I said all along that Hillary was a predictably losing candidate but even I could not point out the GOP machine part. Anthony, I surrender to the better man!

by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 10, 2007 at 9:37:31 AM

  (0+)

Anthony Wade may be on the money but again what appears to be a lead pipe cinch today is often laughed at tomorrow because it was so far off base. The thug party was beside itself in '92 when a hick governor from a hick state secured the stupid party's nomination. The same thing happened in '76 with the peanut farmer. No sane person thought Nixon had any chance when he ran in '68. If we were so damn good at prediction we would be getting Bush's big tax breaks from the accrued wealth we made betting on Sunday's games. The real question is this: if Hillary does win what will we have? Will she swing to the left or will she,like her husband, become another Ronald Reagan clone?

by irwin wingo (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 13 comments) on Saturday, Feb 10, 2007 at 10:37:29 AM

  (0+)

Based on her history so far, she'll lean way right. As much as the Republicans try to villify the Clintons as if they were super-liberal, neither of them is actually very progressive, at least not in practice. Truth be told, I don't know whether this nation is still too sexist to elect a woman or not. What I do know is that real progressives should do everything they can to prevent Hillary Clinton from being the Democratic candidate if we care about using this opportunity to turn 30 years of conservatism around.

by D. L. Corvin (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Saturday, Feb 10, 2007 at 11:09:19 AM

  (0+)

How in the world do you say she leans right? You either know nothing about her history and voting record, or you are intentionally being dishonest about her and her record. A Third option may be the answer to this question: Where does your left begin-- far to the left of Karl Marx?

by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 972 comments) on Saturday, Feb 10, 2007 at 1:03:43 PM

  (0+)

Ms. Clinton is far from a moderate. She supported this awful war, she has accepted the friendship and assistance of Rupert Murdoch, one not very likely to associate with a real liberal, or even a moderate. I do not believe that Mr. Wade is entirely correct in his assumption that this nation is not ready to accept a woman President, nor do I believe that Hillary Clinton is not capable of speaking as well as her husband could, she can certainly make a race of it. I do think, as the article suggests, that the right would love a Clinton nomination however, believing that all the old Bill Clinton stuff could be easily restated to good effect. I , personally, will never vote for Hillary for President, but I would not be very surprised to see her do well against the right in what would be a very messy campaign.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Saturday, Feb 10, 2007 at 7:38:06 PM

  (0+)

The only reason it wasn't a clean sweep last November is because the election machines that HAVA foisted off on us did what they were designed to do. Any candidate who understands this threat and circumvents it by enlightening others will do us all a huge favor. Presumably, this same candidate would also be aware of the coming cataclysm of disastrous climate change, the collapse of the oil economies of the world (ours will be the first and biggest to fall)and be able to communicate all this to the voters without scaring us into doing something stupid. Like nominating Hillary R. Clinton. I suggest we take a closer look at Rocky Anderson, Salt Lake City's Mayor.

by Chuck Garner (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 118 comments) on Saturday, Feb 10, 2007 at 11:27:02 AM

  (0+)

"The real question is this: if Hillary does win what will we have? Will she swing to the left or will she, like her husband, become another Ronald Reagan clone?" Ask yourself: Why is the Republican Owned Media pushing Hillary so hard? Anyone who still believes in the Myth of Liberal Media is brain dead. Republicans denounced her husband as "liberal," but he governed like a Republican. Whether she wins or loses the national election is immaterial. We'll still end up with a Republican president.

by rabblerowzer (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 227 comments) on Saturday, Feb 10, 2007 at 11:27:56 AM

  (0+)

We can't let that darned "thug party" keep picking our candidates. Fox news is a cable news channel, they must reach hundreds of thousands of conservative viewers, maybe even MILLIONS of conservative viewers. Then those "thugs" go out an pick our nominee for president. They must be stopped! It's time we Democrats picked our own candidates. The crushing power of Fox news and the thug party must be stopped.

by Big Pete (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Saturday, Feb 10, 2007 at 11:31:21 AM

  (0+)

I work for a defense company. Co worker of mine has an aquaintence a "spook" if you will. The subject came up, and his aquaintence said, "The next President will be a woman...either Clinton or Feinstein..and everybody in Washington better hold onto their balls"

by Alfano (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Saturday, Feb 10, 2007 at 12:17:55 PM

  (0+)

1. If Hillary gets the nomination, she will benefit from the anti-Bush, anti-Republican wave manifest in the 06 elections. She can win. 2. Republicans, many of them, promote her now, because her administration would pose no more of a threat to them than her husband's did. 3. The only person who can stop her now is Al Gore. 4. A 'Christian progressive' with a capital C seems an odd formulation. I suppose Jesus was a progressive, one might say, but a capital C Christian would seem to embrace Jesus as the exclusive vehicle to salvation, denying same to competing faiths.

by Kuzminski (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 93 comments) on Saturday, Feb 10, 2007 at 12:38:59 PM

  (0+)

I agree, i will have an article next week called, "Run Al, Run." I think he is virtually unbeatable. Your comments about the capital C i did not get, please explain. Thanks.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 10, 2007 at 1:58:02 PM

  (0+)

I don't care for Hillary, nor do I trust her. She lost all credibility with me when she pulled a Slick Dick before he did with his energy meetings by making her health care reform unbelievably secretive. I've never been able to figure out why. Not only that, when details of her plan finally emerged, it was unacceptably complex. Hillary is my last choice, but if in November of 2008 it's between her or a Pub, I must unwillingly go with her.

by Sandy Sand (198 articles, 0 quicklinks, 227 diaries, 1548 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 10, 2007 at 1:52:05 PM

  (0+)

Not only is she the last choice of countless Democrats, there's a large percentage that won't vote for her in the general election either-- they'll stay home, vote for a non D/R party, or (gasp) even cross over to vote for Giuliani, I guess the logic being something like, we could probably win with a non-DLC progressive in 2012, when disgust with the GOP would be inestimable. Hillary has angered the base far too much, she's basically opened up a Gatling gun on the progressive causes Democrats hold most dear-- not only on the Iraq War, and on Iran for that matter where she's if anything even more hawkish than Bush. Hillary's economic stands are revolting-- supporting laws to make outsourcing even easier, when Americans professional and middle class workers are already being squeezed hard? Changing Chap. 11 so that Americans in a bind are screwed over even worse by big corporations, making it easier to foreclose their homes? I personally am not fully decided, but I'd say that a good 1/3 of my neighbors (and I'm in a very, very Democratic neighborhood) will not vote for Hillary, at all. And they're not Netroots types, either, they're middle Americans who are appalled at Hillary's very anti-Democratic stands.

by Jim Lasker (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Saturday, Feb 10, 2007 at 6:21:19 PM

  (0+)

I would work for Gore if he let me. I believe that he has turned himself around and realized just what's up. Hillary is not my idea of a progressive Democrat. I would vote for her before a Republican but thats not saying much. I liked this article and it does make a lot of sense. So does Gore. Hillary would make a fine Vice President or Secretary of State. She is exceptionaly smart, but a little too ready to "prove" she can be as tough as the men. The nation needs that like a hole in the head.

by Timothy V. Gatto (348 articles, 177 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 574 comments) on Saturday, Feb 10, 2007 at 2:21:29 PM

  (0+)

"Just as tough as the men" lol ...so she should chain herself to the stove so that men can build a kitchen around her? This is 2007. That rhetoric worked in my Fathers time ("My wife's married, I'm not".

by Alfano (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Saturday, Feb 10, 2007 at 3:08:36 PM

  (0+)

Damn right! he has regained his credibility and he can win again.

by RCG (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 348 comments) on Saturday, Feb 10, 2007 at 3:39:10 PM

  (0+)

He would win, period. He would be teflon. All the lies they told about him have been debunked, and most feel he was jobbed in 2000. I think he would be more comfortable within himself and would steamroll whoever the GOP put forth because he isnot ebholden to anyone anymore.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 10, 2007 at 4:10:13 PM

  (0+)

If Al Gore wins in 2008 that the Rethuglicans would claim he can't run in 2012 because he actually WAS the President in 2000?

by Charlie L (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 747 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 11, 2007 at 12:27:33 AM

  (0+)

...would be James Webb--I wish he'd consider running. I totally agree with this article, I expressed that idea--Hillary Clinton, best Democratic candidate... for the Republicans--some time ago on this site.

by francine (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 385 comments) on Saturday, Feb 10, 2007 at 4:23:42 PM

  (0+)

all the more reason why I said I will hunt, cook, eat a crow and upload the video if Hillary "The Bitch" Clinton serves a single day as president. If the dummicraps are stoopid enought to nominate Hillary they are guaranteeing a REPUKE victory. Also don't be surprised when Obama becomes her V.P. candidate as I am quite sure they have already made the deal under the table and are merely letting him 'establish his own identity' so they can late 'come together for the greater good of the country'....well don't fall for that crap when they pull it bc they will still LOSE!

by Ben Marble, M.D. (23 articles, 0 quicklinks, 230 diaries, 349 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 10, 2007 at 4:35:42 PM

  (0+)

I can't support Hillary or Obama. Edward's was looking good until he fired people because some prominant Catholic said that they said something bad about Catholics. I'm not gonna support someone who is so beholding to any religion. I guess Kucinich is the only one left for me to support. I would have to listen to Gore before I could consider someone who used White House phones to collect campaign contributions from China. I can't forget that. I think it demonstrates some screwed up priorities. Dennis has been right since day one and he hasn't changed his stance on any issue. I guess thats just to straight forward to be viable in the U.S.

by Sleeper (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 312 comments [6 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 10, 2007 at 5:10:52 PM

  (0+)

one site ran that story but they were ahead of themselves. I think those bloggers are still on the job.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 10, 2007 at 8:34:18 PM

  (0+)

It's true that Gore has a lot to answer for. He helped ditch Kyoto, had a lot to do with pollution in Tennessee, went back on his word about a polluting project in Ohio (an election pledge, I think about a power plant), and generally toed the Clinton line in the old days. Al's going to have to address some of his baggage, but if he does so, he would be invincible. Who really wants Hillary, or rather Billary? Who was to replay all that stuff? She's just too much. Rush Limbaugh keeps replaying that tape of her screaming, practically, at some event, and she sounds awful. Still, if she were the nominee I think she'd win.

by Kuzminski (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 93 comments) on Saturday, Feb 10, 2007 at 6:23:02 PM

  (0+)

I appreciate your obeservation about the right wing machine pumping Hillary up so much so far. I think you are on the money and will be watching closely to see this in practice. It makes sense because she has more baggage then anyone else between all her husband's detractions, filegate, travelgate, Whitewater and Vince Foster. I can see them using GOP money and influences to build her up as a clay pidgeon that they can blast apart later. Now that you mention it, it's strange that of all the criticism of Hillary they do it's all current stuff, as if they are holding back the heavy ammo for later - surely Whitewater and I think I remember a fishy last minute $100,000 stock dump too. Remember they spent big bucks getting Ralph Nader on the ballot before, so they are prone to use any and all underhanded tactics to run interference on the candidates they truly fear. Regarding Gore, I would vote for him above the others and relish a ticket with he and Kucinish or Obama. His one big scandal was the fundraising with the Buddhist monks, though it seemed like he took one for the team on that one and tried to de-sully his image later and "integrity-up" by distancing himself from Bubba, even if it meant a loss. Perhaps if Al doesn't run because of what he calls such a "toxic environment" in DC, he would still accept the top position at the EPA?

by Gustav Wynn (77 articles, 65 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 421 comments [34 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 10, 2007 at 6:30:14 PM

  (0+)

Hillary Rodham Clinton is the dream candidate for the Republicans-- disliked and even despised by millions of rank-and-file Democrats, abhorred by Republicans who'd turn out in unprecedented numbers to vote against her, reviled by Independents who are furious at her about Iraq and now her push to war in Iran, in addition to her economic stands. Hillary Clinton is a blessing for the Republicans, and a disaster for the Democrats. You're right, the GOP is holding back, though they're preparing. The Republicans are already putting together a massive hit campaign and even farming out some hit work to some very slimy, shadowy publicity organizations who will get their squirmy tentacles around and all over Hillary Clinton if she is nominated. If you thought Swift Boat was bad, it'll seem like an awards party in Kerry's honor compared to what the Republicans will do to Hillary if she is nominated. The problem is, Hillary in many ways has been hoisted by her own petard in this respect, and Democrats won't be anxious to come to her defense. She plunged a knife right into Kerry's back last year when his comments were twisted by Republican smear artists, and she continues to obviously and stupidly pander so much that she has permanently alienated an extremely large fraction of her own base. She would push so many Democrats into the arms of 3rd parties that such parties would have enough strength to hit Democrats harder than Republicans. It would be an electoral disaster of the highest proportions. The Democrats have so many top-notch candidates that this gathering debacle has no excuse. Barack Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson-- the Democrats have an all-star list. Yet we're willing to squander it in favor of choosing a disastrous candidate that the Republican media is encouraging upon us, to their tremendous benefit.

by Jim Lasker (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Saturday, Feb 10, 2007 at 7:22:13 PM

  (0+)

It's not just Hillary's polarization for the country as a whole and the fact that she would be the best unifier for the Republicans in decades-- much of the most profound anti-Hillary anger is coming from Democrats, a big and growing number of whom won't vote for her, period. The war stands are a big factor, and Hillary for almost 5 years has been one of the biggest Iraq War supporters in either party, only recently backing off a bit when it was already obvious to everyone else (for years before that) how much of fiasco it had become. But now she's pushing for war with Iran. If we do go to war with Iran soon, and I suspect we will, Hillary will have been a big factor in promoting that. Hillary's corporate shilling is even worse-- pushing to provide even easier rules for companies to outsource American jobs, and making Chap. 11 protections even less accessible to desperate Americans, is awful. If anything, even more than the war, it's Hillary Clinton's other examples of shameless pandering that are really infuriating core Democrats. Her support of an anti-flag burning amendment was ludicrous, unethical and extremely stupid. Does she really think she'll get pick-up drivers in Kentucky to support her now? All she did was enrage rank-and-file Democrats who care about free speech. And the way that she plunged the knife into John Kerry's back like that a year ago, when Kerry's words were twisted by Republican Swift-Boaters, has angered so many Dems for its blatant mendacity that even more Democrats have been turned off by her and won't vote for her. Democrats pushing to nominate Hillary are just asking for a debacle worse than McGovern in 1972. Anthony, you say that the GOP has its own nominee problems, but unfortunately I disagree. I do have some Republican friends at work, and things are converging around Rudolph Giuliani. His social stands aren't nearly as disruptive as you might think-- he's been very cleverly pragmatist about his stands on social issues lately, which he can do as a mayor whose primary job is an executive one, and he's been cunning enough on his platforms that he's somehow able to draw wide support. Nominating Hillary would be exactly what the GOP wants-- something to unify them while putting up a candidate who's so distasteful to millions of Democrats that they won't vote for her either.

by Jim Lasker (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Saturday, Feb 10, 2007 at 6:31:19 PM

  (0+)

I tell you, there is no way the base accepts Rudy, no way no how. Unless Rudy was to change his positions, and then be open to being called a liar. he also has the kerik stank lingering, and i am dying for a real investigative look into how much money he has made over his 911 fame. lastly, he is far from Mr Family Values when he was committing adultery in the very house his kids slept in. he has problems, trust me.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 10, 2007 at 9:25:03 PM

  (0+)

Mr. Wade, you're a very good wordsmith, and I like what you've written about Hillary. If Gore runs, the Republicans are sure to expose that a good part of the Gore family fortune comes from oil. Maybe he's had the good sense to dump whatever shares he had, but that doesn't change the past. The time is coming, if it isn't here already , when any association with oil will be considered as being a party to the death of the planet. I hope you can find a way to defuse that potential bomb.

by Chuck Garner (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 118 comments) on Saturday, Feb 10, 2007 at 10:30:42 PM

  (0+)

Polling data shows Rudy has about a 60% favorable rating among Repugs....I believe that it is he the Dems will face in '08.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Monday, Feb 12, 2007 at 5:51:42 PM

  (0+)

"What would she screw up this time?" will be my reply to anyone trying to sell her candidacy. She had a veritable apprenticeship at the job and huffed it bigtime, blowing the previous serious chance for national health care reform. How many people likely missed some serious health care treatment they needed in the last 12 years because they were un/underinsured? Only millions. How many people were likely impoverished or bankrupted because they were un/underinsured in the last 12 years? Only tens and hundreds of thousands. And how much was she part of other wonderments of the Clinton Era: Don't Ask Don't Tell? "Ending" Welfare? Disappearing/Reappearing FBI Files? (Goodbye) Peace Dividend? She had her chances to prove herself. She failed time and again. How can someone say oh she's new, different now; she's just too much the self-serving corporatist lawyer.

by RT (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments) on Saturday, Feb 10, 2007 at 10:54:36 PM

  (0+)

I think that the public will not buy any attempts to smear gore this time because they will remember the lies they told aboyut him in 2000. Hillary has done a decent job as senator and she gets way to much grief for the failed healthcare reform fromt he early 90's. Most admit now that her ideas can work and might be very necessary.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 10, 2007 at 11:43:41 PM

  (0+)

Hillary, Barack, McCain, Jeb, it does not matter. Unfortunately it took segregationist Governor Wallace to reveal the truth that "there's not a dime's worth of difference between" Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats willingly went along with the War in Iraq, suspension of Habeas Corpus, opening mail, banning books like "America Deceived' from Amazon, stealing private lands (Kelo decision), warrant-less wiretapping and refusing to investigate 9/11 properly. They are both guilty of treason. Support indy media. Last link (before Google Books bends to gov't Will and drops the title): America Deceived (book)

by Lorring II (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 87 comments) on Saturday, Feb 10, 2007 at 11:44:13 PM

  (0+)

Where does this "the US is not ready for a female President?" crap come from? When did it become an issue? Seems like more than one news agency commented upon a Condi-Hillary face-off, and there was no discussion of whether the US was ready for a woman president. If Pakistan could have a woman President twenty years ago, surely it is possible in the United States. I don't know any intelligent person who thinks that one's gender will make any difference in how they will govern. It seems that this debate is a media invention, designed to distract people with hot-button issues so that they cannot see the forest amongst the trees. Those who examine from a macro perspective can clearly see that there is fundamentally no difference between the Democrats and Republicans, or much difference between those labeled left and right. I wouldn't be surprised if Hillary's camp was trying to get women riled up, thinking that women will vote for her simply because she is a woman. How patronizing. Hillary's record speaks for itself. She violated her Constitutional oath to defend the Constitution by voting for the Patriot Act, a 400 plus page document that she never read prior to her vote. She voted for the unconstitutional Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists. She has continued to vote for funding for this war. She has done nothing to stop the fraudulent payments to the Bush cabal a defense companies. She has allowed Bush to remain at the White House when she has evidence that he has committed acts of treason, genocide, and crimes against humanity. She supported the continued funding for the illegal war against Iraq. Just like George Bush, she has promised military support to defend Israel, although there is nothing in the Constitution authorizing the use of US taxpayer funds to subsidizer the Israeli Armageddon Machine. She is the strongest proponent of a national ID. Starting three years from now, if you live or work in the United States, you'll need a federally approved ID card to travel on an airplane, open a bank account, collect Social Security payments, or take advantage of nearly any government service. Your driver's license will be reissued to meet federal standards. You will be a prisoner of the state. Additionally, Clinton has voted for hate crime laws that are in direct violation of the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech. During her stay at 1600, she turned her back on the obvious murder of her friend and law partner Vince Foster, who apparently committed "suicide", despite a lack of blood evidence. (See click here Worse than any of her other crimes against the country she represents, she failed the nation by not demanding a real investigation into 9-11, allowing the myth of 19 Arab hijackers to continue when there the US government has never submitted actual evidence linking the alleged hijackers to the crime. What we do know is that the Secret Service stood down at Booker Elementary School. We know that when the second plane hit, Cheney was carried by all four limbs into a bunker. Cheney's daughter was rushed to safety. The Secret Service didn't stir that day in Sarasota. The only way they could have stood down was if they knew what was happening. The President was a sitting target next to an airport and the Secret Service didn't even approach that moron. Hillary knows this and yet she says nothing, and yet some people think she would be a good president. Hillary Clinton cannot win. People can blame it on her double X chromosomes, but she can't win because she is a less than desirable human specimen. There is no Democrat who can or should win right now. Al Gore walked away from the Presidency. He deliberately avoided a show down. He won Florida in 9 out of 12 scenarios. He didn't say anything about the Supreme Court's illegal non-ruling or that four justices had blatant conflicts of interest in this case. No, he bowed over and let a moron run the county. He was a traitor to his country and those who supported him. He decided vote fraud was okay, that he had other things to do than play President. Now people think he is some sort of savior when he is the same coward he was seven years ago. Next, the Democrats foisted John Kerry on their supporters. "Only Kerry can beat Bush." Kerry is 90 percent Bush on the political ideology charts. He even said he agreed with Bush. Despite the country hating Bush and record numbers of Republicans voting Democrat, when Diebold got done with ballots, Kerry walked away without a fight, claiming it was best for the country to move on. Another traitor. You cannot change something from within the system, so don't waste your vote on a tyrant. So what if the candidate you really believe in won't get more than ten votes. If enough people vote for who they want and not just the two choices on the ballot, they will send a message to the powers that be that we are not a slaves.

by Kelly Ann Thomas (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Sunday, Feb 11, 2007 at 3:58:25 AM

  (0+)

I agree in substance with most of what you stated above and I thank you for it. This especially is the heart of the matter: "You cannot change something from within the system, so don't waste your vote on a tyrant. So what if the candidate you really believe in won't get more than ten votes. If enough people vote for who they want and not just the two choices on the ballot, they will send a message to the powers that be that we are not slaves." I have no problem with folks working to rescue the Democratic Party from the conservative DLC inspired corporate obeisance that silences it if this is what they wish to do. But , as you so aptly note, too many think they must back a candidate with national cachet despite the fact that the candidate in question will backstab you immediately upon election. Voting third party is the only way, to date, for a progressive to send a message to Washington. Hopefully in the not so distant future we will send some honest to goodness progressives there as well.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Tuesday, Feb 13, 2007 at 4:59:49 PM

  (0+)

Did We The People get things done in November? The Dems are now the War Party. "Washington DC is like a whorehouse; every four years they change piano players"

by Alfano (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Sunday, Feb 11, 2007 at 10:13:22 AM

  (0+)

I believe you are very right. Too bad the process is so skewed towards who can raise the most money in the least amount of time.

by Shelly Gold (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Sunday, Feb 11, 2007 at 11:23:30 AM

  (0+)

I think Hillary should be retrained as an intern for some sexist President. This will keep the media circus rolling with a new side show. Like Anna Nicole using Marlyn Monroe fr a mentor, Hillary could use Monica for a mentor.

by Fred F (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 361 comments) on Sunday, Feb 11, 2007 at 11:34:26 AM

  (0+)

I am sorry but you are being too shortsighted if you honestly think that there are not portions of this country that wil not vote for any woman. Maybe you live as i do, in a more metropolitan area, but there are PLENTY of states that will NOT vote for ANY woman, period. Is it right? Heck no, but to deny that reality is inaccurate. As for Gore, he did what he thought was in the best interest of the country. I really do not fault him for walking away after the Supremes installed Bush. He did not want to divide the country. Kerry i agree was a whore from the beginning, and never cared about winning.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 11, 2007 at 4:28:31 PM

  (0+)

About five years ago, five women were elected to the five highest offices in Arizona. I believe that most of the women ran as Republicans. Prior to and after the election, gender was never mentioned as a drawback in the editorial pages or on the radio waves, despite the very conservative nature of the republic. I live in one of only three countries that prohibit abortions even to save the mother's life. The vast majority of the people here are Catholic or Evangelical, and it seems like every other week, someone is hauling out the plastic virgin and plastic Jesus in honor of some saint or religious holiday or tradition. Fifteen years ago, Nicaragua elected a woman as President. If some of the most traditionally conservative "Christian" nations have no problem with a woman being President, why is that an issue in the United States? I don't doubt that there are people that will not vote for a woman, but they hardly make up a significant portion of the US population. I sincerely doubt that hard core misogynists will sway the election. When Elizabeth Dole ran for President, no one cited her gender as an issue. Conservative folks in North Carolina never screamed, "We can't vote for a woman Senator!" I maintain that this concept of "the US is not ready for a woman president" is something that many feminists want to believe. They would rather believe that their candidate couldn't be elected because she is a woman rather than accept that maybe their female candidate is a morally and ethically bankrupt human being not worthy of political power, regardless of gender. The Democrats haven't presented a decent woman candidate, so claiming a woman can't win based on a gender alone is a bit premature. Regarding Gore, how is rewarding election fraud doing what's best for the country? I don't think he is a bad person, but he is a terrible leader. You don't abandon your country by handing it over to dumbass frat boy. Besides, the vast majority of Americans didn't vote, so I am not sure how Gore could claim that America would be anymore divided than it was the day the voting booths were open. He didn't want the job. He shouldn't have wasted our time and votes instead of making excuses. This non-confrontational aspect of the Democrats is the downfall of the Democratic Party. Clinton was impeached (by Democrats, too) over his denial of a consensual relationship with a girl. Bush lied to start two wars. He and his handlers have destroyed the Constitution. They have overturn habeas corpus! Innocent men rot away in Gitmo and the !@#$*! Democrats say we just need to move forward and forget about this nasty mess, making sure Bush stays in power long enough to attack Iran at Israel's demand. I still don't know why people bother supporting the Democrats. Think. Vote Independent.

by Kelly Ann Thomas (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Monday, Feb 12, 2007 at 6:58:38 PM

  (0+)

President? While Jehovah approves of her principled stanced toward OIL WAR OF GOD, He does not appreciate her liberal leanings and vaguely lesbian airs.

by Mike Bendzela (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 19 comments) on Sunday, Feb 11, 2007 at 5:18:47 PM

  (0+)

Gore didn't invent the internet...he invented losing.

by Alfano (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Sunday, Feb 11, 2007 at 6:22:24 PM

  (0+)

it aint.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Sunday, Feb 18, 2007 at 9:54:57 AM

  (0+)

I read the dark wraith forums (http://dark-wraith.com) and they are frequent posters to it - and I seem to recall reading that they said were no longer employed by edwards. I am not 100% confident of my memory of this event, so if you want to verify, here is their personal blog: http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/

by RCG (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 348 comments) on Thursday, Mar 29, 2007 at 10:13:14 AM

  (0+)