I could never vote for this CFR, AIPAC toadie. I believe she is part of the same old, same old, corrupt and untrustworthy sorry bunch that have been running this country into the ground.
I'm leaning toward another long shot....Rep. Ron Pual of Texas.
Posted by brisa at January 27, 2007 04:57 PMTell us how you feel, brisa. **chuckles**
I'm being good an' saying nothing. I guess I'm still waiting for Al Gore; until it's final he's not in I won't commit to anyone.
Posted by paradox at January 27, 2007 05:02 PMI watched the cspan coverage of her town hall meeting in des moines today, and she is good in working a modest crowd. No great rhetoric, but she billed it as part of her Conversation with America.
I guess she'd be like Bill as a policy wonk with modest aspirations for legislation.
She doesn't make my progressive/liberal heart beat faster, but.... she wouldn't be John McCain, Rudy or whoever else the Repubs end up throwing into the ring.
I'm trying to adjust my expectations downward to the level close to the three major contenders. After reading John Edwards awful pander to the Iran War enthusiasts at the Israeli conference this last few days, he's now my third place guy, slipping rapidly.
So, I guess my choice is Hillary or Obama (Clark seems to have shot himself in both feet with his comment on 'NY money people' (dog whistle: rich jews) and their influence on US mideast policy).
I'm worried about both Hil and Obama, for different reasons that relate to hidden racist/sexist feelings among all to many likely voters. But those are the best we are likely to have, and even Al Gore brings lots of negative baggage to the electoral trip.
So, we have a long time to wait to see who the Repubs come up with, and their choice might have a real bearing on who we nominate.
One real good thing about Hillary: on domestic programs she is really up to speed on the issues. On-the-job learning won't be needed much in her case, and in the foreign policy/national security area, none of the Dem. leaders strike me as deep or bold thinkers. They all we be more hawkish than my preference (with the exception of Gore or Clark).
Posted by JimPortlandOR at January 27, 2007 05:33 PMI'd like just *one* person to ask why she supported the bankruptcy bill when all the bankruptcy lawyers and judges were against it.
And wasn't it related to MBNA being her largest contributor.
Nice Republican move, Hillary.
Posted by LizDexic at January 27, 2007 06:02 PMYou guys got it going on!!! I think we should all work hard and ensure that Ms. Clinton is DOA in 2008 so Bush's pick can walk right in. The Democrats need to find the perfect candidate..absolutely perfect or just allow the GOP 4 more. This is a reasonable approach don't ya think?
Here is how you do it....
Post pure BS like """And wasn't it related to MBNA being her largest contributor""" from LizDexic, blazing away for those GOP'ers..Give her hell Liz!!!
Another helpful tactic, internalizing GOP / MSM anti-Clinton spin and it should be guided to getting the Shrillery Hillery thing at crescendo in late 2008. If we can achieve that we Democrats will have served the country well by placing a true GOP'er in the WH and not that fake Clinton.
In any case, dont give up the fight. Kill Hill and Kill Bill I always say..and now lets all bitch about that damn war.
The only thing more entertainign than Hillary would be watching the "flame-out" of an Edwards-Obama ticket.
P.S. Hi Steve! How ya' doin?
Posted by Bagley at January 27, 2007 06:21 PMI won't vote for her at all. I'll stay home and dream of leaving the country if she is elected. she is not a democrat but a DLC repub lite. If she gets the nomination it'd be like two repukes running for prez. No way.
Posted by vwcat at January 27, 2007 06:25 PMsuch worry over nothing. our government is corrupt and never will change, no matter what party you support we're screwed. just accept our damnation and move on in your life. the real question isn't who the candidate is or may be it is what you as part of the american public are willing to do on your own, outside the political realm, to change the course of america.
Posted by lonemess at January 27, 2007 06:28 PMThe only thing more entertainign than Hillary would be watching the "flame-out" of an Edwards-Obama ticket.
P.S. Hi Steve! How ya' doin?
Posted by Bagley at January 27, 2007 06:21 PM
*****
I can smell the fear. Flame out after 16 years, maybe. Your party would suffer greatly. I'd enjoy it.
Hillary was lame as hell today in Iowa. Everything is staged. The answers are half-baked bullshit.
Fuck you, TeaBagley. If the Dems aren't retarded, they won't send you Hillary. They'll send you the ticket you fear, and you'll curl up like a fucking fetus.
Posted by God Of War at January 27, 2007 06:49 PMparadox:
I will not be supporting Ms. Clinton for the Democratic nomination, but neither will I actively write or work against her.
This reminds me of a favorite passage from Revelation: "So because thou art lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spew thee out of my mouth."
You'll get no rewards for your tepid timidity, paradox.
Posted by Toby Petzold at January 27, 2007 06:51 PMGOW,
Wrong.
Hey, Steve, do you want to explain to GOW what is what?
P.S. GOW, Congrats! Any increase in the minimum wage will benefit you....correct? By the way: how is the pizza delivery business?
Posted by Bagley at January 27, 2007 07:08 PMThe right wants to prop up Clinton as the best candidate we have. It's always the right pimping her.
Of course their biggest fear is when Gore throws his hat in the ring. And it is all cattle, no hat!
Gore/Edwards, Gore/Obama
What say you bagley!
Posted by Seven of Six at January 27, 2007 07:10 PM7o6,
Gore! Now that is funny.....thanks for the laugh!
P.S. Hey, Steve, thanks for the bandwidth....
Posted by Bagley at January 27, 2007 07:17 PMbagley leaves when his worst nightmare is mentioned. A Gore ticket!!
Posted by Seven of Six at January 27, 2007 07:35 PM7of6,
Actually, I am still here. Your bad.
But I am leaving now....
P.S. Mr. Soto, the solution is simple: Occams razor. You have been a good sport. Thanks for the bandwidth.
Posted by Bagley at January 27, 2007 07:45 PMSen. Clinton lost my vote today. Her staff was informed that their scheduling upstaged our previously scheduled rally in conjunction with the Out of Iraq march in D.C. today. Not a call, not a reach out, not even an apology for for the scheduling and their inability to change the time.
The Fuck You was loud and clear.
Posted by idiosynchronic at January 27, 2007 07:51 PMI personally favor a Gore-Edwards ticket, certainly not Hillary. She's just too polarizing of a figure. Hey Bagley, what's wrong with Gore? I mean he did whip your ass last time he ran, or had you forgotten? BTW, your attempts at insult and/or wit have steadily been slipping from sophomoric to juvenile to now moronic.
Posted by sf at January 27, 2007 08:01 PMHillary is wonderful; she will win. You watch, you wait. She will be awesome! I won't vote for her, because I will never vote for anybody in this asshole country again since it's whole meaning went away when the boy king declared torture as policy. It's still a great place to run to when you're escaping a country this country has screwed, but beyond that, who needs America? It's a leper colony, through and through and if you don't know it now,you will next year when all elections everywhere will be yanked as too, too liberal and devisive and un-Christian.
Posted by Mal Feasance at January 27, 2007 08:18 PM"So because thou art lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spew thee out of my mouth."
I didn't know Revelations was written in a gay bath house.
The only thing more entertainign than Hillary
Never understood what your type has against Hilary. She's more republi-con than you. She's just rational. (long pause) Now I get it.
But I am leaving now....
You're still here? You may go now.
Posted by phidipides at January 27, 2007 08:19 PMI will not vote for 28 years (that's almost three decades) of a two family presidency. Hillary will not get my vote, nor will I write in a candidate. I will just not vote for the first time in my life.
One thing I resent is being manipulated. Why do I get the feeling that the media is trying to convince me that Hillary will be the Democratic candidate for the Presidency? Seems the media and the GOP want her to be the candidate to run against in the worse way. I wonder why.
Posted by Judith at January 27, 2007 08:57 PMThe general consensus amoung all the Democrats I know is that they will not be supporting Hillary Clinton. If she wins the nomination (ugggh), the big corporate and Hollwood dollars will flow in, but the grass-root dollars, net-root support, and, ultimately, votes will not flow in. Those things will be as dry as an old man's scalp. Add to that the galvinization of the right-wing, (boy shit-howdy, do they hate Hillary), corporate media compliance, etc., and it sure smells like defeat, folks.
Posted by sf at January 27, 2007 09:19 PMI'll vote for her if she's nominated. In the meantime, would someone please tell her consultants that the whole thing appeared to be just as rehearsed as possible, down to the very words, syllables and gestures.
Is this necessary?
Posted by Slothrop at January 27, 2007 10:15 PMI'll give Hillary credit for one thing today. She said that while she voted for the AUMF, Bush abused the authority that Congress gave him. Those are not the words I would most like to hear, but they are the simple true words that John Kerry could not seem to get out of his mouth, which would have helped him.
I think Wes Clark is announcing soon. I still have hopes for him.
I said it before, and I'll say it again: "Exactly what message is Sen. Clinton sending to our daughters?"
Hmmmm? Oh yeah, bite the pillow and keep getting paid? Not here...Not ever..!!
Stand for something, or fall for anything..!!
Being good at pubilc humiliation doesn't belong on a presidential resume'. That's exactly why RUDI is toast before he even announces.
Worst of all...SHE'S A FRAKIN' ANTI-LIB CYLON..!!!
Gov. Anne Richards was, Congresswoman Maxine Watters and Del. Holmes-Norton are the only women that should be mentioned as presidential material. They didn't sell-out.
Sen. Clinton is to women what Clarence Thomas is to African-Americans....FAKE..!!
Oh yeah..we DEMS aren't going for values...just breasts? Will any breasts will do?
Worst of all....SHE'S A FRAKIN' DLC-CYLON..!!
It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees...!!!
Any Questions?
One World,
Domino49
Posted by Domino49 at January 27, 2007 10:50 PMIn my area of Ohio, Hillary is popular, with Wal-Mart workers, furnace repairman, people at the grocery store, people who don't know what a blog is.
I sound pretty elitist when I say she's not left enough for me. She's a fighter, and that's what they want. We're really hurting here for jobs, etc.
I'd prefer Edwards myself. But I get some very cranky responses to his name when I bring it up.
"Another stuffed shirt!" He is not, but that's their perception of him.
Thanks for the insights Margot. I think it's important for us to remember that ANY part of the blogosphere becomes an echoing chamber which reinforces one measure of conventional wisdom and obscures most others.
There IS a vast arena of potential voters who are gettting their news and information, if not directly from Fox News, then from CNN, MSNBC and other alphabet newsies, or, from friends and acquaintences who do. That's why the battle to hold mainstream medias' feet to a journalistic fire is so very critical.
As long as the majority of voters and potential voters, (40-50% still don't vote) are kept in ignorance or misled by pundits and what passes for journalists, we will not succeed.
Posted by DeminNewJ at January 28, 2007 03:12 AMLe Hill is trailing John Edwards in Iowa.
I wonder how different her campaign may've gone if she'd skipped Iowa and instead, attended the antiwar protest in Washington?
Taken the microphone and told the crowd, "I was wrong for voting for this war. I was wrong. And I promise to do everything in my power to bring the troops home."
Such a move would've started the process of rebuilding fences with her base, a base furious with her over Iraq.
Posted by Christopher at January 28, 2007 03:29 AMif gore doesn't enter..and i think he will..i believe the nominee will be hillary..and i think she would make a hell of a president..just like her husband was..and he'll be right there hopefully as sec of state..the middle east could sure use his counsel..it's a free country..if you've bought into all the nonsense they have been spewing about her since the eighties..then so be it..but if you're not with her..why not just keep quiet and listen to what she has to say..all the negativity tpwards her is detrimental to the party..the system will play out..and the people will decide the nominee..if it's her and you don't support her..you're no better than joe liberman...she has been fighting for human rights..as well as womens and childrens ..her whole life...she was a watergate counsel..first lady and a senator..she is extremely bright and accomplished..you don't have to love her or vote for her..bit at least give her a chance to speak..
Posted by dennis at January 28, 2007 03:46 AMBush; Clinton; Bush; Clinton. The madness must stop.
Hopefully, Hillary will drop out as it becomes obvious, even to her, that she's unelectable.
If not, Hillary Clinton could very well turn out to be the Ralph Nader of 2008. Like Nader did to Gore in 2000, she could take crucial primary votes from candidates who are viable and who stand a chance in the general election.
If Gore decides to enter the race, expect Hillary to drop out immediately.
Posted by Christopher at January 28, 2007 04:27 AMHillary who???? Ugly Betty with her fat ankles has competition.
Posted by Alex at January 28, 2007 04:45 AMHillary is going to be elected. George W. Bush and Karl Rove will insist upon it, all a part of their Ownership Society. They 'own' us and they'll 'own' Hillary. Margaret Thatcher Hillary is NOT! She's more of an asshole like Cherie Blair.
Posted by Mal Feasance at January 28, 2007 05:17 AMShe's more of an asshole like Cherie Blair.
Hahahahaha.
Ron Paul sounds interesting. I've just been reading on him, like what I read. So, what are his negatives?
Posted by Julie at January 28, 2007 07:59 AM...but if you're not with her..why not just keep quiet and listen to what she has to say..all the negativity tpwards her is detrimental to the party...
In other words "If you're not with Hillary, you're against the Democratic party. Christ, where have I heard that kind of logic before? Oh, yes, if you're not with me, you're with the terrorists.
Posted by Julie at January 28, 2007 08:14 AMRep Ron Paul on the issues:
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)
Rated 67% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
Voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools. (Nov 1997)
Abolish the federal Department of Education. (Dec 2000)
Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)
Voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005)
Rated A by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record. (Dec 2003)
Other than that, he's a swell guy.
Posted by Christopher at January 28, 2007 08:23 AMMe thinks, that Americans are fed up with never ending political campaigns that have an unlimited spending budget....it's time to put a window on how long a campaign can last, 6 months should do the trick, and the total cost 1 million dollars. cleve
Posted by cleve at January 28, 2007 08:37 AMDid anyone else see Liebertraitor say this morning that he just may vote for a Republican for president? Can't the Dems tar and feather him?
Posted by Judith at January 28, 2007 09:14 AM"Le Hill is trailing John Edwards in Iowa."
Christopher, actually he is way ahead of the whole pack with 27%. Of course, that's just right now.
Posted by Judith at January 28, 2007 09:17 AMjulie..
that's quite a stretch of an analogy..my point is that she has the right to run..let her have her say..you vote for her in the primaries or you don't..and if she does get the nomination..and you're not with her..then you are not a democrat..it's that simple..and by the way i am not a huge hillary fan but what she's getting on this blog is a bit much...
Posted by dennis at January 28, 2007 09:51 AMThanks, Christopher. For a Libertarian, he sure votes for a heck of a lot of government intervention in how people run their lives, doesn't he?
Dennis, you can't shut up our right to discuss the woman, then talk about her right to run. Discussion is good. Too bad the Dem legislators didn't do more of it before voting to authorize the retarded chimp to go to war. Since it seems the corporatti media is trying to shove Hillary down our throats, it's time that the DISCUSSION takes place somewhere. Or sould we just "assume the position" while the media fucks us over one more time?
Posted by Julie at January 28, 2007 10:24 AMFor those out there who would like to get a feel for the level of corruption that has been facilitated by the Clintons in Arkansas, I would suggest you watch the documentary entitled, "The Mena Connection." It is available on Google video and YouTube. The basic story is of the murder of two teenagers who stumbled upon a cocaine smuggling operation drug drop in Selinas County, AR in the mid 1980's, run out of the Mena Airport.
I also focuses on the fifteen plus year fight of these victim's parents for justice and the tale of official cover-up and subsequent murder of witnesses. This cover-up went beyond Arkansas and into the federal Justice Department and FBI.
One of those involved was actually promoted to the job of Chief of the Capitol Hill Police under Bill Clinton. The story lends credence to the allegation that state and federal government elements are deeply involved in the importation and distribution of narcotics.
To think that Hillary Clinton knew nothing of these activities and is not complicit by her silence is very hard to believe. When I think of GWB Sr.'s alleged involvement in similar illegal activities uncovered in the Iran/Contra scandal investigation and hearings, it's not hard to understand why Bill and Bush 41 are now the best of friends.
These illegal and damaging activities will not stop under another Clinton administation. We need a decent and honest DC outsider to clean up the incredible corruption that makes possible the filling of our prison's with small time users and dealers, while leaving the big fish to continue profiting from the never ending drug trade.
Posted by brisa at January 28, 2007 11:30 AMI have never really given much thought to campaign finance reform until Cleve's comment. The idea that political campaigns would be capped at a certain length has an undeniable appeal for me. If baseball season ran 16 - 18 months, only the most avid would retain interest. If the public foots the bill and we are rewarded with a shorter campaign season, we are getting something of worth right there.
Posted by obelus at January 31, 2007 06:29 PM