any extreme makes me nervous. Thanks for at least not questioning my lean to the liberal side.

And anyone who boasts about their "15,000" word vocabulary, is immediately disqualified in the race for humility, which is a very attractive attribute. You failed to point out what specifically in my post was "hyperbolic" and "polemic".

You didn't mention (or maybe I missed your response) the candidate you would support?
Destardi | 01.22.07 - 11:50 pm | #

I will not support my own fat headed senator, Mr. Jello-spine Obama because 1. he's a spineless follower who doesn't know how to lead. ...

Anonymous | 01.22.07 - 11:14 pm | #

I wouldn't support Obama because as Glen Ford says he's a mirage who "dissipates into nothingness" once you get close enough to look at him.

Let's knock off this "someone nice to have a beer with" ...
garcia | 01.22.07 - 11:44 pm | #

I'm all for that! It's an idea that keeps the masses misinformed, mislead and misused!
Rightie O | 01.22.07 - 11:50 pm | #

Joseph Kay writes:

The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) held its annual convention in Columbus, Ohio, last weekend, outlining its program for the upcoming 2006 mid-term elections and the presidential election in 2008. Speeches at the meeting and documents published in advance indicate that the Democratic Party plans to run an extremely right-wing campaign, particularly on the issues of "national security" and the war in Iraq.

Sean Donahue wrote in 2004:

Most of the major contributors to John Kerry's presidential campaign are corporations or employees of corporations that have ties to a network of organizations dedicated to moving the Democratic Party to the right. These organizations, which include the Democratic Leadership Council, the New Democrat Network, and the Progressive Policy Institute, are dedicated to pursuing a policy agenda that includes support for high levels of military spending and an aggressive role for the U.S. military around the world. Kerry has a history of political links to these organizations as well, and though he has been using progressive rhetoric during his campaign, the details and nuances of his positions indicate that Kerry is still dedicated to pursuing their conservative agenda.

Still wonder why Kerry refused to oppose the war?/b
bascombe | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 11:50 pm | #

Hillary is going to find out in a hurry that there is a huge difference between talking a good line and being someone of substance and character. Her form of "centrism" is a weakly disguised form of political cowardice and pandering. She can't figure out how to take an affirmative stand on issues until she gets 98% public approval. To this day she has never come out against the war even though Bill did some time ago.

Why anyone would vote for this flaccid continuation of the status quo is incomprehensible. And that picture looks like she is posing for Madame Tussaud's.
bmw 528 | 01.22.07 - 11:52 pm | #

In 2003, Ralph Nader wrote:

To the DLC mind, Democrats are catering to "special interests" when they stand up for trade unions, regulatory consumer-investor protections, a pre-emptive peace policy overseas, pruning the bloated military budget now devouring fully half of the federal government's entire discretionary expenditures, defending Social Security from Wall Street schemes, and pressing for universal health care coverage.

So right-wing is the DLC, mounted imperiously on their sagging Party, that even opposing Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, that cause huge federal deficits and program cuts in necessities such as health, education, environmental protection and children well-being, is considered ultra-liberal and contrary to winning campaigns.

"Special interests" to the DLC means defending the rights of African-Americans, Hispanics, blue-collar workers, and securing the full day in court for wrongfully injured Americans. Being serious about consumer justice and environmental protection also raises DLC's eyebrows.

These pieces of corporate shit boast 40 members in the US House of Representatives and 20 members of the Senate; and a bunch slid in during the 2006 anti-Republican vote against the US aggression in Iraq. Now that one message has been sent in 2006, another has to be prepared for 2008. If you're in the DLC, you won't get a vote from me.

It will be hard, because the DLC - with its head firmly up Wall Street's ass - can raise enormous sums of money for political campaigns. That's why the control all but 6 members of the US Senate's Democratic "majority."
bascombe | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 11:54 pm | #

bmw: BooYah!
Best comment on this thread.
mirth | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 11:55 pm | #

Regarding national security & imperialistic warmongering, the sad fact of the matter is that liberals of the past and present still have a wide streak of cultural superiority that they cannot deny. It is past time that we nip it in the bud, and that begins with choosing leaders who are anti-war from start to finish.
Rightie O | 01.22.07 - 11:56 pm | #

She did come out against the war.She did in a way as to redirect all the blame to bushit.Assuming no responibility at all....anyone who voted for this war are equally to blame....
mudshark | 01.22.07 - 11:58 pm | #

I would like nothing better than an opportunity to vote for a woman for President. I could not possibly vote for any person who supports torture. If it is a choice between two torture supporters, I shall not vote.
thebewilderness | 01.23.07 - 12:02 am | #

Right Web at
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ has an excellent profile of the DLC and its Vichy-"progressive" think-tank, the Progressive Policy Institute.

The DLC sees its main task in the coming period as marginalizing other Democrats who are not DLC-obedience-trained.

For many of us, telling the public about this front for the transnational corporations is our task for the coming period.

NNDB has a list of these turds for those who need to check out their own "representation."

STOP THE DLC!

bascombe | Homepage | 01.23.07 - 12:02 am | #

I have to go, but thanks for the discussion.

Either way, everyone running in the Dem party has my vote, except for Biden. Yes, Hillary also.
Destardi | 01.23.07 - 12:03 am | #

No more Clintons or Bushes in the White House for a couple of generations, please. Throw H.W.'s VP years into the mix, and there's only been 7 years of my life where there HASN'T been a Bush or Clinton as either President or Vice President. And I'm older than a lot of you. Some of you never existed in a Bush or Clinton free America. And that should scare the shit out of you.
Jeon Ji-Yung | 01.23.07 - 12:05 am | #

Thanks Mirth, and also thanks mudshark, you are right, she did come out against it in her own half ass way.
bmw 528 | 01.23.07 - 12:05 am | #

rightweb at:

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/

bascombe | Homepage | 01.23.07 - 12:07 am | #

Beat It Hillary! You'll never get my vote! My country is going down the tubes fast and you want me to vote for you, so you can assist in the Corporate Fascits takeover of this country. You are another Lieberman in a pants suit. Wake up Democrats. Don't fall for her garbage!
sany | 01.23.07 - 12:08 am | #

Why Hillary should throw in the towel early:

1. She's too polarizing, and people have pretty much already made up their minds about her
2. 2008 will not be the year we finally put a woman in charge
3. She can do more for the Democrats as a power broker in the Senate
4. Could we have someone besides a Bush or a Clinton please? FFS

Also, "reaching out" NOW is lame. Should have been laying the groundwork before... not now. This is a case of greedy ambition, reach exceeding grasp.
. | 01.23.07 - 12:10 am | #

Why is Bush an idiot for stay the course and Hillary is so smart for stay the course?

Until someone can explain this, I can't see voting for Hillary.
Question????? | 01.23.07 - 12:11 am | #

this hell-o-scan is dropping information.
BASCOMBE | Homepage | 01.23.07 - 12:21 am | #

Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton progression would be very unhealthy for the country.
Political dynasties suck!
Spideymon | 01.23.07 - 12:22 am | #

For starters: No more Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton.
Enough. ENOUGH! How effing many times do we have to say this. She's not entitled.

Who cares what Hillary's intelligence is. Great that she has some. Fabulous. Wonderful. So what? There are lots of intelligent people.

I'm unimpressed by her six years on the Senate. It still makes her a junior senator.

Obama spent 12 years in the Illinois legislature, then two years at the federal level. He's got eight years on her doing the daily grind.

I'm sure Hillary is just wonderful. But if I see one more Clinton or Bush in this office, I'm gonna take up sniping.
hareli | 01.23.07 - 12:23 am | #

Also, "reaching out" NOW is lame. Should have been laying the groundwork before... not now. This is a case of greedy ambition, reach exceeding grasp.
. | 01.23.07 - 12:10 am |

Whoever wrote this hit it on the head. That's the other thing that bothers me. Why now: miss sweety pants? She has a secret service detail and her own constituents can't get anywhere near here unless they're high funding rollers. She's imperial.Someone took a camcorder along trying to get into their senator's office to complain about a district issue and couldn't even wait in the office to see her.
hareli | 01.23.07 - 12:27 am | #

Oh yea, we get another chance to vote on the lesser of 2 evils. Hillary versus McCain or some other resident of WingNuttia. Oh yea, I'm thrilled--wake me up when it's time to vote.

My god, can we get someone decent for a change? Will I vote for Hillary in the end...sadly yes, so that McCain doesn't get in and continue the ClusterPhuck of Bush's pResidency.
Ron Russell | 01.23.07 - 12:28 am | #

NNDB Name LookUp at: http://www.nndb.com/

BASCOMBE | Homepage | 01.23.07 - 12:30 am | #

The election is just a talent show/beauty pageant because that is all the depth that a television can provide.

The majority of the audience will never look past the superficial, which is why a grim-faced Kerry, or an un-Barbie-like Clinton will never win in this day and age.

The candidates need only take a course in seduction to be able to win. They really need to look to Derren Brown, not any political pundits.
Maldoror | 01.23.07 - 12:34 am | #

She is smart, but calculating and her loyalties are purely corporate. I pray she does not survive the primaries as I don't think she is electable. Her negatives are huge. I am a die hard Democrat, but I WILL NOT vote for anyone that has supported the War as she has. I will vote for the candidate that favors bringing the troops home. If neither do, I will sit home on election day.
xargaw | 01.23.07 - 12:45 am | #

"What I want to know is this, why don't the people who are constantly bashing Hillary in her own party tell us what she has done that is so damn bad they have to keep bashing. The one and only reason democrats bash Hillary is because is a woman and they can't bring themselves to vote for a woman. THE MEN IN THIS COUNTRY HAVE SCREWED IT UP TIME AND TIME AGAIN WHAT IS SO DAMN WRONG WITH THEIR PREJUDICE THAT THEY DON'T WANT A WOMAN..SHE SURE AS HELL CAN'T DO WORST THAN THE MEN."
Marge | 01.22.07 - 8:51 pm | #

Whoa Marge, dial it back a couple notches there. It has nothing to do with being a woman... I'll tell you this, I would vote for Ann Richards (may the good Lord rest her soul) in a heartbeat if she were still alive. Hillary Clinton -- no. I might even vote for Nancy Pelosi if she ran for president. Finally, the notion that just because Hillary is a woman, she's bound to be better than any man... kinda makes me wonder if you should have signed yourself Patty & Selma instead of Marge.
. | 01.23.07 - 12:52 am | #

To all of those who say they cannot vote for Hillary I ask; what are going to do, vote republican? I personally would vote for Hillary any day of the week and twice on Sunday before I would vote for another republican.
AkulA | 01.23.07 - 12:58 am | #

I hope our Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM) gets the nomination. He'd be great. His resume speaks for itself:

1-US Congressmen (3-NM)
2-Secretary of Energy (Clinton Admin.)
3-Ambassador to the United Nations
4-Governor of New Mexico
5-negotiator with hostile regimes and despots
6-has brought home about 6 citizens and one non citizens from captivity. (I hope that is right) I may be off on the numbers. I will be back in a few and post them. Sorry.
freebird9 | 01.22.07 - 9:05 pm | #

Wow, I didn't know anything about Richardson. This sounds fantastic, not only his national-level experience but his experience as a governor. I was getting nervous that all our candidates were Senators.

That said, I believe Hillary could win both the nomination and the general election, and a shallow part of me wants her to. Putting aside whether it would or would not be, you know, good for the country, I think a Hillary campaign and presidency would be incredible theater. And damn, wouldn't it piss the wingnuts off.
snoozer | 01.23.07 - 1:01 am | #

Again, to the elusive Dot at . | 01.23.07 - 12:52 am:
Whoa Marge, dial it back a couple notches there. It has nothing to do with being a woman... I'll tell you this, I would vote for Ann Richards (may the good Lord rest her soul) in a heartbeat if she were still alive. Hillary Clinton -- no. I might even vote for Nancy Pelosi if she ran for president.

Ditto. This has nothing to do with womanhood, Marge. This has to do with a lack of courage and vision. Hillary's taste is for the office, for the power. She doesn't stand on principle. Didn't while she was in the WH before and it turned out she was cuckolded, didn't when she first got into office as a Senator and made comments about the Palestinian situation that her NY backers didn't like, didn't when we went into Iraq and everyone was gung-ho let's bomb. She wont stick her neck out and stay true to a sense of what's right against wrong. That's her problem.
hareli | 01.23.07 - 1:06 am | #

"Why anyone would vote for this flaccid continuation of the status quo is incomprehensible. And that picture looks like she is posing for Madame Tussaud's."
bmw 528 | 01.22.07 - 11:52 pm | #

This gets my vote for a Hillary catchphrase. We should start calling her Madame Tussaud.
. | 01.23.07 - 1:07 am | #

No thanks, Nicole, I'll pass on signing up. She's advertising on about every blog which is great for you guys because you can always use the cash, but if Hillary thinks she's going to sway the blog reading crowd, or should I say manipulate?, she's sadly mistaken.
naschkatze | 01.23.07 - 1:08 am | #

Dot, with you on that one.
hareli | 01.23.07 - 1:08 am | #

AkulA: Read the thread. Voting for a Republican if Hillary is the Dem choice is not what most of us are saying we would do. Instead we have given our reasons for why we hope she isn't the nominee.

Very nice conversation, everyone. I enjoyed it and learned from it.

Please, Mr Gore!
mirth | Homepage | 01.23.07 - 1:09 am | #

Thank you hareli... M. Tussaud I'm still laughing at that one.
Elusive. | 01.23.07 - 1:10 am | #

Me too
hareli | 01.23.07 - 1:12 am | #

And Tussaud will become Told-you-so when she doesnt get that nomination. I can't wait for her walkabout in Ohio in two-three weeks.
hareli | 01.23.07 - 1:14 am | #

No Republican campaigning, no dirty tricks, no electoral fraud, could be as effective a right-wing GOTV tool as her presence on the ticket would prove to be. The woman is pure poison, loved only by the mainstream media (which, of course, isn't mainstream at all). Progressives know her bullshit game. We'd do better with Pelosi. We'd do better with Harvey fucking Firestein. The ironic thing is that right-wingers are so conditioned, so pre-programed to hate her, that they completely fail to recognize her as being basically one of their own. She absolutely, positively cannot win. Obama's chances are much better among disgusted, fractured Republicans. Hillary for President is the key to revitalizing the damaged Republican machine. Think about how Democrats would react to David Duke getting the Republican nomination. That's how Republicans will react to Hillary. They will unite to crush her. And because she enjoys no real support among Democrats, crush her they will.
Jeon Ji-Yung | 01.23.07 - 1:15 am | #

Allowing Rupert Murdoch to host a fundraising for her was all that it took for this voter to axe her off the presidential list.
Carrie | Homepage | 01.23.07 - 1:20 am | #

I'm an ex-NYCer who lives in the middle of the country, for the moment. The NYC/DC pundits are sniffing the subway steam and calling it fresh air if they think Hillary has any popularity between NYC and LA. Sure, pockets here and there. But I do my research in two places: the bar and the produce section. Even if Hillary were the Virgin Mary with a neutron power wand to cure ills, no one I talk to wants to see dynastic reign. They're fed up with it. Really fed up with it. Everyone I canvas in my absolutely completely totally unscientific survey wants an un-Bush, in every aspect of that person. Hillary is a Bush. As First Lady she's tainted. And she isn't smart enough to figure that out. Because if she were, the first thing she would dump would be here secret service detail and she would run around and make herself accessible. She's a figurine from a bye-gone era with an air pump up her ass.
hareli | 01.23.07 - 1:23 am | #

example of the clinton trip: C&L ads/ starboard side shows hilton (big smile) affirmative(ing) a black.. um(m/f?).. persons questions. trying to pull out bills charms from the file cabinet eh?
thats some sad murdock tactic bs imo. she doesnt have the black base bill had.
slum | 01.23.07 - 1:31 am | #

If there is any justice, any reason, or plain old awesomeness in this world, it will be Hillary/Obama.

Hillary is intelligent, highly competent, and damn knowledgeable about politics... I could go on...

I don't think that there is ANYTHING that could happen to make me NOT vote for her. (And if - IF - she loses the primary... I would vote for whichever democrat did win - but it would be a "grit my teeth and vote" sort of thing, after losing Hillary.)

Lets not shoot ourselves in the foot here... Hillary has what it takes to win, and those of you who would rather have a republican in office than her - well, you might want to think about switching your party affiliation. (I mean, what the hell - her voting record is to the left of center in her own party!)
Mara | 01.23.07 - 1:58 am | #

Let's shoot ourselves in the foot early on for `08. HRC will win the primary and lose the general. To think otherwise is as blind as where this country is today.
T M Malone | 01.23.07 - 2:07 am | #

Freaking liberals! You just don’t get the world you live in. You blindly think you can win by truly voting your conscience. Conservatories are lock-step and will beat us every time for the Presidency if we don’t understand the game. She’s playing the game; she’s a freaking liberal like the rest of us! When she gets into office, there will be no bullshit right-wing laws past; it’s just to win the overall election.

Bush is in the white house because to many vote-your-heart liberals voted for the green party. Gore would have won that election, but no, we don’t get it. It’s about the lesser of two evils now people! If we fracture ourselves again, we’ll be looking at another conservative hack, running this country into the ground.

It’s one thing to bring down conservatives, but we’ll never win a presidential election with all this hate towards our own people.
PA | 01.23.07 - 2:45 am | #

Let's think win. Who can win? We need a candidate that will win. We also need a candidate that will become a very good President. I don't feel that Hillary can win at this time. I have positive feelings about Dodd, Biden, Richardson, and Edwards.
Don Myers | 01.23.07 - 3:08 am | #

Did anybody see that disgusting photo op with all those kids around Hilary as if to copy the sorry display by Pelosi. I hate when they use children to plant a seed in your brain of being family friendly when Hilary is so phony she stinks.
Globalstomp | 01.23.07 - 3:28 am | #

Gonzod don't tell me you have a problem with a state Militia since they are the first defense against a rogue government as outlined in the Constitution, or have you been brainwashed by the demonization of militias by the media.

Did you know that Tony Knowles the former gov of Alaska was the head of that states militia?

Be careful there are a lot of great Americans that belong to their states militias ready to defend the Constitution against enemies from within.
Globalstomp | 01.23.07 - 3:43 am | #

Okay, you do have a point about Nader screwing up the 2000 election by sucking votes away from Gore, but I think the two party American system is in a lot of ways much less healthy than the parliamentary system. I don't think there is any way to eradicate corruption completely, but while watching British Parliament on C-Span (yeah I know, but I live in a rural area), there was no question that Tony Blair was accountable to the other British politicians in Parliament, and no way that he could not be aware of their opinions. With the way the Senate and House is organized, GWB is so much more removed from the actual political process and thus able to spend much of his time clearing brush and all that instead of actively defending his policies. The two-party system basically created these two big, corrupt, bloated entities in which money can easily be laundered and all sorts of Abramoff-style shenanigans can go unnoticed for years. Third parties wouldn't necessarily decrease the corruption, but I think if they had a more solid, active presence in American politics, then the Democrats and Republicans would realize that they had to make more of an effort to shore up their bases and would be forced to pay attention to the public's needs. I could be wrong, though, b/c I'm not a poli sci person.

That said, if you can't vote with your conscience, then this isn't a democracy. I was pissed at Nader, too, but I'm not thrilled at the idea of backing up Hillary Clinton just because she's a Democrat. I like Obama, but I'm not sure I want to give my vote to him because I've seen a lot of evidence that just like Mrs. Clinton, he doesn't take legitimate political risks and instead has a knack for saying what people would love to hear. I wish Feingold was running; it bummed me out for days when he said he wouldn't run.
Sara | Homepage | 01.23.07 - 3:53 am | #

Thanks Go figure, at least someone has a memory on this subject and I'm sure the politicians count on the short memory of the sheeple.
Globalstomp | 01.23.07 - 3:55 am | #

We seem to immortalize all the former presidents despite the fact they are traitor or criminals so we are only destined to recieve more of the same. Prosecute Clinton and Bush's and we might have a chance allbeit a small one of getting a good president that has no ties to the NWO and the world banks.
Globalstomp | 01.23.07 - 4:02 am | #

Sara,

You're right about the parliamentary system. Bush wouldn't have got past the stands to a nomination vote.
hareli | 01.23.07 - 4:03 am | #

It's Time? the Dixie Chicks are cool but don't tell me your so convoluted as to vote for Hilary because she's a woman.........
Globalstomp | 01.23.07 - 4:10 am | #

Sara,

All I’m saying is that if you really look at the system, it’s already severally damaged! After 9/11, a lot of independents stopped thinking and only wanted to be safe and watch American Idol. 1/3 of us are progressive minded people and the other 1/3 is conservative mined. The other 1/3 is up for grabs and they don’t pay attention like we do. All they see are the :30 second blurbs about how the left are for the terrorist!

The problem we face is that the left are free thinkers and the right follows the leader. We’re going to lose if we force our progressive leaders to go to far left! That’s the facts! I hate it, but that’s the America we live in today!
PA | 01.23.07 - 4:23 am | #

Hillary represents, is funded by, and is having her campaign run, by the old guard. They still believe in dividing the electoral map to eak out a victory. They still believe in double speak to avoid a firm stance on important issues. They still believe in the power and money of big buisness at the expense of the working class. Hillary is everything that Crashing the Gate and this net roots revolution rejected in 06 to get a huge victory. In short, Hillary is in this for Hillary... not you, not me, not the party, NOT THE COUNTRY.
Put Hillary in there and we may get a slim victory by dividing the electoral map in the way we have seen us LOSE these last two eelctions. Put a man like Richardson or Obama in there, and we could sweep the nation and take back the heart of our party... and our country. The Iraq war, catering to special issues and single issue poltical power players??? That what everyone wants right now?
JUST SAY NO TO HILLARY.
PTC | 01.23.07 - 4:40 am | #

Neither I nor my girlfriend or any of our friends will vote for H.Clinton until she gives us ans., on why she threw Ned Lamont under the BUSS FOR LIEberman. Why she voted FOR the WAR and WHY she voted FOR THE PATRIOT ACT, THE TOURTURE BILL, why she would not BACK THE BILL THAT Rus FEINGOLD put forth to CENTURE BUSH. In our humble opinion she is just A LAP-DOG SOCK-PUPPET to LIEberman and AISPAC.Has any have the GUTS,BALLS TO ASK HER THESE QUESTIONS. I doubt it.
blackjack | 01.23.07 - 4:47 am | #

Bush, Clinton, Bush Clinton, will it never end? The Royal families.
Enough is enough is enough!
Are we so degenerate this is the best we have to offer.
I can't believe it!
Druthers | 01.23.07 - 5:17 am | #

I can't believe all the "if it's Hillary, I won't vote" comments. This is what got Bush in the running in 2000, close enough for corrupt forces to put him in office. So, it is more important to sit at home than make sure there is no President McCain or Giuliani? Wonderful. Get real. I know some people felt the same way about Kerry. So, tell me, is it better we got four more years of W than a President Kerry?

Besides, I have met Hillary on several occasions, and there were no Secret Service personnel to keep me at bay, and these were all within the last three years. Is she my first choice for the nomination? No. I'd still prefer Pesident Gore. But that is not an issue a year before the first primary. What is an issue is that she is one candidate among many, and there is no way I'll be casting my vote for someone other than the Democratic nominee. If it's Hillary, so be it, but I'll puke in my soup if I see the country put another Republican in the White House just because some people want to be so high and mighty that they put their own personal issues before those of the country. Be realistic. The next president will be either the Democratic nominee or the Republican nominee. The Republicans want you to stay at home or vote for a Nader clone. Do their bidding if you will, but just please carefully consider the last six years again, and then tell me you think that Hillary as the Democratic nominee is something bad enough to make you sit this one out. There ARE worse things than a President Hillary. One of them is about to deliver the State of the Union address tonight.
DFW | 01.23.07 - 5:19 am | #

blackjack,

http://www.google.com/search?cli...=UTF-8&oe=UTF- 8
marcos | Homepage | 01.23.07 - 5:21 am | #

Lets not shoot ourselves in the foot here... Hillary has what it takes to win, and those of you who would rather have a republican in office than her - well, you might want to think about switching your party affiliation. (I mean, what the hell - her voting record is to the left of center in her own party!)
Mara | 01.23.07 - 1:58 am | #

Incredibly self-indulgent.

From corporate lawyer to First Lady to carpetbagger to failing to finish even a single term as Senator.

Where is the track record? Where are the accomplishments? Uh..

Hillary will unite the Republicans and rally them right into the White House.

There's such a thing as picking your moment--and Hillary's poorly thought-out decision to run in 2008 just verifies she's not Presidential material. Gotta let the venom die. She's there to clear the Dem field of legitimate constructive candidates.

Like Kerry and Lieberman, you don't want to bee TOOO good--you might win. If you do, you get to be elite-light, corporate-lite, Neocon-Lite.
SombreroFallout | 01.23.07 - 5:34 am | #

I can't believe all the "if it's Hillary, I won't vote" comments. This is what got Bush in the running in 2000, close enough for corrupt forces to put him in office.

. . . I'll puke in my soup if I see the country put another Republican in the White House just because some people want to be so high and mighty that they put their own personal issues before those of the country. Be realistic. . . .
DFW | 01.23.07 - 5:19 am | #

You cant' believe it?!? Where have you been???

Yes PLEASE be realistic: convey your sage advice to Hillary next time you consort with her, b/c the lack of pragmatic realism involved here is through the ceiling.

It's PRECISELY Hillary's candidacy that is "puts [her] own personal issues before those of the country." Hillary's very unresponsiveness and her very candidacy are what's "high and mighty" here, (tho I don't see that on a personal level).

But it's indicative of a profoundly professional set of misjudgments on her part, which will cost her the nomination. Constitution? Uh...not a leader. Iraq War... not a leader--and not responsible.

Had she but bothered, even an iota, to take on George W. Bush, to mention the word impeachment she'd have a claim on my vote.

So NO, this is nothing like 2000--she'll have to earn her votes like everyone else. Hillary's no more Entitled that Dennis Kucinich.
SombreroFallout | 01.23.07 - 5:46 am | #

NO thanks,

I am voting for Richardson. At least he has some diplomatic skills. I would probably vote for her if she was on the ticket even if she was up against a very moderate repug. But I would hate myself afterward.
Metro | Homepage | 01.23.07 - 6:58 am | #

I think Rove is working for her now. Personally I cannot stomach Bush Clinton Bush Clinton Bush.......YUCK
liz | 01.23.07 - 7:00 am | #

No thanks, we have to much work all ready trying to get our Country back.

(1)Consitution.
(2)Individual Freedom "Rights"
(3)Jobs that pay Living Wages.
(4)A fair and just healthcare system.
(5)Ensuring everybody is at the negotation table.
(6)Building infrustrature of transparency; on how our Representatives work for us.

I could go on; but, I made my point.

The People do not need anymore from this family.
Anonymous | 01.23.07 - 7:48 am | #

Hillary is the Republicans choice for the Democratic nominee. That's because they know they can beat her. Why do you think Gingrich is always complementing her.
Don | 01.23.07 - 7:55 am | #

I saw a campaign ad at Jesus General with a picture of Hillary and a caption saying something to the effect of " Let the discussions begin". My only take-away was that no discussions about anything could take place until she gave her blessings.
Paul | 01.23.07 - 7:56 am | #

'Druthres'

"Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton"

There's stlll Jeb Bush to be concerned about. Pappa Bush really wants Jeb to be President and has even said Jeb was ready.

I know it's frightening.

As for Hillary . Can she take Florida and Ohio ? Which Red states can she take? It's really a numbers game.

It's also a question of money. Some of these early hopefuls do not strike me as people that have the money to last a long campaign, and will fall by the wayside in the primaries.
SCHRODINGER'S CAT | 01.23.07 - 7:56 am | #

However you feel about Hillary, do not underestimate her intelligence.

Yes. No doubt she is intellegent. So was Leo Strauss. So is Richard Perle. So is Henry Kissinger. So is Zbigniew Brezinski. So is Richard Cheney. So is Ruppert Murdoch. So is Dr.Condolezza Rice. So is Dr.Wolfowitz. So is Donald Rummsfeld. So is Joeseph Lieberman. So is James Baker. So is "Poppy" Bush. So are a whole lot of others in that Rogue's gallery.

Intellegence appears to be not enough. Something more is needed. Ethics? Internalized principles? The spirit of service? Intellectual honesty? What could it be?
Paul | 01.23.07 - 8:07 am | #

DFW | 01.23.07 - 5:19 am |

DFW,

If the DLC decides that a corporatist, pro-war, pro-torure candidate is all we're going to get, I have no problem seeing them lose the WH in '08. Maybe it will shake things up and remind them what they are suppossed to be about. I will not support Hillary or any other corporatist clone. If that makes me a bad guy, then I'll be a bad guy. I imagine there's a lot of others who feel the same way. I am completely ready to leave that ballot choice blank.
Paul | 01.23.07 - 8:20 am | #

Hillary might be "intelligent" in some book-learning sort of way. But when it comes to doing the right thing in the right way, she's as dumb as a box of rocks.

Fact is, she's as sleazy and as conniving a politician as I've seen and I'm not interested. Give me Russ Feingold, or a half-a-dozen other canidates over here any day of the week.
Moses | 01.23.07 - 9:04 am | #

I'm with many of you on this one--no more American aristocracy. Let's stop it at Bush--Clinton--Bush before we have to worry about adding another Bush to the list after Hillary. Let's stop this before the primary.
Slaw | 01.23.07 - 9:26 am | #

It's circular firing squad time!!!
I love how so many people are willing to sacrifice another four or eight years to the GOP just to "shake things up" at the DLC. As if the past six years weren't bad enough, people would rather have more Repub rule than Hillary?
Anonymous | 01.23.07 - 9:29 am | #

What will it cost to get Hillary elected?

One. BILLION. Dollars.
actor212 | Homepage | 01.23.07 - 9:33 am | #

Anonymous:

I love how the DLC "is willing to sacrifice another four or eight years to the GOP just" because it's UNwilling to stand up for the Constitution, for accountability, for America, for impeachment, for our soldiers and against an unbelievable corrupt war, and for our family and Christian values.

"As if the past six years weren't bad enough, [the DLC] would rather have more Repub rule" than a better candidate than Hillary? Than respond to the base's more conservative and more ethical and more democratic demands? Than insist Hillary live up to the Constitution?

YOU, Anonymous, know little about the choices facing America today.
SombreroFallout | 01.23.07 - 9:35 am | #

I we are going to call out McCain and Giuliani for pandering to the party base, then I would hope we do the same with Hillary if she all of a sudden adopts more liberal stances on the issues. Even so, I worry less about her "electability" than about her drag on the lower tier races. The Repugs are in disarray right now. Nothing will unite them and drive them to the polls more than trying to keep a Clinton out of the White House, and alot of local races with turn to the Repugs as a result.
Ed | 01.23.07 - 9:35 am | #

Hillary can't say the word impeachment..she'll come off as being vindictive....no...she's repug lite.
mudshark | 01.23.07 - 10:09 am | #

Only in a country with fixed elections for at least six years with virtually no mention from MSM...could a candidate be a front runner who most people actually dislike.
molly in maine | 01.23.07 - 10:09 am | #

Someone who stays married to someone who bald faced lied to them? Lack of itnegrity and strength.

Someone who trusted george bush, or was too scared to speak out against the Iraq War when it was starting? Lack of insight or strength.

HC is a weak-kneed spineless carpet bagging roach. Never. I'll vote third party instead, and listen to all the democrats whine again about how third party voters ruined the elections. I cannot, and will not, ever vote for someone who gave bush authority. And NO, I DID NOT vote for Kerry.

He didn't fool me one bit.
dude | 01.23.07 - 10:13 am | #

Since the American People own the airwaves, and broadcasters only have charters to use them--

--why don't we just legislate 4 hours per day of airtime, say from 4-6pm and again from 9-11pm, as mandatory free airtime available to viable and marginal candidates at no cost.

Then we wouldn't have $300 million and $500 million and what? $1 billion dollar campaigns. It'd get the money out of political campaigns.

And broadcasters have no rightful claim on that air time. They're already making obscen profits--and on the back of Public's Own resource. Their charters come with a public responsibility--and this is the only real way to fulfill it.

It's surely parasitical and extortionate to profit off of democratic elections. SO, let's make free speech free again.

There's nothing in principle or law standing against the idea.
SombreroFallout | 01.23.07 - 10:17 am | #

I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR HER

AND WILL WORK HARD ON ANYBODY BUT HER

and I voted for her 6 years ago...
redjb | Homepage | 01.23.07 - 10:21 am | #

I think alot of people here need to stop assuming we are all liberals, alot of people here are just Americans, and don't particularly care for Hillary's "liberal values".

What we do care about is getting America out of Iraq, patching up our tattered foreign relations, and getting our civil rights back. If you can't offer me that in a Democratic candidate, I will not vote for them. Hillary is a non-starter. She gave Bush authority, she is part of the problem.
dude | 01.23.07 - 10:21 am | #

SHE PANDERS ALL THE TIME
redjb | Homepage | 01.23.07 - 10:22 am | #

However you feel about Hillary, do not underestimate her intelligence. She knows that she needs to reach out to the Democrats, in a way that she hasn't yet.

That's exactly the point. Until now, she hasn't been reaching out to the traditional, Liberal, Democratic base. She was too busy calculating the odds and playing to the Right. Anything she does now is done purely as the result of polictal calculation, and anybody with 12 brain cells can see it. Sorry, people can rave about Hillary all they want; she's a phoney and doesn't get my vote.
gene214 | 01.23.07 - 10:25 am | #

One other thing, I remember the whole "winnable" argument during the primaries, it is what made that stiff block of wood Kerry our great champion.... guess what, apparently Kerry was not "winnable".

I am sick of the "winnable" argument. People who say it are only equating wishy-washy and unprincipled as "winnable". It's not even true.
dude | 01.23.07 - 10:25 am | #

That's political not "polictal " - tucking fypos!
gene214 | 01.23.07 - 10:26 am | #

I think alot of people here need to stop assuming we are all liberals, alot of people here are just Americans, and don't particularly care for Hillary's "liberal values".

First of all, dude, I didn't realize that Liberals weren't Americans. Second, I have to admit, I was afraid you were going to start babbling about Hillary's "Leftist" values, but ya fooled me and plugged in the word "liberal" instead. So, since ya brought it up, tell about the "liberal values" Hillary represents which you obviously don't care for. Back to you, Dude!
gene214 | 01.23.07 - 10:31 am | #

If the opinions here are a weather vane for HC's chances....she doesn't seem to have many.I wonder if she knows this.She must have people checking in here.
mudshark | 01.23.07 - 10:37 am | #

she is trying to figure out a way to PANDER TO US NOW...
redjb | Homepage | 01.23.07 - 10:41 am | #

I think Rove is working for her now.
liz | 01.23.07 - 7:00 am | #
I think you might have something there liz. If e-voting is still around he could manage that win for her. He seems to be lurking, putting out headlines to distract from Iraq,Iran, the Libby trial, etc.
casam | 01.23.07 - 10:48 am | #

----First of all, dude, I didn't realize that Liberals weren't Americans.---

Don't try to straw man me, there gene

----Second,..... tell about the "liberal values" Hillary represents which you obviously don't care for. Back to you, Dude!-----

1. desire to give more authority to the UN

2. Anti violent video game thingy

3. gun control

4. raising taxes

I think that should be enough for now.

---regarding "compromise"----

The republicans are not negotiating from a stance of compromise, neither should the democrats. As Teddy roosevelt said, take the extreme positions, so you can get what you want in the compromise.
dude | 01.23.07 - 10:53 am | #

Oh, and gene, I mentioned "liberals" because an earlier post said something to the effect of "stupid liberals!!... compromise your values and vote for hillary!!! Solidarity FTW!"

I find it so annoying when people tout solidarity as a reason to vote for their candidate of choice. If I cared more about solidarity than issues I would just try to vote for GWB a third time.
dude | 01.23.07 - 10:56 am | #

I'll find solidarity when I'm all alone........
mudshark | 01.23.07 - 10:59 am | #

I'd give HC a listen, but I hope if she get's the nomination she'll pick a running mate who can provide the warmth.

If she does she'd either be accused of being fake or lacking gravitas for the position.
ysbaddaden | 01.23.07 - 11:00 am | #

Intellegence appears to be not enough. Something more is needed. Ethics? Internalized principles? The spirit of service? Intellectual honesty? What could it be?
Paul | 01.23.07 - 8:07 am | #

Slack as per J R Bob Dobbs and Connie.
ysbaddaden | 01.23.07 - 11:08 am | #

"I have yet to hear one person say that they are hoping that Clinton becomes the Democratic candidate."

I am hoping that Clinton becomes the Democratic candidate. What's wrong with you people - when we get Hil, we also get Bill - the best president in out lifetime.
e. | 01.23.07 - 11:12 am | #

our lifetime
e. | 01.23.07 - 11:13 am | #

If the opinions here are a weather vane for HC's chances....she doesn't seem to have many.I wonder if she knows this.She must have people checking in here.
mudshark

CL isn't a weathervane for HC's chances. It's one possible indicator, but you can hardly say that we're representative of most Democrats that will be voting in the primaries, let alone the American people as a whole.

CL commentors are definitely a ways left of the rest of the country. Not as far left as some sites, true, but there are many here that are on the farther side of liberalism and beyond.

In some ways, it's an echo chamber, but you'll always get that to a certain degree when you gather partisans. I'd say that that degree is not great here. Otherwise I wouldn't feel welcome here. CLers are open minded, on the whole.
marcos | Homepage | 01.23.07 - 11:17 am | #

hillary is a bright articulate woman and would probably make a wonderful president. However, she won't get my vote. she waffled on coming out strong against the war. i want a president who will be decisive and promises to go after an impeachment. obama and hillary i think would make an excellent ticket.
we could pull in the black vote, and the women as well. they need to know all along the way that they have to answer to their constituency.
ron | 01.23.07 - 11:18 am | #

obama is black, hillary is a woman

wow

that is not enough to win an election. Just like John Kerry being decorated in Vietnam was not enough for him to win an election. To win an election, you must capture the imagination of the people, and you can only do this if you speak with real conviction.

I would vote for Obama, but I feel he is really weak, so I would not vote for him in the primaries.
dude | 01.23.07 - 11:20 am | #

Hillary based her vote on the bullshit that was fed her. Give her a break - only 9 people voted against the war.
e. | 01.23.07 - 11:22 am | #

"Too politically calculating"?

What is this? Right-wing spin. All politicians calculate. If you want straight talk, talk to a hermit in the desert.

What I dislike about this most is that this claim is pure right-wing spin, a narrative created by the right and accepted now by many people who should know better. How an earth could such a claim ever be supported by facts? This is crazy right-wing stuff.
Metrodorus | 01.23.07 - 11:25 am | #

----Hillary based her vote on the bullshit that was fed her. Give her a break - only 9 people voted against the war.------

Anybody who spends a good deal of time dedicated to politics and history knew it was a sham from the get go. If she ate the bullshit, then she is clearly not a good leader, or very smart, or spineless, either way, noen of those are qualities I ever want in a president.

No break. Ever. America has been damned because of her and everyone else who supported that war. None of them will ever get anything but my wrath and scorn!

---All politicians calculate.---

she calculated at the cost of her principles. Nope. Fighting evil by being evil doesn't make you good.
dude | 01.23.07 - 11:27 am | #

e.
No break. She had access to all the info we did. NO victim excuse for being "fed" "bullshit" will fly.

There's no reason she'd find that bs intel persuasive.

What's more Bill will be an albatross--dead weight and not a recommendation.

Metrodorus: There's "right-wing" about recognizing Hillary's calculations, nor about her compromising core American Constitutional principles for political gain. If what passes for "Centrism" means throwing off the rule of law and Constitutional functionality in this country, then Hillary belongs nowhere near the Oval Office, and nowhere near public service at all.
SombreroFallout | 01.23.07 - 11:30 am | #

Yeah Dude, it's all her fault. Now give her a chance to fix it - and she'll fix it with a vengeance!
e. | 01.23.07 - 11:31 am | #

Keep in mind that Hillary isn't the leading candidate in any of the early primary state polls.
Clinton is impressed with herself but she would be wise to pay attention to the early reaction of voters state by state.
I think of the Goldwater loving Hillary, and Lieberman comes to mind...then I have to unswallow.
There was never any love lost between the Clinton's and the Gore's. Perhaps Gore will jump in. One can hope.
Jackie_O | 01.23.07 - 11:31 am | #

----Yeah Dude, it's all her fault. Now give her a chance to fix it - and she'll fix it with a vengeance!----

Why should I? Why reward the unpricipled? There are better candidates. Why should I trust her? What has she done to show she actually cares about the United States, and it's future? What has she done to show she has one iota of understanding of the situation in the middle east?
dude | 01.23.07 - 11:34 am | #

"Nothing ever occurs in politics accidently..." FDR

The script just plays out
Anonymous | 01.23.07 - 11:35 am | #

Anonymous | 01.23.07 - 11:35 am |

Until Jimmy Carter.
Andy K | Homepage | 01.23.07 - 11:44 am | #

What does ineviable mean? Is that supposed to read "inevitable" or "unenviable"?
marbotty | 01.23.07 - 11:44 am | #

While there are some of her votes I don't care for (most especially the IWR) much of her voting reflects democratic values.

She's a tough woman who has been fighting the RW slime machine for years since she was first lady.

Frankly, I want someone who is going to face the repukes head on and won't take any of their shit.

Right now, she's the only one I believe that can do it.

Much of the Hillary bashing by both sides is the fear of a tough strong woman who is a fighter.
cyn | 01.23.07 - 11:44 am | #

Bottom line - we can't elect Bill again...or can we? To answer your questions Dude, I think we need to concentrate on reversing the burdens imposed on the middle class, and provide health care for all Americans. I am also concerned about the war, but that's one of many issues. That's just the biggest issue the current administration is using to distract us while they steal us blind.
e. | 01.23.07 - 11:49 am | #

Everyone has to remember that Congress didn't vote for or declare a war. They gave approval to an authorization to use force with two caveats the buschco was supposed to satisfy before open hostilities. These caveats were never fulfilled.
ysbaddaden | 01.23.07 - 11:50 am | #

All of you who think you’re living in a true democracy need to get over yourselves. You got two choices, a centrist liberal or conservative. If you don’t take the liberal over the conservative, then we’ve already lost!

Liberals have to be centrist in order to win national elections. 9/11 screwed this country up and we have effectively been labeled “soft” by the right. How can you not see this? I can’t believe some of you will accept another four years of a republican dictator to a centrist liberal. I can’t believe you’re willing to just hand the keys right back to them!
PA | 01.23.07 - 11:50 am | #

cyn is short for cynical, isn't it? Wrong, I actually like Hillary as a person.

ysbaddaden--that "Congress didn't vote for or declare a war." is precisely why no one should vote for Hillary--a defining moment for someone claiming to be responsible and centrist.

PA--precisely why Hillary's OUT. We'll have four more years of a BushCo ally if she's nominated. "In order to win national elections" we can't nominate Hillary--who's perceived as liberal, pandering, and divisive.

Your choice is NO Hillary--or more BushCo.
SombreroFallout | 01.23.07 - 11:58 am | #

"tucking fypos!"
gene214 | 01.23.07 - 10:26 am |

gene214,

Can I steal that, or a least be granted unlimited license to use it?
Paul | 01.23.07 - 12:04 pm | #

If Clinton is the nominee, I will vote for her for one very compelling reason.
The Supremes.
I can't stomach the thought of another Republican Supreme Court Justice appointee.
Jackie_O | 01.23.07 - 12:08 pm | #

dude | 01.23.07 - 11:34 am |

dude,

I'm with you on all but one point. I can not consider her a liberal. She's a committed corporatist, a neocon-lite and as opportunistic as Lieberman.
Paul | 01.23.07 - 12:11 pm | #

The Supremes haven't been a concern of the DLC-types.

Haven't mattered one whit.

If they did, there'd of been a Big Stinko by the Senators over the past few years.

YET ANOTHER REASON NOT TO VOTE FOR HILLARY.
SombreroFallout | 01.23.07 - 12:13 pm | #

---Much of the Hillary bashing by both sides is the fear of a tough strong woman who is a fighter.----

No, much of the hillary praising is because she is a woman, and that's about it.

---Frankly, I want someone who is going to face the repukes head on and won't take any of their shit.----

Yeah, when has she done this? Certainly not when it counted.

----To answer your questions Dude, I think we need to concentrate on reversing the burdens imposed on the middle class, and provide health care for all Americans.-----

Iraq is issue #1. By far. $2 trillion wasted, and now we are very open to more attacks because of the hostility it has bred. How can you sit there and tell me the public should be once again ripped off on this issue and given no say, like in 2004, when the debate was not how to end Iraq, but who should be in charge of keeping it going?

-----You got two choices, a centrist liberal or conservative.-----

BULLSPIT!

We do not have to choose Hillary as our candidate. This "defeatism" comes from people who want hillary to win. They are telling the American public, she is "winnable", just like that loser Kerry, who went down, and didn't even say anything before he was hung.

----I can’t believe some of you will accept another four years of a republican dictator to a centrist liberal. I can’t believe you’re willing to just hand the keys right back to them!-----

That's because many people on the Untied states, liek myself, are not dyed in the wool liberals! The US is not left-right, it is a complete mixture onthe spectrum. You call her centerist liberal, but she stands for just about everything I detest, or for things I really don't care about.

the issues I do care about, I have yet to find her on my side.
dude | 01.23.07 - 12:15 pm | #

SombreroFallout | 01.23.07 - 11:58 am | #

Actually this shows that politics isn't about black and white answers but requires finesse and no political naivete.

I still wish Wesley Clark would thrown his helmet in the ring.
ysbaddaden | 01.23.07 - 12:23 pm | #

Why are we letting the right wingers hold one of our own hostage? I don't get it when people say she's "unelectable". The last time they said that was about Howard Dean and who did we end up with? Yeah, John Kerry.

Yes I too don't like her support for the war, but two things to consider:

1. She represent New York, a state with a large Jewish/Pro-Israel population who are in support for the most part of this war and

2. She and other Dems who voted for this "resolution to authorize force" so that if all was well they got credit like Al Gore did in Desert Storm for supporting the president for a just war, but if it failed they can say they didn't tell him to pull the trigger or that the intellence was flawed.

To conclude, if you don't want to support her, please don't let it be because the likes of Rush Limbaugh told you not to.
kdjid | 01.23.07 - 12:25 pm | #

ysbaddaden--always agreed on the black/white false dualism.

But not on the Constitutional Requirement that Congress Declare War.

Especially offensive ones.

Especially preemptive ones.

Especially ones for which there is no evidence.

That's no room for moral relativism there. Nor for political expedience, poorly defined. That IS a black-n-white issue.

And it would've been oh-so-easy to apply adn defend that standard. & to speak of impeachment: lying about sex set the bar low, and lying about the Obscenity of War easily meets that test (& the Constitutional language). Yet--nothing but malfeasance from Senators, particularly Hillary.

If SHE CAN'T do her job as a Senator, there's NOTHING to think she'll adhere to the law as Preznit.

It defies all reason.
SombreroFallout | 01.23.07 - 12:29 pm | #

I completely agree SombreroFallout. I asked a guest on C-Span that once. How can the Supreme Court be so air tight and legalistic on all matters, but when it comes to the Congress' constitutional duty to declare war they let that crap slide?

His answer - some nonsence like nobody on the hill is rattling that cage so - oh well. Sickening.
kdjid | 01.23.07 - 12:41 pm | #

The political finesse I was referring to is a necessity due to the Seperation of Powers (until buschco), placed there by our Founding Fathers. I guess the Founding Mothers were baking cookies. Our Founding Fathers took the Aristotelian concern that Democracy was a base form of governance where every body votes their own selfish interest, and saw to it that America would not be ruled by what they called "mobocracy." Otherwise someone like Al Sharpton or the Larouche folk might have more influence over our government than they already do.
ysbaddaden | 01.23.07 - 12:44 pm | #

i don't think one person here or even in conservative circles thinks she's not intelligent. she's savvy as hell.

but at what? playing the field.

she probably won't get the nomination because to many people just don't like nor trust her.

but she's not smart enough to stay out as to not damage the outcome of what would be a polarized race.
Anonymous | 01.23.07 - 12:47 pm | #

Open malfeasance cannot be mischaracterized as finesse. America had little to fear then from mobocracy, an nothing to fear now.

I disagree that the explicit letter of the law should be "finessed" or that such an open breach of trust can be ignored.
SombreroFallout | 01.23.07 - 12:47 pm | #

I intend to support her nomination as the Democratic candidate for the Presidency, and I will work for her and support her run for the White House. And, by the way, I'm a liberal.
jaanny | Homepage | 01.23.07 - 12:49 pm | #

DITTO
e. | 01.23.07 - 12:52 pm | #

---1. She represent New York, a state with a large Jewish/Pro-Israel population who are in support for the most part of this war and

2. She and other Dems who voted for this "resolution to authorize force" so that if all was well they got credit like Al Gore did in Desert Storm for supporting the president for a just war, but if it failed they can say they didn't tell him to pull the trigger or that the intellence was flawed.-----

what is this supposed to prove? That she chooses poorly which constituents she supports. Just because NY has a large jewish population, does not mean it is all for zionism and the Iraq war, (and invading Iran, BTW) The State of NY by and large hates this war! So she chose to represent a minority.
dude | 01.23.07 - 12:53 pm | #

If the law is so clear-cut you would be agreeing with the Constitutional Constructionists of the conservative side.

Additionally, we're common law, not civil, so when we approach problems we have to use a combination of prescedence and common sense.

All I said was I was going to give Hillary Clinton a listen. Only in the most extremists circles would that be considered a fault.
ysbaddaden | 01.23.07 - 12:54 pm | #

dude | 01.23.07 - 12:53 pm | #

Actually, you would have to extend your argument to not, "(J)ust because NY has a large jewish population, does not mean it is all for zionism and the Iraq war, (and invading Iran, BTW)..." to include not all Jewish people are hard-core Zionists.

That would be like people from other countries saying all Americans are supportive of buschco.
ysbaddaden | 01.23.07 - 12:58 pm | #

I’m not pulling for Hillary, but I understand what she’s doing. Any democrat who wants to win a national election better come off as a centrist and pro military! I can’t understand how so many liberal/progressive minded people think a far left leaning liberal can win a national election. They can’t! Hillary is just like Bill, a liberal, but she knows left leaning liberals can not win a national election. You start acting like a tree-hugging hippy liberal and the independents will vote for republicans again.

The republican smear machine and the MSM will eat alive any candidate who comes across as a bleeding heart liberal. All I’m trying to say is that we can’t nominate a weak left candidate again. Not another Kerry!

As for you “They voted for the war” criers, twenty-twenty hind site is great! They gave the President the authority to stop what they were told as we all were told was a threat to this country. A lot of people trusted the President and he mislead us. After 9/11, Bush had most of us right where he needed us, angry and ready to take on anyone.
PA | 01.23.07 - 12:58 pm | #

No one said you shouldn't listen.

W/o getting hip-deep here, there's no reason I shouldn't agree with a reasonable form of Constitutional Conservatism. Doesn't mean I drink the koool-aid or swallow the wrongheaded ideology.

I reiterate: if the law is to have ANY meaning, then yes, the Constitution is quite clear-cut, and is so at many points where cheap sophistry, faulty reasoning, poor judgment, bad precedent, mal-intent, and lack of integrity--have many supposedly rational people believing that interpretation is an option.

Sorry, but I'll take my birthright instead of your six magic beans. Any day.
SombreroFallout | 01.23.07 - 1:01 pm | #

I am an independant!

I am not a liberal!

The problem with your thinking PA is that you think being opposed to Iraq means you are automatically a liberal, it's not true, and it is something left over from when this war was popular. ITS HATED NOW, the momentum is on the anti-war side, and it is time to take action and stop compromising!

And Kerry was just like Clinton. WEAK SAUCE! The American public's imagination must be grabbed!
dude | 01.23.07 - 1:01 pm | #

Dude, duly noted that she is representing the interest of a minority, but not just any minority - a very powerful and rich minority, politicians' favorite minority, one who owns and runs all major media outlets both print and electronic (including BET) except CNN.

And no I'm not anti-semitic dag on it! I can smell it coming from somewhere...
kdjid | 01.23.07 - 1:01 pm | #

PA--they SHOULDN'T come across as a "liberal."

They should come across as an American, for whom a liberal outlook adamantly supports the valid 'conservative' values that all Americans share.

Since when did it become acceptable to smear "liberals" as out of step or lacking mainstream values?
SombreroFallout | 01.23.07 - 1:03 pm | #

I like to say another thing about H.CLINTON. I remember when MAX. WALTERS stood on the SENATE FLOOR trying to get just one SENATOR to back her when she went to bat for AL. GORE and none STOOD UP where was H.CLINTON leader ship then, agin she was now where to be found. YES I like strong wemon LIKE MAX. WALTERS there is a woman that thinks fore what is right and to hell what is POLITICAL RIGHT, just like Rus FEINGOLD, and NED LAMONT that she threw under the BUSS for LIEberman.So lets look at all the other people that are running.
blackjack | 01.23.07 - 1:06 pm | #

SombreroFallout | 01.23.07 - 1:01 pm | #

Actually, if the law had any meaning we would attempt to impeach busch for abrogating the provisos of the Authorization to Use Force, because he also violated the first Article of the Constitution, as well as the Police Powers Act to go ahead with this adventurism.
ysbaddaden | 01.23.07 - 1:07 pm | #

Since when did it become acceptable to smear "liberals" as out of step or lacking mainstream values?
SombreroFallout | 01.23.07 - 1:03 pm | # Since corporations took over the media.
e. | 01.23.07 - 1:08 pm | #

e. -- but you'd go along with it. The ONLY effective response is to embrace the principles of your base, which are not 'liberal' at all but rather principled and even conservative--not present a false centrism that's a mask for compromsing those American principles.

ysbaddaden--'s my point. There's plenty that's impeachable. But that doesn't ok looking the other way on Declaring War or capitulating sworn Senatorial duties to a usurpatious Exec.
SombreroFallout | 01.23.07 - 1:21 pm | #

kdjid | 01.23.07 - 12:41 pm |

We have the opportunity to fire members of congress every 2 - 6 years and the POTUS every 4 years.
The SCOTUS is a lifetime appointment.
That's why I'm going to hold my nose and vote if Hillary's the nominee.
The alternative is something I won't even consider.
Jackie_O | 01.23.07 - 1:21 pm | #

It’s not a fair game anymore. The main stream media gives the republicans a free pass and then grill the democrats on everything and they’ve been out of power for the last 6 years. This is why democrats need be very careful how they run their campaigns. They’re working not only against the republicans, but the corporate media as well.

It’s about the 1/3 of Americans out there who don’t pay attention to daily politics and get all their information from the nightly news. The media has been handing these votes to the republicans for years.

A huge part of the American population is clueless and wants to stay clueless. They’ve been conditioned by 9/11 and Rove to be pro military and to hate liberal ideas. It’s going to take a crafty democrat to convince these people to vote for them in a national election. A centrist Democrat!
PA | 01.23.07 - 1:30 pm | #

They should come across as an American, for whom a liberal outlook adamantly supports the valid 'conservative' values that all Americans share.

Since when did it become acceptable to smear "liberals" as out of step or lacking mainstream values?
SombreroFallout

You think it's a one way street?

One thing I'd really like to avoid is the middle being captured by the extreme left, just as we've been captured by the extreme right. One needs only look at the Israeli/Palestinian conflict (or many others) to see where that road goes.

That being said, I don't find any of the candidates on the Democratic side to be extreme. Nor do I find the majority on this site to be extreme partisans of the sort we should fear. The partisanship here is a sign of health; the swing to the left we are seeing in the country is a sign of health. It's a renunciation of the extreme right wing.
marcos | Homepage | 01.23.07 - 1:33 pm | #

The alternative is something I won't even consider.
Jackie_O | 01.23.07 - 1:21 pm | #

Where you been when your fellow liberals and staunch allies have expressed grave concern about the Constitution and issues of war and peace? Uhh...

That's why your concern about a judicial nominee is utterly meaningless. It's irrelevant.

People who want pragmatic voting for the likes of Hillary WEREN'T THERE when your allies needed you--NOW you expect us to support you in furthering a political compromiser who will further the degradation of the Constitution, across the board.

Preznit Hillary would never nominate a Supreme Court Justice any more sane than McCain.

Sorry, won't wash.
SombreroFallout | 01.23.07 - 1:37 pm | #

----A centrist Democrat!----

fine let them be centerist on something other than Iraq. Maybe gun control, or government spending, or lack of censorship on violent video games.

There is no compromise for me on Iraq. And the last elections proved hammering Bush's Iraq policy is not a losing strategy. The only ones left saying it is are the ones trying to raly around Clinton and her support of a failed, backwards and ignorant war.
Anonymous | 01.23.07 - 1:38 pm | #

marcos--

The Democratic base isn't "extreme left" -- it's moderately conservative about core American values.

Which the Dem "center" is compromising as fast as possible.
SombreroFallout | 01.23.07 - 1:40 pm | #

SombreroFallout | 01.23.07 - 1:21 pm | #

That's just it, we didn't declare war. Basically the authorization was for if there was actually a ticking clock for a first strike against an imminent attack directed at us or our allies. There was no real threat of an imminent attack, nor was there any authorization beyond a first strike to invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation. Leave that blame where it belongs PNAC, buschco and the reichwing.
ysbaddaden | 01.23.07 - 1:58 pm | #

Until we fully get out of this cloud of 9/11 fear and this area of media/Rove’s war on democrats, our candidates will have to play to the middle. You can win congressional seats, but a national election is a whole other ball game. Hillary is playing the game, as sad as it is. But the game must be played or you can’t win.

Republicans will start far-right and go to middle-right and the Democrats will start left-right and go to middle-left.
PA | 01.23.07 - 2:05 pm | #

ysbaddaden | 01.23.07 - 1:58 pm | #

That's just it we didn't declar war. .. is imy point.

Responsibility for that breach of public trust, that betrayal of the Constitution--rests with Congress. And, of course, with Bush.

Congress has no right--no right whatsoever--to "authorize" war w/o a Declaration of War, bizarrely self-serving sophistry and poor precedents notwithstanding.

A resolution is, by definition, IR-resolute. It's not a declaration. It yields--CAPITULATES--that MANDATED Power, illegally to the Exec. If they REALLY wanted to "authorize" war, debate and DECLARE War. But don't NOT and say ya DID.

The malfeasance and betrayal belongs equally to Congress. It was THEIR Power. They abdicated to a Usurper. They won't be forgiven or forgotten.
SombreroFallout | 01.23.07 - 2:05 pm | #

SombreroFallout | 01.23.07 - 1:37 pm |

If the Democrats now controlling the House and Senate had followed your logic, would they have won? If they hadn't won, would Republicans now be flipping on their support of the Iraq war?
If Republicans hadn't flipped on support of the war, would McCain be leading the field of Republican candidates?
There is idealism and realism. The same black and white world view that sank the neocon ship could just as easily sink the liberal ship.
The Democrats were smart in '06 and won and they didn't win by marginalizing the independent voters. Their ship has not only been launched, it will sail. But first you have to win.
What victory have you won through inflexibilty. A moral one? It may feel good, but it doesn't win elections.
Based on everything that has happened in the past six years, I see no reason to trust a Republican and refuse to vote for one. I would prefer another candidate to Hillary but given the stakes, I won't sit out the '08 election based on my dislike of a nominee. You, of course may exercise that right, but by doing so, your calling me irrelevant will be....um....irrelevant.
Jackie_O | 01.23.07 - 2:10 pm | #

---Until we fully get out of this cloud of 9/11 fear and this area of media/Rove’s war on democrats, our candidates will have to play to the middle. You can win congressional seats, but a national election is a whole other ball game. Hillary is playing the game, as sad as it is. But the game must be played or you can’t win.-----

Did you miss the 2006 elections?

Thats what they said in 2002 and 2004, lookj where it got us.

LOOK, if you are about to get in a fight, and you are scared, YOU LOSE!

And that is the problem with the democrats, they are still scared of the republicans.

STAND UP FOR GOD'S SAKE!!

Grow a spine. No more spineless politicians as champions.
dude | 01.23.07 - 2:11 pm | #

----our candidates will have to play to the middle.----

This is such nonsense. You aren't proposing "playing the middle", you are proposing ceding the Iraq war to the Republicans as an issue. There is plenty of other non-hot button issues to be conceded to draw in independant Americans like myself, but if you want to go with lassez faire in Iraq, and be liberal on all other issues, and call it "centerist" you are only deluding yourself, the rest of America will consider it a pro-war liberal, which at this moment in time, would be ALL WRONG.
dude | 01.23.07 - 2:16 pm | #

oh, how did this country ever survive without a fucking bush or clinton in office?
Anonymous | 01.23.07 - 2:24 pm | #

Jackie_O | 01.23.07 - 2:10 pm | #
The Democrats were smart in '06 and won and they didn't win by marginalizing the independent voters.<

Who said they did? I'm saying Hillary's willingness to marginalize her own base does NOT equate to welcoming independent voters.

Her "center," isn't.

>What victory have you won through inflexibilty.<

Again, I'm not the inflexible one here. I'm simply stating that an inflexible position that seeks to compromise core Constitutional principles has no claim to reasonableness--and will cost the Dems the White House.

Any Senator that abdicates her Powers under the Constitution, is not equipped to wield the Powers of the Exec.

Your choice is between Hillary losing the White House--and fielding another Dem nominee.
SombreroFallout | 01.23.07 - 2:24 pm | #

SombreroFallout | 01.23.07 - 2:05 pm | #

Congress gave Authorization not power to the Executive Branch. This is like the authorization a cop has to deadly self-defense, but only when (s)he's in danger. If someone's holding a weapon on the cop, the cop doesn't have a chance to call in first for permission.

However, if the cop wanted to enter a suspects house, was under no present threat, (s)he'd have to request a warrant. If the cop misrepresented the reasons for the warrant, who should you fault, the cop or the court that granted the warrant?
ysbaddaden | 01.23.07 - 2:25 pm | #

But to clarify, in this Iraq situation, it's more like a cop shooting a suspect for pointed a comb at him. Again, who do you blame, the one who wrote the rules or the one who broke them.
ysbaddaden | 01.23.07 - 2:27 pm | #

ysbaddaden--

NONsense. The Power to Declare War is seated in the Leg. They have no Power to authorize the Exec to be a Decider, to choose when and against whom to go to war.

The "authorization" did no such thing; it's illegal by any definition; and wholly betrayed the Congress's legal obligation to exercise their Power--not abdicate it.

An authorization cannot legitimately be substituted for a Declaration.

Sophistry will get you nowhere.

Cheap gimmicks are cheap gimmicks. The responsibility for this horrific quagmire rests equally with the craven Congressfolk who looked the other way and refused to stand up for their country--and the one major feature that makes this country great.
SombreroFallout | 01.23.07 - 2:30 pm | #

That's a bullshit analogy, and wholly off-base.
SombreroFallout | 01.23.07 - 2:31 pm | #

According to the US Constitution Congress has the power , "(t)o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The president has, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States..."

By your definition, there should be no Air Force since it's not listed in the Constitution, as a Congressional or a presidential power. Additionally, at the time there was no weapons technology in foreign lands that our oceans couldn't protect us from.

Historically, this could be compared to the Amerindian wars and the Barbary pirates and were addressed on an ad hoc basis. But once protracted hostilities commence the chief executive should come to Congress for authorization. busch has not done so, and Democrats until now cannot insist since they were in the minority party.
ysbaddaden | 01.23.07 - 2:41 pm | #

Additionally, there's no proviso in the Constitution for a standing army, but by the above mentioned Congressional power they have created one.
ysbaddaden | 01.23.07 - 2:44 pm | #

SombreroFallout | 01.23.07 - 1:37 pm |

Your choice is between Hillary losing the White House--and fielding another Dem nominee.

I would prefer another candidate to Hillary but given the stakes, I won't sit out the '08 election based on my dislike of a nominee. Jackie_O | 01.23.07 - 2:10 pm |

I think I made myself clear on that issue. I simply won't sit out an election based on my disappointment with the Democratic nominee.
I would consider that to be compromising my principles based on my Constitutional rights.
Jackie_O | 01.23.07 - 2:46 pm | #

SombreroFallout | 01.23.07 - 2:31 pm |d

Why is that a BS analogy? It actually makes since. What doesn't make since is a cop using deadly force when his life was not in imminent danger will be prosecuted as a criminal. That's exactly what this administration did, yet those who issued the warrant, the Congress, just sat there like a toothless tiger.
kdjid | 01.23.07 - 2:49 pm | #

kdjid | 01.23.07 - 2:49 pm | #

Agreed, however, one has to remember that until November the Congress was Republican controlled.

Additionally, any presidential candidate has to prove they're both eligible to be the de facto head of their party, as well as the Nation, and the Nation is not all in one party.

Actually only 1/3 of the Nation identify with either party, and that's split nearly in half 1/6 for the Reichwing, 1/6 for the Democrats. The rest see themselves as Independents who either vote the man (so to speak) or the issue.

Neither party has the ability to weed out those they would just as soon not be identified with. So when David Duke was running as a Republican no one could stop the attempt although they could stop the outcome.
ysbaddaden | 01.23.07 - 3:01 pm | #

Additionally, SombreroFallout, you sound like one of the Republican apologists saying it's not our fault by attempting to spread the blame.
ysbaddaden | 01.23.07 - 3:02 pm | #

This whole issue reminds me on a less fatal note of the Louisiana purchase. Some people in Congress told President Jefferson he had not authority to negotiate and buy from France the Louisiana territories, as per their reading of the Constitution. Yet he was one of the debators behind the document in the first place.

The actual concern was Napoleon Bonaparte would use the American dollars to help his attempted conquest of Europe.
ysbaddaden | 01.23.07 - 3:10 pm | #

----Additionally, SombreroFallout, you sound like one of the Republican apologists saying it's not our fault by attempting to spread the blame.-----

there is plenty of blame to go around, (no I am not sombrero)

Those gutless wonders in congress gave him authority, adn passed the PATRIOT act without even reading it!

It's disgusting, and they deserve to be fed to the fishes too. They should thank their lucky stars we even let them still serve in congress, but they are delsuional if any of them think they can pave their way to the white house with such weak-kneed policy.
dude | 01.23.07 - 3:30 pm | #

there is plenty of blame to go around, (no I am not sombrero)

Agreed, but it's not Hillary's onus alone.

But it would include EVERY candidate Democrats are fielding short of Bill Richardson who lacks name recognition.
ysbaddaden | 01.23.07 - 3:37 pm | #

Then Richardson it is.

and no recognition can be better than bad recognition.
dude | 01.23.07 - 3:43 pm | #

hillary's position on the war was and IS inexcusable. Her comments on Fallujah border on the insane. She would be a disaster for the Democratic party's hopes of winning in 08...to be fair, if mccain is the candidate, now with the escalation happening, i think she could beat him since BOTH of them are reprobates...Kucinich is the best cnadidate but i dont see him getting past Iowa...my pragmatic hope is Edwards...but i agree, AL! WE NEED AL GORE!
odelisk8 | 01.23.07 - 3:54 pm | #

dude | 01.23.07 - 3:43 pm

Last time we did that we got Jimmy Carter which led to eight years of Ronald Reagan.
ysbaddaden | 01.23.07 - 3:59 pm | #

HILARY FOR PRESIDENT PERIOD, IT TIME FOR A WOMAN PRESIDENT, NOW! I'M SICK OF THIS "I DON'T LIKE HILLARY" BULL SHIT. THEIR MEN IN THIS COUNTRY GOT SOME STRONG INSURCURITY PROBLEMS WITH STRONG WOMEN.BUT YOU RATHER VOTE FOR RICH DUMB ASS JORGE.
vincent c | Homepage | 01.23.07 - 4:16 pm | #

vincent c | Homepage | 01.23.07 - 4:16 pm | #

I don't, especially when they're wearing leather bustiers and carrying whips.
ysbaddaden | 01.23.07 - 4:21 pm | #

Additionally, SombreroFallout, you sound like one of the Republican apologists saying it's not our fault by attempting to spread the blame.
ysbaddaden | 01.23.07 - 3:02 pm | #

What on earth does that mean?

Where Democratic Congressfolk have capitulated their Constitutional obligations, it is indeed partially their responsibility.

There's no benefit to seeing things in black-n-white when folks like Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton are holding the Boy-King-Emperor's New Clothes to keep 'em from hittin the ground.
SombreroFallout | 01.23.07 - 4:48 pm | #

Historically, this could be compared to the Amerindian wars and the Barbary pirates and were addressed on an ad hoc basis. But once protracted hostilities commence the chief executive should come to Congress for authorization. busch has not done so, and Democrats until now cannot insist since they were in the minority party.
ysbaddaden | 01.23.07 - 2:41 pm | #

That's some Class A Bullshit.

Congratulations! You've turned a purely offensive war, for which there was no provocation, no threat, and no evidence whatsoever to back Bush's claim that war was necessary--into a defensive incident under the purview of the Commander-in-Chief.

Sure your name isn't George Orwell.

None of that cheap rationalizing holds a drop of water.

Having set bad precedents in the past--be they illegal wars, manufactured pretexts, constant unprovoked attacks, or outright genocide--

--does NOT provide a valid precedent nor even a cheap excuse for illegal wars TODAY.

It may eviscerate every defining American characteristic by amputating every core political value from the body politic, but lets not pretend there's anything salvagable once you go down that road.
SombreroFallout | 01.23.07 - 4:55 pm | #

Yes, I belonged to two honor societies while I was studying polical science.

As to, "You've turned a purely offensive war, for which there was no provocation, no threat, and no evidence whatsoever to back Bush's claim that war was necessary--into a defensive incident under the purview of the Commander-in-Chief..." obviously your not a careful reader. I said Congress was misled, some more willingly than others, but they had the constitutional authorization to provide the Authorization to Use Force, in which they included caveats.
You however, seem to be attempting to defuse busch's culpability by spreading out the blame, and not just to the party in power, but also to the party out of power. It's the same argument that Rush Limbaugh and Fox News uses.
ysbaddaden | 01.23.07 - 5:09 pm | #

Why does the comment box sometimes shrink down after the first comment making proofing so difficult?
ysbaddaden | 01.23.07 - 5:11 pm | #

ysbaddaden | 01.23.07 - 5:09 pm | #

I'm referring to the parties in and out of power at the time of the Authorization, not the present configuration.

Hopefully, now instead of discussing the past, they can see themselves foreward to get us out of what is essentially a shooting gallery.
ysbaddaden | 01.23.07 - 5:13 pm | #

Watch out Dems: Hillary is not her husband and it would be less than wise to think that she would be capable of doing what he did. Bill was special because he was Bill. That will not carry over into a Hillary presidency. We need someone who can appear to sit in the middle but still do what is right for all of us, not just a few of us. We need to pull American back together again, not keep it separated the way dumbya has and Hillary would.
RetiredNavy | 01.23.07 - 5:50 pm | #

Ok, well I personally hope Hillary gets the nomination. I think she is the most electable of the bunch. I think she will have a tougher time with democrats than she will the republicans. I think she is most electable because she has set herself up that way. Sure she's calculating. She knows how to win elections. In this day and age, I feel that we need someone experienced in politics at the helm. Hillary has weathered every single thing the wingnuts have thrown at her. She is a brilliant politician and would be most likely to win the general election.
Hype - Jersey | Homepage | 01.23.07 - 6:45 pm | #

ysbaddaden | 01.23.07 - 5:09 pm | #

I wouldn't use your honor society as a trump card or cudgel if I were you.

obviously your not a careful reader. I said Congress was misled, some more willingly than others, but they had the constitutional authorization to provide the Authorization to Use Force, in which they included caveats.

I'm aware of what you said. I disagree there's any sanity, nor any true or legitimate Power, to substitute an "authorization" for a Declaration. This was a War, on the face of it, full on and flat out, and everyone knew it. 'We had caveats' is the last refuge of the poltroon.

It was clearly a war; that war clearly required a Declaration. Not a rhetorical figleaf; not recourse to legalistic interpretations of the wrong clause in the Constitution, which is an abuse of any good-faith conversation.

You however, seem to be attempting to defuse busch's culpability by spreading out the blame, and not just to the party in power, but also to the party out of power. It's the same argument that Rush Limbaugh and Fox News uses.

On the contrary. Half my anger comes from Dems refusing to impeach Bush over his culpability.

You're clearly accusing me of disloyalty for dissenting from your party line. Sound familiar? You're not a vey careful reader, are you?
SombreroFallout | 01.23.07 - 7:33 pm | #

I never said I agreed with the tactic, only that it's legal. You were trying to nonsensically argue the unconstitutionality of the Authorization.
ysbaddaden | 01.24.07 - 10:14 am | #

On the contrary: I was stating the obvious fact that when you're going to War, the only correct tool is a Declaration of War.

There's no way "Use of Force" or 'other means' is an adequate or equivalent substitute.

What IS nonsensical is resorting to a cheap "workaround" that is essentially a 'wait-for-me' after-the-fact action on a decision that's already been made.

It's a Congressional Cop-out.

Use the correct Constitutional clause. Don't disingenuously lie to me and your teachers and colleagues and everyone else by claiming "Hey, I'm covered! We can misuse this other clause written for some other purpose, because some lawyer said we can get away with it!"

It's sick; it's perverted; it's obscene. It's cost this country in blood, lives, and treasure.

There are plenty of bad precedents, poor decisions, and misguided unConstitutional legislation to last us a millenia. Try to remember that just because it's been done before--or (supposedly) 'justified' previously, even by law profs--doesn't mean it was ever wise, or legal, or right, or Constitutional--or even good for the country, the first time around.

Try your utmost to consider that 'because someone else said I could' is about the lousiest cop-out under the Sun. And under the Constitution.

It's what got us into this mess in the first place. ReMEMber???
SombreroFallout | 01.24.07 - 12:47 pm | #

ysbaddaden

"John Dean’s book Worse than Watergate is a great source of debunking on the force resolution and the fiasco that has resulted from our congress blinking when they should have shoved that document where W’s sun don’t shine.

Comment by RUCerious"
SombreroFallout | 01.24.07 - 9:13 pm | #

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's voting records are nearly identical; aside from about 4 votes.

That, and he's only been in office for a measly 2 years.

jus sayin...
Destardi | 01.24.07 - 9:38 pm | #

Commenting by HaloScan