Throw a brick at the Clinton's and Hillary throws a concrete block back

I was telling people that meme back in 1991 and it's still true today. Hillary's the toughest Democrat of this generation and Bill could have never been elected without her. She's been fighting the VRWC for decades. I live in a red state and work in a very red county and let me share something with those that don't. Hillary is a far easier sell than Howard Dean and even competitive with John Edwards. The reason is that she is perceived by the general public as a very strong willed person with a lot of pragmatism and competence. A grizzled retired submariner told me one night in a Bartow county bar and grille that Hillary was the only Dem that impressed him. He didn't agree with her about much, but he could sleep at night if she was President. The reason? He saw that toughness and pragmatism and said she was the backbone of the Clinton presidency. Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, Mike Dukakis, Tom Daschle, etc are all fine men but they just aren't quite tough enough to take on the Republican sleaze machine. I see Hillary as the only Dem with the fortitude and the resources to take the fight to these rightwing animals.

of the party - too moderate, too DLC. But hey, that's just my opinion.

The question is will she prosecute the crooks or just let it slide like Bill did with the crooks from Bush Sr. who are back today.

fest of this nation and our rights. I want a true hero, not someone that says just enough to get the votes and does nothing in the position.

:hi:

...you and I share the same opinion. And I know of several others who share it as well. :)

The freepers are trying to shove her down our throats because they know that she hasn't a snowball chance in hell of winning.

The american public isn't necessarily fond of her - she is rather irritating, in that condenscending way she has.

Of course, this is just my humble opinion ;-)

...I'm in total agreement with you. :)

Take care!

:thumbsup:

:thumbsup:

:)

n/t

Exactly how are they doing that? I thought they hated her almost as much as the people here do!

So if they're shoving her down our throats, are they painting her as a great lady or something? Just wondering..

with the things that really matter. She doesn't talk about what happened to the Katrina victims the way Bill does. I just don't believe she really cares. She may, but I don't see it. And she isn't anywhere near the real issues going on for DEMS.

I do see her bend over backward, steal the rethuglican vote out of the red states by running as republican lite mentality. Personally I've quit watching her because she abandoned the vote reform issue.

She'd have to take John Conyers on as VP to make me feel good voting for her. Still, if it were a choice between her and a rethug, I'd vote for her. She might not be MUCH better, but I think she would be better than the status quo. She isn't one to allow INCOMPETENCE on her watch at any rate.

I'll go independent or green

Sorry, I don't trust her at all and you are right, she hasn't done a damn thing for the Katrina survivors and I sure the hell don't think New York has seen all that it was promised and needs after 9/11

Flag burning amendments, don't pull out of Iraq, hell what else will she compromise on, making abortions illegal?

Sent up a trial balloon anyway.

NOT

Nope, no hillary '08 for me.

I think the DLC will choose her as she fits in with their agenda,which is Repug Lite IMO.

I have my preferences, too, but once the primaries are over, the Democratic nominee will get my full support and my vote...even if it's someone like Kerry again! At this point, if ANY Democrat gets elected, I'll be delighted, and I have full confidence that once in office, they'll be a huge upgrade over what we're seeing now, no matter what is being spun about them in here. Half of the stuff that gets said about Hillary is simply exagerrated nonsense, anyhow. For example, how ridiculous that anyone can call her a neocon, but it happens all the time in here. Yeah, right, she's a neocon because she sponsers legislation (not an Amendment) to outlaw desecration of the American flag. Last I knew, Democrats had the same right to protect their flag from desecration as Republicans do.

Look at the flag burning amendment? You can't go anywhere these days without running into flag burners! :eyes:

BTW, I'm taking Grandma to Waveland next week and will be stopping in Gulfport so she can get something out of her safe deposit box. If you're around & not too busy I'd like to stop by and say hi, if you're ok with that. I'm PMing you my number. Not sure which day we're going yet, just know it's someday next week. Hope to meet you!

I pmailed you back with some links that you may want to check out before you come here. It will be gut wrenching, when they say we were devastated they aren't kidding.

Anyone that loved the scenic beauty of our coastline and the homes and historic places along our coast will find what is left very heart breaking. Please prepare yourself and your grandmother.

:hug: :hi:

My grandmother has been very depressed ever since leaving and was recently prescribed Paxil. I'm going to visit her today and make sure she takes it as directed. I told her to be ready for a wasteland. My mom went back as soon as the roads were passable to try to salvage any mementos that might be around. My grandma had a priceless pre-WWI De haviland china collection and all she could find was a muddy briken saucer and cup. She took lots of pictures and I know what you mean by the destruction. We still haven't shown her the photos. Thanks again for your message and I look forward to seeing you.

Take care and talk to you soon.

:grouphug:

but I just don't agree.

The right wing freaks will set the world on fire before she is elected, much less sworn in.

What fight is she proposing?
I guess I missed it.

She's not fighting to redeploy from Iraq.
She's not fighting for single payer health care.
She's not fighting for election reform.

:shrug:

insurance industry - could not convince that we were not liars when we said we would support the nationwide privately run HMO national health.

Of course she was correct - the insurance lobbyists - at least on the health and casualty side - were indeed liars.

My side - Life/pensions/tax - would not dare do something like that.

I am just glad I never played poker with the health lobbyists - or with Hillary!

:-)

The wingnuts tried to portray it as "socialized medicine" but they were exaggerating to demonize it. I don't have time to find the links that I provided the last time you posted this falsehood but if you do research you will find her healthcare was NOT what you claim it to have been.

on edit: from wikipedia on Clinton health care:
<snip>
"Democrats, instead of uniting behind the President's original proposal, offered a number of competing plans of their own. Some criticized the plan from the left, preferring a Canadian-style single payer system."
<snip>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan

I remember the criticism on the left back then because it WASN"T single payer..

and thereby Hillary to not go single payer as the task force recommendation.

We even had a party when Bill laid down the law to Hillary and told her and Ira to go with the HMO mess we - the insurance industry - were proposing.

I do not know the dynamics of the actual Hillary committee. I do not believe they were offered the chance to go single payer by Hillary.

But that was because - and after - the insurance industry had gotten to Bill - after we had found out about Hillary wanting single payer - and we had gotten Bill to give Hillary direction - the direction being no single payer.

But the question was what did Hillary push for National Health - and on her own she would have gone single payer. Bill wanted something that would pass and get national health and we - the insurance industry - indicated to Bill - and then to Hillary - that the HMO mess - and no single payer - was what we wanted and if we got that design we would support Bill's national health. We - the insurance industry lied. But we had lied to Nixon in 73 when Nixon wanted single payer..

When it comes to casualty insurance and health insurance the insurance industry always lies.

Hillary understood this. But Bill is a very trusting person.

as a worthy opponent of the vast right-wing conspiracy.

I would be proud to be able to vote for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Primary in the state of Missouri. If she has any trouble getting the attention of the US media to get her message out, then I'm sure Big Dog can get her message out through the international media.

I'd be just as proud to vote for Gen. Wesley Clark in the Missoui Primary (I voted for him in '04). The repukes have no ammo to use against him and he's Swiftboater-proof!

I'll be really conflicted if they both run in '08, but it would be a great conflict to have.

I'm in a very blue county in pretty red Georgia and received a mailer from her Senate campaign this week. Included a window sign and a bumper sticker. "Re-Elect Hillary".

DU doesn't get how popular she is in the United States. She ain't no Lieberman to most Democrats.

It's a small state, and folks who have lived here longer than I have met and talked with both Bill and Hillary. I've talked with them, and from what they've told me, I'm not a Hillary fan. She appears to be too beholden to corporate interests (read that WalMart and Tyson for Arkansas) and unwilling to think outside the box to solve problems.

go to link to read full text... (enjoy)


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/huffpo-exclusive-secret-_b_11784.html



TO: ALL
FROM: HRCRSSCT (Hillary Rodham Clinton Red State Street Cred Team)
RE: BUILDING ON FLAG BURNING SUCCESS

Good news. Our internal polling is going through the roof over HRC's signing on to Bennett's flag burning bill. Our focus group feedback shows it's the perfect have-it-both-ways positioning. We get to be pro-flag and anti-constitutional ban at the same time. Moderate Dems can embrace this as the lesser of two evils; Red Staters just know that we support Old Glory. Sure, we're getting some blowback from the lefty blogs...but that actually helps up our Red state street cred. Messaging suggestion: HRC might want to lay off the flag burning/cross burning comparisons (even NASCAR dads don't equate flag burning protestors with the KKK).

HRCRSSCT recommends that we continue to push the envelope with our Phase Two rollout. Here are the top ideas we discussed at our last meeting. Feedback and progress reports welcome.

(snip)

I'm not part of the flag burning wing of the Democratic party. It borders on a hate crime close enough for me not to lose an election over. It's better to burn a Confederate flag anyhow.

When and where do they gather? I never see them on my TV. I never read about them in the press. Wonder why the Right Wing Media doesn't glom all over these stories? None of them came out to the anti-war demonstrations that I've been to - in San Francisco. Gosh, one would think if there was a flag burning wing of the DP they'd sure the hell be there!

This isn't a life or death fight.

There have been umpty-ump threads started by "teen progressives" whining and sniveling that mean old Hillary won't let them burn a flag...

Whining and sniveling that the first amendment is irrelevant in the face of politically ambitious DLC'rs.

Your pathetic defense of corrupt politicans would embarass an adult.

She wouldn't be such a censorship queen if she cared at all for freedom.

What can we expect from such an elitist that voted for PATRIOT Act, thereby doing away with the Bill of Rights, and one that is still unrepentant about her votes against our civil liberites and for war?

Back in June of this year, she put up one of the biggest fights AGAINST a flag burning amendment, but endorsed legislation to outlaw desecration.

So if you're going to get on her case, do it for the legislation she's sponsering to outlaw desecration of the flag, but don't state she's against the First Amendment because that's simply untrue. This other legislation is what she sees as a compromise so that the Constitution doesn't get changed instead.

Funny, there's not a tenth of the venom directed at Republicans by some as there is directed against some Democrats....and it's also funny how often the Democrats singled out are

--prominent respected Democrats up for re-election in 2006 AND ALSO
--prominent respected Democrats up for re-election in 2006 who are walloping their Republican opponents handily.

Freepers who are sitting back laughing hysterically at how they can split the group on this board? I think I'd prefer that answer to the other option.

including, but hardly limited to, a little thing known as "the war in Iraq".

I think you'd be hard pressed to call all of us "trolls".

the attack machine comes out in force when we dare to have an opinion unlike theirs>

What I don't get are people who say they will vote Green or Independent or not at all if Hillary were to be the Dem candidate in '08. Because they might as well vote for the Republican candidate in that case. And that I don't get AT ALL. That makes me think some might be trolls - they are, ipso facto, supporting the Republicans.

It's a sad statement to make, but unless a third party makes some sort of huge effort really quickly, it's just the reality we will face.

Not, at least, as long as she continues on the trajectory she's been on of late- i.e. DLC, Leiberman-lite, pro-war, pandering to the right.

The irony is, I used to LIKE Hillary. Hey, if the '93 version or the '73 version of Hillary decide to show up for the race, I could reconsider.

I see the same 30 or 40 people over and over and over again posting against Hillary. I see polls that are swayed just by the mere phrasing of the questions and have NO validity whatsoever (I do marketing research, so I know what I'm talking about here). Considering that there are over 80,000 members of DU, that hardly qualifies as the vast majority.

Please explain how you came to this conclusion and can make such a statement - I'd like to know.

please- write one yourself, and see what kind of results you get.

I would suggest something like, "Do you agree with Hillary Clinton's stance on Iraq?" with only "Yes", or "No" as the responses.. That seems pretty friggin bias-neutral to ME.... (but I wouldn't want to bother with a poll you would consider to have 'no validity')...

So, really- put one up, with your own wording... and lets watch the numbers come in.

Or I would have already.

Although your post shows that you missed half the point of mine - if the same 40 or so people who post all the time about Hillary answer a poll, it really doesn't matter how it's worded, does it? If we could poll all 80,000 people on DU, then that would be accurate. See?

(I'd like to donate to DU, but despite my two jobs, I have trouble making my normal bills. Thanks for pointing that out. I have a paper cut too - do you want to pour some salt in it?)

You asked me to prove my assertion that most DU'ers disagree with Hillary on Iraq. You also said you don't like the wording of 'most' polls that other people write. Therefore, I suggested you put one up yourself, a pretty obvious response. Everything else is your own projection. I don't really pay attention to whether or not someone has a donor star.

Also, if the 'same 40 or so people who post all the time about Hillary' are the only ones answering the poll, then you'll only get 40 responses against Hillary. Each member can only vote once. See?

In any case, you'd only get the responses of the people who bothered to respond to the poll, but I fail to see how that is any less accurate a read than anything else. In any election you're only sampling the people who bother to vote, too.

So, no- I'm not trying to pour salt in anything. Really, I'm not. I'm making a clear offer to prove my point that you challenged, that I'm pretty darn sure is accurate. How's this: You write the poll, and I will post it. I still stand by my assertion that "Do you agree with Hillary Clinton's stance on Iraq, yes or no?" Is the clearest, simplest, most unbiased way to validate what either you or I are saying.

But I'll wait for your reply. Peace.

Then again, it could just be that it's a case of strong minded people here tearing apart a candidate who's viewed as a threat to THEIR favorite candidate. Trouble is, in their attacks on her some of them use so many slants, so much spin, so much inneuendo, and so many outright lies about her that they sound just like the right wing in their hatred of her.

If someone new ever happened by chance to stumble here for the first time on one of the many anti-Hillary threads that are currently so in vogue, they'd probably think they stumbled into the wrong place. Some of the criticism that's aimed at her is justified, but so much of it is baseless, untrue, and downright viscious.

There are people here who are aware that flag-burning, while distasteful, is ALSO a Constitutionally protected form of expression, and who see Hillary as a cynical opportunist for her attempt to get a blatantly unconstitutional law passed. YOU seem to be the one who has a problem with that. (I strongly suggest that you take a look at Texas v. Johnson, USSC 88-15, 1989, and the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.)

You may also wish to try to learn better debate tactics than deliberate misrepresentation and ad hominem (which thus far are all I've seen from you).

It's the "we hate Hillary" crowd hooting that they have a right to burn a flag because they're so "progressive" and all..

I just hope you nimnoms don't actually inspire some numbnutz somewhere to set a flag on fire. <sarcasm>That would sure be a feather in our cap...</sarcasm>

Apparently you're too lazy to read the Supreme Court decision I cited (if you had, you wouldn't be so foolish as to put "right" in quotes). And too ignorant to respond in any other manner than abrasively.

I don't happen to think that burning a flag as a form of protest is a good thing, but I don't want to outlaw it. I also don't happen to think that KKK rallies are a good thing, but the First Amendment trumps my distaste.

And I'd remind you that the purpose of the First Amendment is as much to protect UNPOPULAR forms of expression as it is to protect those you agree with.

The Surpeme Court often reverses decisions.

"I also don't happen to think that KKK rallies are a good thing, but the First Amendment trumps my distaste. "
Nobody prevents the KKK from expressing thier idiocy...but they can't burn crosses where prohibited.

And you can't burn a flag wherever you want. That's a far cry from making the ACT itself a crime.

Hardly a "teen progressive" & I value my first amendment rights. If all you're capable of is insults instead of rational arguments, them let's have at it.



Keith’s Barbeque Central

for which she holds the electorate.

It is an embarrassing attempt to win over a couple airheads for whom flag-burning is their single issue.

Of all the issues facing our country, a flag-burning amendment is a serious waste of time. What happened to the woman who brought us "It takes a village?" I really regret her passing!!

What's worse?

This?

or this?

or maybe this?

Americans? We're big boys and girls and even more important, flag burning just isn't happening. We are seeing bullshit spun as fertilizer here.

and all things American. The flag belongs to all of us.

By the way, it's hypocritical and dishonest for somebody to burn a flag, signaling their disgust with and contempt for the Constitution and the first amendment as well as everything else in the country, and then turn around and insist not only that they're entiled to the Constitution's protection, but that the rest of us have to accept their twisted interpretation of it.

and it is free speech. I'm going to vote with keeping free speech rights even though I don't like that kind of free speech. It is, as they say, a slippery slope.

except in the number of Americans it's meant to express hate for. It's also a violent act, not speech.

"It is, as they say, a slippery slope."
And those who say it are almost always unaware that "slippery slope" is both a logical fallacy and meaningless.

Get the difference? You can burn your own cross on your own property. No one can stop you, unless you're violating a local fire code.

There ARE no laws against 'hate speech' in the United States (See Religious Tolerance.Org- and here, if they're speaking in support of such things, I actually disagree with 'em).. It would seem you're a little too busy hurling dumb-ass, middle school insults at people to distinguish campus codes from the law, there, "Junior".

And, yes, I'd rather protect unpopular speech- such as burning the flag, than destroy the very freedoms the flag represents.

Of course, some simpletons -unable to make the abstract distinction between, say, the menu and the meal- don't understand that the beauty of the American Flag, and the Constitution, is what they represent, and view patriotism as something like protecting the banners of their hometown football team. Rah rah.

So you're all about the peace and love and there should be laws prohibiting hate speech.

But then what kind drivel would you have left in your posts?

It's fucking EASY to protect popular speech. It's unpopular speech that is difficult to protect.

I think Nazis have a right to free speech in this country. Does that make me a Nazi? Fuck no, I had relatives who died in the camps. But I understand that it is cases like that which test the mettle of freedom of speech--- where the concept proves its worth.

...Get it? Allowing some idiot to burn a flag only allows him or her to prove that they're an idiot. Best way to counter that kind of thing is to come back and say, 'shit, buddy, you're an asshole'. BANNING it opens the door to banning other forms of criticism of the government, or other speech that someone might call 'hypocritical and dishonest'.

No, someone burning a flag just signals that they're an idiot- just like marching around with a swastika does. Far more dangerous to the Constitution and First Amendment is trying to fuck with them, no matter how 'well intentioned'.

The Republicans love these phony litmus tests. Why play along with their silly game?

Sure, we could pander to the worst instincts of some people, 'play along' with the anti-flag burning, anti-separation of church and state gang... I'm sure if we said that the US was a "Christian Nation", stuck Jesus on the dollar bill, and made it a capital crime to even look at a flag funny, we'd win some votes.

I'm not one of those people who thinks winning elections is worth selling everything our party is supposed to stand for out.

I'd rather protect what the flag represents than destroy it to stop flag burning.

doesn't bode well for her IMO.

I'd think it was true. It is satire, right?



Keith’s Barbeque Central

All she offers is the best reason to vote Green if the Dems are dumb enough to nominate her.

:thumbsup:

She's smart, tough and hard working.

Wish she were on OUR side!

:-)

Keith’s Barbeque Central

I think she has spunk. If she ran for President, I'd vote for her.

No more Republicans for a while please. I'm hoping the next President takes aim at the previous administration... if the American public does not get to it first.

Dap

I live in South Carolina and couldn't sell Hilary Clinton to the DEMOCRATS I know even if I threw in a two night/three day stay in the resort area of their choice.

I will vote for her if she wins the nomination, but then I will vote for ANY Democrat these days. But she would be a very hard sell in my area.

amendment, pro-NAFTA and pro-DLC, among others, then support her.

She does not represent me, therefore I will do whatever I can to see does not win the Dem nomination.

It kind of blows me away that some on the left are buying right into what the rightwing is doing by promoting Hillary.

Sheesh, how dense can some people be?

They're not perfect by any stetch of the imagination but when the future of America and maybe mankind is at stake, they are who i would send first. I like Al Gore second and Wes Clark third.

Except I might switch the places for Gore and Clark - not sure. They are both great.

Not possible of course. But I would just love to shove that sideways up some good 'ol boy asses, know what I mean? :o }(

We'd have the first high level U.S. Government official kill another high level U.S. Government official since Aaron Burr shot Alexander Hamilton.

... and at least they settled it like gentlemen!

Turns out to be billionaire Scafie and his media, Murdoch and his, and few more millionaires that set up over the last 20 years fake think tanks like American Enterprise, Hoover, parts of Cato, National review, they pay the $50 million a year that Rush's program loses, and they bribe witnesses so as to get a many a case against the Clintons - all of those cases falling apart with Bill found innocent but only after great political damage.

The Philly paper put out a nice diagram of the money and power flow a few years back.

So it turns out to be not vast - just a few billionaires with media control plus a few others.

And it turns out to not be a conspiracy - it is out in the open but our US Media is owned and controlled by the right wing GOP - or they act like they are - and just does not report on these "movers and shakers".

But it sure is right wing - and the few millions that these folks invested in this cabal has return hundreds of millions - really billions - in law changes and taxes cut by Bush.

McCain in this case.

According to the National Taxpayer's Union, Hillery is Santa Claus and McCain is Scrooge.

...she can stay in New York, IMHO.

Part of Hillary's success as a Senator has been her complete and total devotion to the State of Isreal--more particularly to anything that the Likud and their American supporters--many of whom live in New York State--want.

The conservative Jewish population holds a power in New York politics that is far greater than its actual size. They are a monolithic voting block that can be delivered for or against a candidate. Her husband learned that in 1992 when Jerry Brown made the mistake of flirting with people who were deemed enemies of Israel and the Orthodox vote helped Bill Clinton win the New York Primary.

For Hillary Clinton to oppose this group by joining the antiwar faction would probably not doom her to defeat--the NY Republicans are a joke--but it would hurt her victory margin which she's going to want as large as possible in order to create that air of inevitability.

Once she no longer needs to cater to every whim of this population, she will probably shift to the left so as to be acceptable to the Democrats who vote in the national primaries.

thing. They said they were voting for Bush but if Hillary was running they would vote for her instead. When asked why they said she was the brains behind the Clinton presidency and we were much better off under Bill than we are now (but STILL they were voting for Bush!?!) It was actually shocking.

The only republican "friend" I have (I told him never to speak to me again right before the 2004 election because he'd pissed me off so much) voted for Bill Clinton then Bush both times. He said it was because he didn't like Gore or Kerry. What is it about people like that? I'll grant you that Gore and Kerry are not very "likable" but for gods sake, we're not electing the figgin' prom king here. I"d like to understand 'em but I can't talk to 'em.

Anyway, bet you a nickel he'd vote for Hillary. Damned if I know why. I still can't figure out why all those bubbas thought Hillary was WAY smarter than Bill.

She's smarter; he's a far better politician.

She came to my town as First Lady for a function and she was great. The crowd was psyched, and not just because she was First lady. She was a Rock Star.

But unfortunately her lack of a real center of conviction makes her tepid as a leader. She is too corporate and pragmatic to the point of uselessness in terms of dealing with the core issues we face.

in a real penis. That is still a huge handicap to becoming president.

:-)

time line goal.

Indeed she sounds like Murtha except she has proposed no numbers and no time line - and just said she wanted time line goals and that she hoped that in 2 years we should see us more or less out of there.

No where near as strong as other Dems - but most certainly not on the GOP's "we can't pull out", or the GOP's "we will wait until the Iraqi's are totally ready," "program for Victory" plan.

and bend your arm w/ grisled submariners but I am one democrat w/i a far rong, wingnut family and Clinton attached 2 anything, causes paroxysms - complete w/ eyes rolling and foam at the corners of the mouth. My mother loved 2 ridicule 'It Takes a Vllage' while feeding and providing shelter for my sister's 3 kids. The rong wing despises Hillary because she is a strong woman. I just dislike her 'way tooo right for my tastes' politics.

Not a big fan of the DLC or PPI.

She will NOT wait an entire month before responding to the Rethug lies.

I remember reading a book on Hillary. And she was the one who toughened up Bill Clinton.

According to the book, President Clinton was inclined NOT to respond to the right-wing lies against him. His view was "The American people will never believe that garbage."

Hillary basically told him "You have to respond. If you don't, people are going to think the lies are true."

And I love the story Gail Sheehey once told about Hillary. She was on a plane with Hillary, when the Gennifer Flowers story first broke. And she said Hillary IMMEDIATELY went into battle mode, saying how if she could get Gennifer on the stand, she would crucify her, and point out inconsistencies in her story.

Am I supposed to feel great about Hillary's "battle mode" against people who are telling the truth.

Yeah, let's "crucify" the other woman.

Lies upon lies upon lies.

I don't want an invasion supporting cuckold for a president.

Gennifer Flowers claimed they carried on a 12-year affair. And if my memory serves me correctly, when Bill Clinton testified before Starr and his staff, he said it was NOT a 12 year affair. I thought he said it was only like a one-time encounter.

And I believe there were probably other inconsistencies in her story. Which is probably why Hillary said she would point them out, if she got her on the stand.

But the whole point is that Hillary is a figther. She believes in responding---not letting allegations or innuendo go unchallenged.

Look what it has led to.

How does it fit into the equation?

I thought the issue we were discussing here, was how Hillary Clinton isn't afraid to fight back against the Republican attack machine who are all too happy to spread lies about her, and paint her as some cold-hearted bitch.

Invasion supporting one no less
I'm jealous :)

Because she is one of the strongest people I've ever seen. She may be having to kiss some butt right now, but she can't be pushed too far. She's smart, articulate, and a viable candidate for president.
I want someone who will take the country forward, not back to the 30's.
:thumbsup: :dem:

I would like to suggest that it is not an issue of agonizing over and debating about whom we should support, we see the issue as the need we have to find someone to support, and the tendency to reduce politics to personality and celebrity. Can we discuss that? What does "support" mean? Why do we need to support anyone? How is what one person does - say, Howard Dean - have so much presumed importance? Why are we so desperate to identify the teams, the players, the good guys and the bad guys?

My feeling is that there is a pervasive stance of passivity and observation among us toward politics. We watch, we comment, we choose our favorite players to cheer for, we compare stats, we track the wins and losses high-fiving or moping on cue depending on the outcome, we decide which team we are going to really get behind....

That all represents a fundamental misunderstanding as to the nature of politics, does it not? Isn't this addressing personal emotional needs more than addressing politics?

also. People can not seem to look beyond this. Maybe that is why the so-called celebrity magazines are so popular on TV. What an utter bore they are.

and are plenty tough enough. I also don't think Dean would be harder to sell than Hillary.

...because from where I'm standing, she could even lose us Democratic votes.

who wants her to be the nominee.

Sorry - but you're closer to Atlanta, if your name is any indication - which is a far cry from the rural village and smaller cities of the South.

... is that even if she won, it would be a pyrric victory because issue-wise she sucks.

Somehow I don't see how a candidate who:

1) is not an exceptional or inspirational speaker
2) would energize the Republican base better than Satan himself
3) has no appeal to the Democratic base
4) only "leads" on bullshit issues like video game ratings and such

.... can win or would make a good president if she did.

Lord spare us Hillary. I'm sorry my country is more important than her political ambitions.