Clinton
 

I don't know how anyone with a conscience could vote for her.
She says what she thinks people want to hear to get what she wants and nothing else.
This is not isolated, it is common.

Unfortunately, at some point in the campaign the only honest candidates left are those that know they can't win. Mr. 'plain talk' himself, John McCain, has been dipping his toes into the conservative base mud puddle.

McCain was one of my crossover candidates. Not so sure now.

Who likes Clinton? She is higher in the polls but I have yet to meet someone that supports her.

As a liberal, I find her way too divisive. If she were to be elected, her presidency would be as useless as...well, the current one's. And for once, I don't mean this as a slap in the face to Dubya. His presidency has been so contentious for this country...even more so than Clinton's. I really think we need a president that will finally--finally--bring us closer together as a people. This hard core divisiveness started in the run up to the impeachment, IMO...hell, it might actually have started during the '92 elections. And it's just gotta stop. How we can truly be a world leader when we can't even come to a reasonable consensus on who we want to lead us?

I know some Democrats who love Hillary. They were absolutely shocked when I told them how she is generally perceived outside the party. They try to attribute it to America not being ready for a woman President. They don't get it because they believe in their hearts that she'll only do things they support even though she'll say anything.

There is also the, at least she's white, contingency.:mad:

Wow, I wonder what they base that on?

It is the same as a libertarian voting for Bush. He sounded a little like one in the run up to the election using some of the language making folks feel comfortable assuming how he'd act etc..but they are both megalomaniacs.

(this happens with every politician to some degree its just that these two are particularly disconnected from the language they use.)

She's polling a distant 3rd (behind Edwards and Obama) on the extreme left-wing terrorist-sympathizing baal-worshiping baby-eating liberal blog Dailykos. Every month sees her lose more support with her pandering.

Worse than that - running fourth at dkos, and also on mydd.com, behind Richardson's third.

Says it all, doesn't it?

It's the not-real people who support this Saul Alinsky disciple.

The real people yearn for a Democrat who could both win an election and win the war on terror.

Looks like they can whistle for him, and frankly pinning their hopes on a Democrat to behave in the Republic's interest is pinning the tail on a donkey that isn't there. And isn't there for us, either.

People who are realer yet are looking for warfighters, inasmuch as we are engaged in a war. Dumbass Dems are avoiding seeing that.

I am in agreement with what you say yet.... I think she would make a good president. :hide:


She is just playing the game and I know we are tired of political games but she can't win playing clean. Can anyone these days?

Well, one thing that she has is a strong machine already in place. If she won, the transition would be a fast one. And she would have lots of advisers to help her. That's the nicest thing I can think of to say about her.

Well, we all know candidates never, ever side step direct questions OR pander to every group out there. She's the first.

She will not make a good president. I would love to see her defeated in the primaries. I will not vote for her.

If I lived in New York, I could have the satisfaction of voting against her -- often.

Really, I don't think I'm voting for a Democratic candidate for the remainder of my life, after the shit they're pulling.

Yes, of course they could.
Why could someone not just tell the truth and win? That makes no sense.
She is a liar and not, remotely, how she presents herself.
HELL, no one knows HOW she presents herself or WHO the HELL she is!
It would be the same as "OK, let's get the president behind curtain nummmmmberrrrr ONE!!!!!"

Hitlery, Hitlery, Hitlery in 08!

http://politicalhumor.about.com/libr...an_outkast.mp3

What "shit" might that be?

And is it any better or worse than the "shit" that the other parties pull?

Hardly. They are all crooks in the others mind.

Must be the war mongering. Wait UG likes that...

I thought he claimed to be a libertarian...

He claims that starting foreign wars is libertarian.

Let pit him against Radar, then. Shouldn't be too hard to do IRL either, given that they both live in SoCal.

He already wore out our man. Many pages were burned up without initiation of force being fully comprehended.

Other business: Did Jesse Jackson throw Hillary under the bus last week?

You can't be that naive. Every issue has two factions. A serious contender can't alienate either side and win.We know more about her than anyone else running. Did you know what a dangerous prick Bush is when he ran the first time?

You know, I'm not really supposed to be telling anyone here this, but I just heard from a friend in the Clinton campaign. There is a better than 50/50 chance that Hillary will declare Bill her vice-presidential running mate.

For the past two months they've quietly had lawyers looking over the 22nd amendment. Obviously, there is nothing in there preventing a president from running for vice president once the term limits are up, but they had to look beyond the amendment to challenges on the intent of the amendment.

At this point they're weighing the pros and cons. On the con side is the possibility that Hillary will not be perceived independent from Bill, that she will be seen as a puppet. This is similar to the musings on the left about GWB's relationship with Cheney.

On the plus side is the possibility of satisfying conservatives who would not be comfortable with a 'male first lady' as well as moderates and liberals who would love to see Bill Clinton retake an official role in foreign policy.

On a public relations front, with Bill traveling overseas on foreign assignments, the couple could show legitimate reasons for separation due to job roles, freeing them from having to maintain a residence together and again from allegations of Hillary being manipulated by Bill.

From what I hear, they intend to declare in the fall. Right now they are reviewing other candidates as a backup and to provide cover, but it's pretty much a done deal. I probably shouldn't even post this, but I can't keep it in. Fortunately, the Cellar doesn't get many hits on any threads besides IOTD, so it should be safe enough to post it here.

He's back.

























April's fool!:D

I do NOT fucking believe you said that.
 

Isn't it shitty that the whole of the Democratic Party's foreign policy is the giving of aid and comfort to our nation's violent, and shooting, enemies? I've said before the Dems would behave in a manner either stupid or treasonable, and they are managing both. (For treason, see Art III, Sec. 3.1, US Constitution.)

Didn't you fucking notice that? Better check the prescription on those spexx. You are seriously purblind.

I say things for a reason. If you cannot grok that reason, the deficiency lies with you, chum, not me.

I do not trust the Dems to keep the Republic. That they belie their own name by ceasing to press for democracy in places it's not been allowed by the ruling elites is simply beyond understanding -- except in postulating that the Dem Party mostly is not very bright, and has developed tacit fascist sympathies which now rule their every move.

The yatterers for impeaching the President are similarly ill founded. It is not a high crime nor a misdemeanor to try to win a war -- one started by others, I'll have you acknowledge. Do not the Democrats carry on as if they believed it was? Yes they do. Yet even the Dems aren't stooping to the impeachment foolishness. That's for the real political mad-cow cases.

What might that be, indeed! Spexx, I require you to be not so lame of brain. Can you meet that requirement?

Bruce, permit me to correct you: Bush is dangerous to the fascists and the undemocrats.

Now into which of these camps do you fall? They suck equally, so the choice is entirely up to you.

But you could have chosen so much better. For God's sake, man, you could have thought like me -- and actually supported the Republic's true interests. And for starters, you must not scream at me about how Bush is awful for the environment or something -- because he's really not doing anything at all to speak of to or about it. He's not playing the busybody -- the actions of the Bush Administration do not support the idea that the Bush Administration is degrading the environment. Bush is busy elsewhere, being dangerous to fascists.

Just like Rush Limbaugh propaganda presented daily on the radio to the brown shirts. Don't bother with reality. Just insult and mock those who bothered to learn before posting.

Everyone knows one need not learn before knowing everything. And when that does not work, rewrite history. It's classic Limbaugh logic.

Bruce, I'd say you're undemocratic with some fascist leanings.

That or he hates America. I can't tell which.

No...you hate America. Remember?

Oh, that's right. You're against baseball though.

Yeah...what the hell was up with that? Maybe he lost some jack last night.

He's looking down the barrel of a long season if he's over-extended now.

You know, I'm not sure it's worth it to spend so much time tearing down one individual.

Not only that she has already made more money than any other presidential hopeful.

Sure sweetie, as soon as you get your head out of your ass and figure out what's really going on.

You guys deserve each other, send him some crocs, Syc.

OK, America-hater.

Barack Obama, the freshman senator from Illinois, on Wednesday shook up the Democratic presidential race when he announced that he had virtually matched Hillary Clinton's $26m fund-raising record in the last 10 weeks.

Mr Obama, 45, who only came to national attention in 2004 when he gave a widely lauded speech at the Democratic national convention, also announced that 100,000 people had donated to his campaign – almost twice the number of people donating to Mrs Clinton.

Maybe the coronation will have to wait for the voters?

Wonder how much of the 25 mil came from Rove's Rascals?

Is Rove really that formidable? I think the Dems give him way to much power.

Urbane Guerilla is American Dad.

? Am I missing something? (more than usual)

There's a show called "American Dad" done by the people who did "Family Guy."

Thanky

In other words, dear Bruce, you don't have an argument that beats mine. So you sneer. NOT impressive. If it weren't for your generally praiseworthy pro-gun/antigenocidal stance, what would you have going for you?

Tw continues in his delusive thinking. Well, it's good that the resident commie stays busy with mental masturbation, as he'd be dangerous otherwise. Since I know more history than he does and am willing to show it, he grouses, and waves his micropenis.

Removing the obstacles dictatorships present to libertarianism is going to mean removing the dictatorships, no?

To someone who really wants libertarianism around, I don't think it'd matter very much in practice which party shot first. He'd be concerned more with the final outcome of any such struggle -- which may be a protracted-conflict, guerrilla affair. While it's morally comfortable to wait for the antilibertarian dictatorship to initiate the hostilities, there is no guarantee this entity couldn't wipe out the libertarian faction with a first strike, is there? Thus, allowing the opposition the first initiative in violence is dubious in the extreme. Must you sacrifice your founding activists merely to stay in your comfort zone? I doubt they'd go along with that agenda.

You need reminding, apparently, that we did not start the war with Iraq. Iraq managed that all by itself, in 1991, and the present campaign is Part Two. It's one war, put on pause for eleven years by a ceasefire, an armistice. Soldier of Fortune magazine was among the few voices crying in the wilderness through the Nineties, "Finish the job!"

At the risk of boring myself, I'll repeat that it amazes me just how many supposedly intelligent Americans are willing to credit the idea that some other Americans believe Iraq did 9-11. Personally, I can't name a single American who believes that. I've never even heard there are any in my town.

Some turkeys refuse to believe explanations simply because I'm the one making them.

You should listen to yourself talk.

Oh, I do.* And it's a damn sight more enjoyable than listening to anti-Americans talk, I'll tell ya. I know you're trying to steer us wrong, tw, and I resent it: the America-must-lose faction is an enemy of humanity, and it behooves humanity to dispose of them.

I doubt I'll ever know why you bother. I imagine you could write one of your lengthy explanations, and I'd plod through the whole thing cutting my way through the verbal underbrush, and at the end look you in the eye and say, "You are out of your mind."

*Especially when memorizing lines for a play.

Hey UG - how is Chapter One of Thomas Barnett's book coming. As soon as I read you were reading it, I wondered how far you would get before you realized it criticized your "political agendas". Or was the logic too difficult. But UG - you promised "So far, I'm fascinated. I'll probably be talking about this book's ideas from time to time. ."

You needed Wikipedia to understand Tawana Brawly? No wonder you keep returning Thomas Barnet to the library unread.

My mom supports her, I think more because she identifies with her as a woman of a certain generation than anything else.

I wish that more politicians would come out and say that it's OK to be gay, even if it would make it harder for them to get elected.

My wife supports Clinton.

I'm not so sure. She'd likely be a lesser of evils to me, depending on who she was up against. Right now, I don't much like anyone on either side. It's too early to be talking about this crap.