The Clinton Thread

[HellOnEarth]

Would you rather have Bush or Ms. Clinton?

If you had to choose between the two (because there is a gun aimed at your head) who would you choose?

[Manic]

Would you rather have Bush or Ms. Clinton?

If you had to choose between the two (because there is a gun aimed at your head) who would you choose?
I'd take the bullet.

[HellOnEarth]

What's so bad about Hillary?

I'm voting for her in the upcoming election. She will win. How much do you want to make a bet?

[Elijya]

I'd take the bullet.
the only correct answer

[HellOnEarth]

You guys are f**ked up in your head. :(

[Poetic Chaos]

Whatever gets Bill back in the White House. He'd be so fitting as the first First Gentleman.

[Man-Thing]

It takes a village to keep Hillary out of the white house.

[KingOfDreams]

Whatever gets Bill back in the White House. He'd be so fitting as the first First Gentleman.

Can't argue with that.

[Man-Thing]

Can't argue with that.

Yeah Bill done so many great things...
:rolleyes:

[Corinthian™]

Yeah Bill done so many great things...

Warning Graphic Imagehttp://media.unrivaled.info/albums/manga/naruto/322/Naruto_322_scanlated_by_Angry15.png
http://media.unrivaled.info/albums/manga/naruto/322/Naruto_322_scanlated_by_Angry16.png
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v402/Pablo_Corinthian/Banned.jpg

[Man-Thing]

why?

I put a warning up.

[Man-Thing]

will you take my quote out of your post Cor?

[KingOfDreams]

Yeah Bill done so many great things...
:rolleyes:

Yeah, like Bush has done so much better. :whatever:

[Man-Thing]

didn't say he did.:confused:

[Corinthian™]

will you take my quote out of your post Cor?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, no:woot:

[Man-Thing]

nothing in the rules against it (that I've seen) and I did make an effort so...

[jimmy]

If Hillary became the next President, H.L. Mencken would come back to life and kill her.

[Motown Marvel]

i dont know too much about hillary's politics, but she sounds pretty shady....but it would just be cool to have a female president...and bill as the first gentleman would be classic!

[Ben Urich]

Obama.

[Manic]

Hillary is such a b****, there's no way I'd vote for her. Then again, she is the first Democrat with balls to run for president in a decade.

[celldog]

http://www.onejerusalem.com/wp-content/photos/iran_president_Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad.jpghttp://www.usasurvival.org/images/hillary.jpg

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Effects/Images/WE12.jpg

[7Hells]

Hillary is such a b****, there's no way I'd vote for her. Then again, she is the first Democrat with balls to run for president in a decade.
thats hilarious :)
...because its true.

[7Hells]

The democratic party needs to put someone in the race that actually has democratic viewpoints.
Today democrats are so flippin' right-winged they might a well be republicans.
They need someone that is liberal so people can tell the fricken difference and get excited enough about a change to go out and vote.

[Danger Mouse]

The real question is how many here really thinks Mrs. Clinton will actually win if she runs?

[celldog]

The democratic party needs to put someone in the race that actually has democratic viewpoints.
Today democrats are so flippin' right-winged they might a well be republicans.
They need someone that is liberal so people can tell the fricken difference and get excited enough about a change to go out and vote.


Like who??????? Name one Democrat who's right-winged?

[7Hells]

^thats a joke right?

[celldog]

^thats a joke right?

No. I'm dead serious. Who??

Pelosi?
Kerry?

[Sunstar]

Shouldn't there be a poll for this thread?

Oh and Bush can't run for president again since this is his last term! I think the Republicans want Rudi Guliani to run for President.

If I were American I'd vote for Hillary Clinton!:D

[kainedamo]

It would be a big change. A change that America really sorely needs.

And yes Celldog, as afraid of liberals you are, you and many Americans (including the Democrats) wouldn't know a liberal if he came up and bit you in the ass.

[Milkman95]

No.

[Immortalfire]

Hillary ain't Happening.

[Erzengel]

A few thoughts:

Hillary wouldn't win any of the red midwestern states as a Democrat.

As liberal as California or the East is, I really don't think she'd get as many votes as a woman. I think we have more sexists than they let on.

Women won't vote for Hillary simply because she's a woman.

Lastly, Hillary isn't likable. You'd think after being "married" to Bill she could have picked up a little bit of his charm.

[Gonking]

why there isn't a left wing party in the US?

I would vote it

[lazur]

No to Hitlery.

[jaguarr]

Hillary tries to appeal to everybody on every issue, which leads to a lot of waffling on issues. She's a great schmoozer, but when you start peeling back her politics, she's pretty damned conservative and might as well be a Republican. I really don't think she's qualified for the job, anyway, to be honest. She's not exactly set the world on fire in her congressional career and hasn't demonstrated any abilities that earmark her as a good choice to lead this country. The best bet the Democrats have is Mark Warner, who's a demonstrated leader with excellent diplomatic skills. He's on the moderate side of liberal, too, and would be a viable choice for both liberals and more conservative voters alike.

jag

[Spider-Bite]

A few thoughts:

Hillary wouldn't win any of the red midwestern states as a Democrat.

As liberal as California or the East is, I really don't think she'd get as many votes as a woman. I think we have more sexists than they let on.

Women won't vote for Hillary simply because she's a woman.

Lastly, Hillary isn't likable. You'd think after being "married" to Bill she could have picked up a little bit of his charm.

first off it does not matter how much she wins by in california, as long as she wins it, she still gets all of that state's electoral votes.

As a woman, she would dominate the woman vote more than democrats usually do. The majroity of females vote demcorat, and the majority of males vote republican. Hillary could possibly create a higher turn out because she's a woman.

Rudy will probably win the nomination and the general election, but he also might screw himself after winning the nomination beause he's pro-gay marriage and he's pro-choice. This would deenergize his base signifigantly.

Here is the real question. Do you guys think Hillary would be fiscally conservative like Clinton was? With the deficit Bush has left us we so desperately need fiscal conservatism.

[Spider-Bite]

Hillary tries to appeal to everybody on every issue, which leads to a lot of waffling on issues. She's a great schmoozer, but when you start peeling back her politics, she's pretty damned conservative and might as well be a Republican. I really don't think she's qualified for the job, anyway, to be honest. She's not exactly set the world on fire in her congressional career and hasn't demonstrated any abilities that earmark her as a good choice to lead this country. The best bet the Democrats have is Mark Warner, who's a demonstrated leader with excellent diplomatic skills. He's on the moderate side of liberal, too, and would be a viable choice for both liberals and more conservative voters alike.

jag

I can't even find out where he stands on a lot of issues, but I do know he's fiscally conservative and being a democrat that makes for the perfect combination in my book.

[Erzengel]

You just reminded me of when she was trying to get elected to the Senate for NY and was asked who do you like Yankees or Mets and she blurbed out how she like both. You don't find many NYers who say both. It's either one or the other. I know it's trivial but in hindsight, it seems to be her mo on most issues.

[Man-Thing]

You just reminded me of when she was trying to get elected to the Senate for NY and was asked who do you like Yankees or Mets and she blurbed out how she like both. You don't find many NYers who say both. It's either one or the other. I know it's trivial but in hindsight, it seems to be her mo on most issues.
she's not a "New Yorker" so she's exempt.

[Erzengel]

As a woman, she would dominate the woman vote more than democrats usually do. The majroity of females vote demcorat, and the majority of males vote republican. Hillary could possibly create a higher turn out because she's a woman.



In the 2004 election, exit polls showed 46% of the votes were men 54% were female.

48% voted for Bush while 51% voted for Kerry. That 48% is up 5% from 2000.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

Secondly, like I said, I think most of our country is still a lil sexist. I doubt there'd be as many as you think voting for her.

[Erzengel]

she's not a "New Yorker" so she's exempt.

Neither was Bloomberg and he's from Boston and now he publically supports the Yankees.

[The Squirrel]

Would you rather have Bush or Ms. Clinton?

If you had to choose between the two (because there is a gun aimed at your head) who would you choose?


Bush.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

I want Hillary Clinton as my next Sex-Slave.

[Man-Thing]

You know who would make a good president?

That guy who played booger in revenge of the nerds.:up:

oh wait, he is president.

[Erzengel]

She may not even run in 2008.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2340352,00.html

FRIENDS of Hillary Clinton have been whispering the unthinkable. Despite her status as the runaway frontrunner for the 2008 Democratic nomination for president, some of her closest advisers say she might opt out of the White House race and seek to lead her party in the Senate.
The former first lady longs to return to the White House with husband Bill as consort. Only last week she told television viewers America would be led by a woman one day. “Stay tuned,” she said.



First, however, she has to win the election. Some Democratic party elders — the American equivalent of the Tories’ “men in grey suits” — say Clinton may back out of the race of her own volition.

“I would not be surprised if she were to decide that the best contribution she can make to her country is to forget about being president and become a consensus-maker in the Senate,” said a leading Democratic party insider. “She believes there is no trust between the two political sides and that we can’t function as a democracy without it.”

As senator for New York, Clinton has forged alliances across party lines with leading Republicans such as Senator John McCain and Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House of Representatives. In the eyes of the electorate, however, she is a potentially divisive figure.

A recent poll for Time magazine showed that 53% of the electorate said they had a favourable impression of Clinton and only 44% viewed her negatively, figures that President George W Bush can only dream of at the moment. Even so, 53% of independent voters said they would not vote for her.

“The prospect of a Hillary for President campaign has put much of the Democratic establishment in a bind,” Time concluded. “The early line is that Hillary would be unstoppable in a Democratic primary but unelectable in a general election.”

The solution, insiders say, is for Clinton to take over as Senate minority leader in 2009 from the lacklustre Harry Reid, senator for Nevada. One well-respected blog, The Washington Note, recently claimed that Reid privately told Clinton the job was hers if she gave up her presidential ambitions.

[MagicPrime]

Well, in the ideal situation i would vote for the Green party candidate. Because i am very much a supporter of the enviroment etc. But voting for a 3rd party is just like not voting at all. I am also very liberal so voting for a conservative republican is defiantly out - as is the same with many of the so-called Democrats.

But I would vote for her, just so Bill Clinton could be back in the media on the large scale. I bet he would get more attention as the First Lord (opposite of Lady - don't really know what they would call him.) then she would.

[USMC]

The environment is lame. :o

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Hahaha, yeah. It's so fragile and needy. :down

[Fran]

I'm not sexist at all, but NO to Hillary.

[HellOnEarth]

why then?

[MagicPrime]

The environment is lame. :o

You've completley redefined my perception on life... why didn't i see it before. We're humans! We have the god given right to rape this planet untill there is nothing left and then die slow painful deaths on a barren world! :unishr:

[lazur]

As "pro woman" as democrats claim to be, I seriously have doubts that Hillary could even get her own party's nomination, let alone actually win a Presidential election.

[Erzengel]

I think she could get her party's nomination but as reasons as previously stated would not win the election.

[Cyclops]

I would pick Bush because he constitutionally can't serve a third term. :) :p

[Poetic Chaos]

Gore or Gavin Newsom.

[Dwarf lord]

Guliani in '08. I've been saying it since 2004. And he has the power to win, I believe.

[Arkady Rossovich]

What's so bad about Hillary??

For over 200 years The United States Of America has been run by a male president and mostly male congress.Its now a unwritten law,for a woman to come and break this cycle is unthinkable.Its a living right to show that men still rule this planet.:thing:

[Tangled Web]

Kerry, Gore or McKain.

[Tangled Web]

Kerry, Gore or McKain.

[Tangled Web]

Kerry, Gore or McKain.

[hippie_hunter]

As a New Yorker, let me tell you that both senators from New York state suck major ass. Concerning Hillary I'll tell you why she's a horrible senator.

SHE'S A BIG FAT FAKE PHONEY!

Everything she does is for vote gathering. She's trying to appeal to all groups so that she can run for President in 2008. Because of this she is seen as too liberal by many Republicans, too conservative by many democrats, and a big fat FAKE in front of many moderates such as myself.

[Poetic Chaos]

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newom. He's young, handsome and has an 80%+ approval rating.

[Addendum]

http://img334.imageshack.us/img334/8246/walkenforpres8gp.jpg

[hippie_hunter]

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newom. He's young, handsome and has an 80%+ approval rating.

Let's see a liberal mayor who is the mayor of a VERY liberal city. The 80% approval rating is not surprising. Not going to happen, while he may be well liked in his own city, he is far too liberal to win an election, especially after the gay marriage debacle.

[hippie_hunter]

http://img334.imageshack.us/img334/8246/walkenforpres8gp.jpg

I'm voting for Zod :o

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/af/Generalzod.jpg

[Alonsovich]

http://img334.imageshack.us/img334/8246/walkenforpres8gp.jpg

LOL...http://img58.imageshack.us/img58/3329/descojono2eb4.gif

[Spider-Bite]

As a New Yorker, let me tell you that both senators from New York state suck major ass. Concerning Hillary I'll tell you why she's a horrible senator.

SHE'S A BIG FAT FAKE PHONEY!

Everything she does is for vote gathering. She's trying to appeal to all groups so that she can run for President in 2008. Because of this she is seen as too liberal by many Republicans, too conservative by many democrats, and a big fat FAKE in front of many moderates such as myself.

being fake makes her different from other politicians how?

[Assassin]

lol som eone called her Hitlery, and no one noticed

[Clouseau]

after months of trying to come up with the perfect political bumper sticker, someone has finally done it... all it says is, "RUN HILLARY RUN!"

Democrats put it on the rear bumper... Republicans put it on the front...

[hippie_hunter]

being fake makes her different from other politicians how?

Most politicians these days tend to stick to their core groups for votes, Republicans tend to cater the religious, the wealthy, etc. Democrats tend to cater the African Americans, labor, etc. Hillary is trying to encompass all of them. While most politicians are phoneys, you can at least tell where they stand on their politics. Hillary can't even hide the obviousness of her phoneness. She'll try to pose as a moderate, claim to even be one, when she isn't. She is just riding on her husband's name. Also, unlike her husband, she is just so damn unlikeable.

[The Lumberjack]

I don't want a woman in the White House. It's as plain and simple as that. Is it sexist? Hell yes it is. I just don't believe this country is ready for a female President and neither is the world for that matter.

[Addendum]

I honestly don't give a damn if Hillary is elected or not

[ShadowBoxing]

I hope to see more of these for all the candidates.

Political Group Rules:


You are encouraged to post here if you support Hillary, are looking to support Hillary or are undecided and want to discuss Hillary. DO NOT POST HERE IF YOU WISH TO TRASH HILLARY, that is considered trolling as far as I am concerned and I will report you immediately.
You may discuss other candidates here, YOU MAY NOT ACTIVELY petition voters in this thread to vote for them.
Please refrain from encouraging trolling or baiting non-Hillary supporters. We do not troll other candidates threads, nor do we encourage such behavior on the Hype or in real life.
DO NOT insult other members. Try to refrain from being condescending, especially when talking to those who may be less than interested in Hillary Clinton.
Above all, have fun.:cwink: This Group is devoted to Hillary and her supporters. Please post any news, Youtube clips, pictures, website links or personal stories you'd like to share. :up:

[Matt]

Sorry S.B., but I don't think we can enforce the "no trashing Hillary" rule. Its a public thread...so if people want to trash her without resorting to insults or violating their TOS, they are entitled. That being said, If you really dislike Hillary, just show some respect and stay out of the thread. There are countless other debate threads you can use. Don't be a dick and ruin this thread for others.

[Malice]

Agreed, I dont like her personally...but I can only hope Hypesters have a little respect and not trash her...I like the rules you setup Shadow...

[ShadowBoxing]

Thanks. I noticed Obama Mania on the front page. I really hope many of the posters start there own appreciation threads, which is what this is. We have a lot of good candidates this time around.

I really feel though, that Clinton has both the experience to the lead this country. Most important, or ironically, she is actually NOT divisive. She has a good track record with bringing republicans and democrats together on issues. I think Obama could potentially do this as well, but lacks the political experience to really pull it off right now.

[SuBe]

Thanks. I noticed Obama Mania on the front page. I really hope many of the posters start there own appreciation threads, which is what this is. We have a lot of good candidates this time around.

I really feel though, that Clinton has both the experience to the lead this country. Most important, or ironically, she is actually NOT divisive. She has a good track record with bringing republicans and democrats together on issues. I think Obama could potentially do this as well, but lacks the political experience to really pull it off right now.
I would like to know something, what do you feel about her comment about "Taking those Profits!"? If you were a business owner, how would you feel if someone who says that they want change, but the change they are looking for is the Government have the ability to Seize Profits? No Matter the Industry. And do you believe that policy would be good for this country?

I'm not here to argue, but this is something I've been wanting to ask a Clinton Supporter.

[The Senator]

I used to strongly support Hillary's candidacy. However, I felt she became far too calculating and manipulative towards the end of last year, and her low attacks against Barack Obama really turned me off. She's been a fantastic senator these past seven years, but I'm starting to question whether she'd be the right president.

[ShadowBoxing]

I used to strongly support Hillary's candidacy. However, I felt she became far too calculating and manipulative towards the end of last year, and her low attacks against Barack Obama really turned me off. She's been a fantastic senator these past seven years, but I'm starting to question whether she'd be the right president.

I don't know that in politics being calculating a manipulative is necessarily a bad thing. Lyndon Baines Johnson was manipulative and calculating and that is in large part what got the Great Society passed and integration enacted. For example, he intimidated the crap out of George Wallace, essentially strong armed him, into integrating his state of Alabama.

Our political system is built on the notion of conflicting interests. Every branch, interest group, constituent, state, etc wants something different, often something that may be bad for everyone else. A President needs to mediate and manipulate these conflicting interests towards a common good.

[Anguissette1979]

I voted for her this morning :up:

[The Senator]

I don't know that in politics being calculating a manipulative is necessarily a bad thing. Lyndon Baines Johnson was manipulative and calculating and that is in large part what got the Great Society passed and integration enacted. For example, he intimidated the crap out of George Wallace, essentially strong armed him, into integrating his state of Alabama.

Our political system is built on the notion of conflicting interests. Every branch, interest group, constituent, state, etc wants something different, often something that may be bad for everyone else. A President needs to mediate and manipulate these conflicting interests towards a common good.

All politicians are calculating and manipulative. They have to be; anyone who thinks otherwise has turned a blind eye to how politics works. However, she was noticeably calculating and manipulative. She barely answered any questions and never gave any standout ideas. Then she tried making her campaign one which was built around change... and it just hit me as an act of desperation, rather than reaching out for support.

She could have ran an excellent campaign from start to finish, but once she realized that the chances of her winning the nomination started to slim, she freaked out, and her campaign subsequently imploded.

[Kel]

I hope to see more of these for all the candidates.

Political Group Rules:


You are encouraged to post here if you support Hillary, are looking to support Hillary or are undecided and want to discuss Hillary. DO NOT POST HERE IF YOU WISH TO TRASH HILLARY, that is considered trolling as far as I am concerned and I will report you immediately.
You may discuss other candidates here, YOU MAY NOT ACTIVELY petition voters in this thread to vote for them.
Please refrain from encouraging trolling or baiting non-Hillary supporters. We do not troll other candidates threads, nor do we encourage such behavior on the Hype or in real life.
DO NOT insult other members. Try to refrain from being condescending, especially when talking to those who may be less than interested in Hillary Clinton.
Above all, have fun.:cwink: This Group is devoted to Hillary and her supporters. Please post any news, Youtube clips, pictures, website links or personal stories you'd like to share. :up:


Agree with your rules S.B., my hope is that the debate and discussion will be one of respect, responsibility, and intelligence....

Disagreement is not sin, but trashing people will not be tolerated.

[Gilpesh]

I have to ask the Hillary for Prez people, what do you all think of this article?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/portrait-in-cynicism-hil_b_80289.html

It is very biased but at least she backs it up with information.

[Kel]

Thanks. I noticed Obama Mania on the front page. I really hope many of the posters start there own appreciation threads, which is what this is. We have a lot of good candidates this time around.

I really feel though, that Clinton has both the experience to the lead this country. Most important, or ironically, she is actually NOT divisive. She has a good track record with bringing republicans and democrats together on issues. I think Obama could potentially do this as well, but lacks the political experience to really pull it off right now.

I am sooooooooooooooooo extremely happy with what I see with these candidates......I'm no where near ready to make my decision, I like what I'm hearing on both sides of the aisle, and as an independent, thats music to my ears.......

[ShadowBoxing]

All politicians are calculating and manipulative. They have to be; anyone who thinks otherwise has turned a blind eye to how politics works. However, she was noticeably calculating and manipulative. She barely answered any questions and never gave any standout ideas. Then she tried making her campaign one which was built around change... and it just hit me as an act of desperation, rather than reaching out for support.

She could have ran an excellent campaign from start to finish, but once she realized that the chances of her winning the nomination started to slim, she freaked out, and her campaign subsequently imploded.
Well apparently it didn't implode last night.

[ShadowBoxing]

I voted for her this morning :up:
Great. I'll tell her next time she roles through town:oldrazz:

[bell110]

Ok, I've had an irrational hatred for Hillary since she decided to run. I've been partial to Obama. I figure, I'll open my mind a little bit here. Granted, I can't vote for her in the primaries because I'm Republican, so I haven't been paying to much attention to what she's about. Basically, I want to know what sets her apart from Obama and Edwards. I know she has more "experience" than they do. What is her platform that is different/better than Obama, Edwards, and the rest?

Also, do you think this teary-eyed trend will continue? Hillary got teary-eyed the day before, then I read this morning that Bill got teary-eyed earlier today talking about Hillary. I personally don't want to see Hillary/Bill getting teary before every election. Do you guys think it will and if so, will it hurt her?

[Golgo-13]

PPl are attributing Hilarys win to her 'emotional ep' the other day. I really don't think it's so. Maybe it touch a few ppl, but i'm sure it turn a few ppl off her too. I think she would have won NH, regardless. It just goes to show how close the Democratic race is. I wouldn't be suprised if Hilary and Obama keep up the win-loose-win-loose record all the way up to super Tuesday.

[Matt]

PPl are attributing Hilarys win to her 'emotional ep' the other day. I really don't think it's so. Maybe it touch a few ppl, but i'm sure it turn a few ppl off her too. I think she would have won NH, regardless. It just goes to show how close the Democratic race is. I wouldn't be suprised if Hilary and Obama keep up the win-loose-win-loose record all the way up to super Tuesday.

:up:

Obama was supposedly up by 12 to 15 points in New Hampshire. I don't buy for a second that Hillary's emotion made up that many points in the polls. The fact is, the pundits and pollsters got it wrong, and they simply are unwilling to admit they messed up so they look for a scapegoat.

[The Senator]

:up:

Obama was supposedly up by 12 to 15 points in New Hampshire. I don't buy for a second that Hillary's emotion made up that many points in the polls. The fact is, the pundits and pollsters got it wrong, and they simply are unwilling to admit they messed up so they look for a scapegoat.

Considering she held upwards of a 20 point lead shortly before the year ended, I'm not surprised she won at all. Her numbers shrank after Iowa, but some polls issued the day before New Hampshire had her a few points ahead, too. Polls only reflect a small sample of voters. New Hampshire is so dynamic, so politically unpredictable that those samples should never be considered reliable. The pundits did consider them reliable, and now they're kicking themselves pretty hard for jumping on the Obama bandwagon too early.

It will be interesting to see how she performs in Nevada and South Carolina. If she wins South Carolina, then I think it's safe to assume she'll win the nomination. The polls won't fluctuate unless she loses both states, and she has such a huge lead in many of the big Super Tuesday states that she'll be unstoppable if she wins them both (even if she only wins Nevada, she'll still be pretty poised to win it).

[Matt]

What I find interesting is, if Obama takes Nevada, South Carolina, one of the big Super Tuesday states and a handful of the small...this could really be the first primary race in a while that literally comes down to the very end. Which should be fun to watch.

[The Senator]

What I find interesting is, if Obama takes Nevada, South Carolina, one of the big Super Tuesday states and a handful of the small...this could really be the first primary race in a while that literally comes down to the very end. Which should be fun to watch.

Ha! This election has been going on since the week after the 2006 elections (technically speaking, I think that's when Tom Vilsack announced his campaign). As someone whose life is rooted in politics, I can safely say that this is the most boring thing I have been through thus far. It was interesting when I did volunteer work for Clinton, but now that I've been laying low, I really just want it to end. Drawing it out until the convention, why, I don't know if I can take it!

But seriously, it will be interesting to see how this all plays out. It makes it a bit more suspenseful, at least-- though I'd prefer that it all ends after Super Tuesday.

[Golgo-13]

I got Obama talking NC and Hilary-Nevada. Like i stated before, i won't be suprised if the two of them alternate between winning and loosing these things all the way up to February.

If Hilary takes NC, then i'll be EXTREMELY suprised, and i would then predict that she'll get the nom, hands down because i see her taking Nevada, regardless. If Barack takes Nevada, i will also be suprised too;can't see him winning this one for some reason, even though i heard the union is sopposed to be backing him. Now if either one of these candidates ends up taking BOTH states, then the nom is surely in the bag for them.

[The Senator]

I got Obama talking NC and Hilary-Nevada. Like i stated before, i won't be suprised if the two of them alternate between winning and loosing these things all the way up to February.

If Hilary takes NC, then i'll be EXTREMELY suprised, and i would then predict that she'll get the nom, hands down because i see her taking Nevada, regardless. If Barack takes Nevada, i will also be suprised too;can't see him winning this one for some reason, even though i heard the union is sopposed to be backing him. Now if either one of these candidates ends up taking BOTH states, then the nom is surely in the bag for them.

You mean South Carolina? :huh:

[Golgo-13]

Yeah, SC. :yay:

[CorpusBlack]

I would like to know something, what do you feel about her comment about "Taking those Profits!"? If you were a business owner, how would you feel if someone who says that they want change, but the change they are looking for is the Government have the ability to Seize Profits? No Matter the Industry. And do you believe that policy would be good for this country?

I'm not here to argue, but this is something I've been wanting to ask a Clinton Supporter.

I'd like to know the answer to this as well.

I'd also like to know what Hillary supporters think about her wanting to censor the media, the internet, etc.

[Malice]

I have an honest question for the Clintonites...

What do you think of Hillary's thought on giving every single child born in the US a $5,000 college certificate? Just curious on your take on this issue.

[MadHatterJones]

Yes Clintonites, I'd like the answers to the three previous questions as well.

[Gilpesh]

I have to ask the Hillary for Prez people, what do you all think of this article?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/portrait-in-cynicism-hil_b_80289.html

It is very biased but at least she backs it up with information.

No one wants to talk about this? :csad:

[The Senator]

I have an honest question for the Clintonites...

What do you think of Hillary's thought on giving every single child born in the US a $5,000 college certificate? Just curious on your take on this issue.

I support the idea for the poor and lower-middle class. The federal government doesn't do enough to let promising students pursue a decent college education. My family makes about $75,000 a year, therefore we are unable to collect enough aid from the federal government to cover my college expenses. The money my parents makes goes towards their own bills and living expenses, and there is barely enough left over to pay up the difference.

As a result, I have been taking out student loans, but the interest rates are ridiculous. The federal government should do more to encourage students go to college, and providing a jump start in funding could be more of an incentive. However, I think the government should focus on reducing interest rates and reforming the ancient criteria the Department of Education has used for decades to ensure that more students are able to receive aid where it's desperately needed.

[Kel]

I support the idea for the poor and lower-middle class. The federal government doesn't do enough to let promising students pursue a decent college education. My family makes about $75,000 a year, therefore we are unable to collect enough aid from the federal government to cover my college expenses. The money my parents makes goes towards their own bills and living expenses, and there is barely enough left over to pay up the difference.

As a result, I have been taking out student loans, but the interest rates are ridiculous. The federal government should do more to encourage students go to college, and providing a jump start in funding could be more of an incentive. However, I think the government should focus on reducing interest rates and reforming the ancient criteria the Department of Education has used for decades to ensure that more students are able to receive aid where it's desperately needed.

Thats why I worked 30 hours a week, and took a full load. I also filled out every damn scholarship there was out there, and received several of them that helped immensely..... To me, the sad thing is the millions of dollars in scholarships out there that go unused.

[The Senator]

Thats why I worked 30 hours a week, and took a full load. I also filled out every damn scholarship there was out there, and received several of them that helped immensely..... To me, the sad thing is the millions of dollars in scholarships out there that go unused.

I've had a job each semester, working between 10-16 hours a week. If I worked any more, I'd barely get any of my work done. The way I look at it is this: Since I'm taking out these loans, I ought to make the best of my education. So I've focused on academics now, because I believe the job I'll get when everything's all said and done will let me pay it all back in ample time.

After my performance this past semester, though, I should be getting more money from the school. I already get $20,000 from them per year, plus an extra $3,000 from our wonderful government. I also have a scholarship, where I get a whopping $500 a year for being Scot-Irish :wow:

[Kel]

I've had a job each semester, working between 10-16 hours a week. If I worked any more, I'd barely get any of my work done. The way I look at it is this: Since I'm taking out these loans, I ought to make the best of my education. So I've focused on academics now, because I believe the job I'll get when everything's all said and done will let me pay it all back in ample time.

After my performance this past semester, though, I should be getting more money from the school. I already get $20,000 from them per year, plus an extra $3,000 from our wonderful government. I also have a scholarship, where I get a whopping $500 a year for being Scot-Irish :wow:

Yeah, there are all kinds of crazy scholarships out there......people just have to look......

Also, many, many, many employers are paying 1/2 the loans back, some full loan repayment.......my school pays back 1/2 of the teacher's student loans.....we are a Chapter 1 school, therefore we get funding for teachers willing to teach in low socio-economic schools...

[Malice]

I support the idea for the poor and lower-middle class. The federal government doesn't do enough to let promising students pursue a decent college education. My family makes about $75,000 a year, therefore we are unable to collect enough aid from the federal government to cover my college expenses. The money my parents makes goes towards their own bills and living expenses, and there is barely enough left over to pay up the difference.

As a result, I have been taking out student loans, but the interest rates are ridiculous. The federal government should do more to encourage students go to college, and providing a jump start in funding could be more of an incentive. However, I think the government should focus on reducing interest rates and reforming the ancient criteria the Department of Education has used for decades to ensure that more students are able to receive aid where it's desperately needed.

Giving a college bond is ridiculous.
You would bankrupt the system.
1 million children would cost 5,000,000,000 (yes that is 5 billion) and that is only in 1 year...imagine 10 million children, that is 50 billion, its simply not economically feasible.

Get loans, my wife did...she was fine with that.

[Spider-Bite]

Okay, so I am not misread as coming here to trash Hillary, let me say that if Hillary wins the nomination, she has my vote.

But here is why I am so admantly against her winning the nomination and so gung ho for Barack Obama.

Hillary is practically a republican on foreign policy. She voted to label Iran a terrorist organization and is opposed to negotiating with Iran untill AFTER Iran agrees to do what we want to negotiate with them about.

Talk about the chicken before the egg scenario.

To me this is further evidence that Hillary learned nothing from her vote for the Iraq war. Bush lied to us about Iraq and he's been lying to us about Iran, and Hillary is falling for it all over again. Experience is useless if you don't learn from your mistakes.

Bush wants us to think that Iran is in cahoots with Alqueda. HOw do you and me know they are? Iran is *****e. Alquida is Sunni. These people want to kill each other.

Bush tells us that Iran is building nuclear bombs, but that turned out to be a lie too. They abandoned their nuclear weapons program almost five years ago.

Hillary has put herself too far to the center. It's time for a change. Barack Obama has said that within the first 48 hours of being elected he will meet with Armamajad, whatever his name is, and start laying the groundwork for a peaceful coexistence. We have nothing to lose by at least trying to avoid the war, and Hillary will not do that. She has done practically nothing to try and prevent this war, other than writing a letter to President Bush stating that she does not believe he has the authority to invade Iran without congressional approval.

Whooptydoodah.

Also Hillary has taken more money from lobbyists than any other candidate from either party. That is just way too much corruption for my liking.

I believe Hillary is intelligent. I really do. Possibly more intelligent than Barack Obama, but sometimes intelligent people can be blind. Some say Barack is too far to the left. He's too much of a liberal democrat, who can't even see the center. I say he's the kind of change we need. I'm a liberal, so that is why I am voting for a liberal. I don't want a semi-democrat. I want a democrat.

[Spider-Bite]

I wont lie. I have actually been a little depressed about Hillary winning New Hampshire.

[Spider-Bite]

I have an honest question for the Clintonites...

What do you think of Hillary's thought on giving every single child born in the US a $5,000 college certificate? Just curious on your take on this issue.

I am opposed to it. It's too expensive. Yeah I'd like us to be able to do that, but right now we are in debt up to our ears, and we have bigger priorities right now which are also expensive. Not to mention 5,000 dollars probably wont make any difference on whether or not a person can afford a college education. That's like enough for one semester. And all kinds of young people who don't have the determination will take that money, spend it, and have one big party, without actually educating themselves.

I'd rather that kind of money be spent on getting us off of oil. Low income students are already elligble for student grants and student loans. In fact they are elligible for enough to get through college. But a student is a lot less likely to take those loans if they don't plan to do the work.

[The Senator]

Okay, so I am not misread as coming here to trash Hillary, let me say that if Hillary wins the nomination, she has my vote.

But here is why I am so admantly against her winning the nomination and so gung ho for Barack Obama.

Hillary is practically a republican on foreign policy. She voted to label Iran a terrorist organization and is opposed to negotiating with Iran untill AFTER Iran agrees to do what we want to negotiate with them about.

Talk about the chicken before the egg scenario.

To me this is further evidence that Hillary learned nothing from her vote for the Iraq war. Bush lied to us about Iraq and he's been lying to us about Iran, and Hillary is falling for it all over again. Experience is useless if you don't learn from your mistakes.

Bush wants us to think that Iran is in cahoots with Alqueda. HOw do you and me know they are? Iran is *****e. Alquida is Sunni. These people want to kill each other.

Bush tells us that Iran is building nuclear bombs, but that turned out to be a lie too. They abandoned their nuclear weapons program almost five years ago.

Hillary has put herself too far to the center. It's time for a change. Barack Obama has said that within the first 48 hours of being elected he will meet with Armamajad, whatever his name is, and start laying the groundwork for a peaceful coexistence. We have nothing to lose by at least trying to avoid the war, and Hillary will not do that. She has done practically nothing to try and prevent this war, other than writing a letter to President Bush stating that she does not believe he has the authority to invade Iran without congressional approval.

Whooptydoodah.

Also Hillary has taken more money from lobbyists than any other candidate from either party. That is just way too much corruption for my liking.

I believe Hillary is intelligent. I really do. Possibly more intelligent than Barack Obama, but sometimes intelligent people can be blind. Some say Barack is too far to the left. He's too much of a liberal democrat, who can't even see the center. I say he's the kind of change we need. I'm a liberal, so that is why I am voting for a liberal. I don't want a semi-democrat. I want a democrat.

You know, it bothers me when people cite her for taking donations from lobbyists. Everyone acts as if lobbyists are awful, horrible people with no souls who associate with Republicans only and therefore must be the epitome of all that is corrupt in Washington. Give me a break. There are good lobbyists out there. Some of the work isn't admirable, and yes, I would agree that lobbyists have too much clout in Washington... but lobbyists have just as much a right as anyone else in this country to donate money to political campaigns. Just because a lobbyist donates to a politician, that doesn't make him or her corrupt, nor should it make the politician look bad. Only if a politician is being BRIBED or COERCED by monetary donations should a candidate be scrutinized for accepting lobbyists' money.

Also, Obama has accepted money from lobbyists. I don't have any solid evidence, except that he's a ****ing POLITICIAN which means it must be there somewhere. Not badmouthing Barack, but seriously, anyone who believes he's way above the status quo in politics needs to get slapped pretty hard in the face with the reality stick.

[Spider-Bite]

You know, it bothers me when people cite her for taking donations from lobbyists. Everyone acts as if lobbyists are awful, horrible people with no souls who associate with Republicans only and therefore must be the epitome of all that is corrupt in Washington. Give me a break. There are good lobbyists out there. Some of the work isn't admirable, and yes, I would agree that lobbyists have too much clout in Washington... but lobbyists have just as much a right as anyone else in this country to donate money to political campaigns. Just because a lobbyist donates to a politician, that doesn't make him or her corrupt, nor should it make the politician look bad. Only if a politician is being BRIBED or COERCED by monetary donations should a candidate be scrutinized for accepting lobbyists' money.

Also, Obama has accepted money from lobbyists. I don't have any solid evidence, except that he's a ****ing POLITICIAN which means it must be there somewhere. Not badmouthing Barack, but seriously, anyone who believes he's way above the status quo in politics needs to get slapped pretty hard in the face with the reality stick.

You say it's not impossible for a lobbyist to have good intentions, yet it is impossible for a politician to not take money from lobbyists?

Not to mention, if she is only taking money from the admirable lobbyists, than why has she taken more money from lobbyists than any other candidate in the race from either party? That is hardly a coincedence.

[The Senator]

You say it's not impossible for a lobbyist to have good intentions, yet it is impossible for a politician to not take money from lobbyists?

Not to mention, if she is only taking money from the admirable lobbyists, than why has she taken more money from lobbyists than any other candidate in the race from either party? That is hardly a coincedence.

I'm not saying she's taking money from admirable lobbyists only. I'm arguing against a baseless attack which I've heard over and over again throughout this campaign, that lobbyists are evil, disgraceful people who should be spat on every time you walk by one. It blows my mind that people fault her for this. It's a non-issue.

Candidates might not accept money from lobbyists. But Barack Obama did. My professor is a lobbyist, and he said he donated money to Obama's campaign. He also said he donated money to Clinton's campaign, but I guess because he donated to Clinton, that makes him an evil, disgusting mongrel with a heart of blackness. It amazes me as to how naive people truly are...

[The Senator]

EDIT: bah!

[Spider-Bite]

I'm not saying she's taking money from admirable lobbyists only. I'm arguing against a baseless attack which I've heard over and over again throughout this campaign, that lobbyists are evil, disgraceful people who should be spat on every time you walk by one. It blows my mind that people fault her for this. It's a non-issue.

Candidates might not accept money from lobbyists. But Barack Obama did. My professor is a lobbyist, and he said he donated money to Obama's campaign. He also said he donated money to Clinton's campaign, but I guess because he donated to Clinton, that makes him an evil, disgusting mongrel with a heart of blackness. It amazes me as to how naive people truly are...

How much did he donate to Barack Obama? There is a difference between one man donating 50 or a hundred dollars to a candidate, and a man raising millions of dollars to give to one. I doubt your professor has that kind of weight, because it would be a full time job, and he would be too busy traveling the country getting money to hold his job as a professor. Plus with that kind of money, he wouldn't need his job as a professor.

Also some times lobbyists sneak money in. Barack detected several several thousand a while back that lobbyists donated to him, while trying to hide the fact that they were lobbyists, and Barack returned it.

Plus your ignoring the part about how Hillary accepted MORE money from lobbyists than any other candidate in the race from either party. That is evidence of corruption, therefore it is not a baseless attack.

[Spider-Bite]

Giving a college bond is ridiculous.
You would bankrupt the system.
1 million children would cost 5,000,000,000 (yes that is 5 billion) and that is only in 1 year...imagine 10 million children, that is 50 billion, its simply not economically feasible.

Get loans, my wife did...she was fine with that.


5 billion or even 50 billion would not bankrupt the system, considering we spend way more than that every year in Iraq. It's a tiny portion of our overall budget, but we have bigger priorities that are also expensive, right now that should take prescedent.

[The Senator]

How much did he donate to Barack Obama? There is a difference between one man donating 50 or a hundred dollars to a candidate, and a man raising millions of dollars to give to one. I doubt your professor has that kind of weight, because it would be a full time job, and he would be too busy traveling the country getting money to hold his job as a professor. Plus with that kind of money, he wouldn't need his job as a professor.


Well, he's an adjunct, who teaches one class per semester, so I don't think money is that big a deal for him. Also, he lobbies for the music and motion picture industry, so while I don't know exactly how much money he's made, I can bet that its enough to live on and more.

As for weight... eh, I don't know. He was chief of staff for a Senator for a few years, before he opened his lobbying firm. But he's got plenty of connections, so I wouldn't be surprised if he's got a lot of clout in the political arena.

Travel... every Monday night, he complained about having to fly somewhere during the week. If he can do that, chances are he can afford to travel with a candidate, though I doubt he actively campaigned for anyone.

[The Senator]

Plus your ignoring the part about how Hillary accepted MORE money from lobbyists than any other candidate in the race from either party. That is evidence of corruption, therefore it is not a baseless attack.

It isn't evidence of corruption. It's evidence that more lobbyists donated to her than any other candidate. Simple as that. I don't think special interest firms are bribing her, considering her positions have been pretty consistent in the areas where there would be room for bribes and corruption, namely health care and organized labor. I'm not saying she is perfect, but to assume that she's corrupt just because she's taking money from all sorts of lobbyists is a baseless claim.

Of course, I'm going to argue against you no matter what, so I issue you a challenge:

If you think there's evidence of corruption in her campaign, then, by all means, feel free to investigate this one as much as you'd like. Prove to me, with hardcore evidence such as an FEC report, that she is corrupt (Hsu doesn't count, since she gave the money back). Prove it, and I will lay off.

[MadHatterJones]

Thanks for answering Malice's question. :up:

But why has no one answered SupermanBeyond and CorpusBlack's questions?

What about what Gilpesh wants to discuss?

The HillaryHeads seem to have a lot to say but are overlooking a few good Q's.

[The Senator]

Thanks for answering Malice's question. :up:

But why has no one answered SupermanBeyond and CorpusBlack's questions?

What about what Gilpesh wants to discuss?

The HillaryHeads seem to have a lot to say but are overlooking a few good Q's.

Well, I'm not a "HillaryHead" per se, but I didn't want to answer those questions, because I don't know how I feel about them personally. On the one hand, I can see why taking some of those profits might be beneficial to the less fortunate (though I'm sure that's not where the excess money would go), but on the other hand, I understand why companies and business owners would be pissed that they're losing their money. I see her statement as a no-win situation.

[The Senator]

I'd also like to know what Hillary supporters think about her wanting to censor the media, the internet, etc.

I tend to agree more with her over certain censorship issues. I agreed with some of her comments over the Grand Theft Auto games. Personally, I do think its degrading to promote a game to children where the main character can murder police officers and perform virtual 'hate crimes.' I also find the 'hidden sex' a bit disturbing (not so much because its there, but because there are some people who might actually get off to that sort of thing). But, in that sense, I don't think censorship is the best answer, and that it is up to parents and the owners of the stores which sell these games to prohibit kids from getting their hands on them. I also think that the M rating should be enforced more by retailers; but from what I've seen over the years since the controversy erupted, it has been, so I don't think retailers should face a fine for slipping up and selling the game to an 'underaged' customer.

[CorpusBlack]

I tend to agree more with her over certain censorship issues. I agreed with some of her comments over the Grand Theft Auto games. Personally, I do think its degrading to promote a game to children where the main character can murder police officers and perform virtual 'hate crimes.' I also find the 'hidden sex' a bit disturbing (not so much because its there, but because there are some people who might actually get off to that sort of thing). But, in that sense, I don't think censorship is the best answer, and that it is up to parents and the owners of the stores which sell these games to prohibit kids from getting their hands on them. I also think that the M rating should be enforced more by retailers; but from what I've seen over the years since the controversy erupted, it has been, so I don't think retailers should face a fine for slipping up and selling the game to an 'underaged' customer.

I don't blame the stores. I blame the parents who buy it for their kids.

I have no problem with games like GTA. I do however have a problem with my 8 year old cousin playing them though. Her mom's an idiot.

[The Senator]

I don't blame the stores. I blame the parents who buy it for their kids.


But there are stores that sell these games directly to kids. So at that end, I feel that the store should make a judgment call-- whatever that judgment is. If a parent purchases the game for their child, that's one thing; but if a ten-year-old purchases the game, then I think there is room for concern. But, hey, if the store sells it to the kid, whatever. Parents should be the ones to discuss the dynamics of the game, assuming they are aware that their kid has been playing it.

[CorpusBlack]

But there are stores that sell these games directly to kids. So at that end, I feel that the store should make a judgment call-- whatever that judgment is. If a parent purchases the game for their child, that's one thing; but if a ten-year-old purchases the game, then I think there is room for concern. But, hey, if the store sells it to the kid, whatever. Parents should be the ones to discuss the dynamics of the game, assuming they are aware that their kid has been playing it.

I agree, stores should not sell these things to children. However, even if the store does, the parent should be aware of what their child is doing. Too many parents are oblivious.

[Gilpesh]

What about what Gilpesh wants to discuss?

Holy terror Batman!

I'm not just talking to myself here. :wow:

[The Senator]

I am opposed to it. It's too expensive. Yeah I'd like us to be able to do that, but right now we are in debt up to our ears, and we have bigger priorities right now which are also expensive. Not to mention 5,000 dollars probably wont make any difference on whether or not a person can afford a college education. That's like enough for one semester. And all kinds of young people who don't have the determination will take that money, spend it, and have one big party, without actually educating themselves.

I'd rather that kind of money be spent on getting us off of oil. Low income students are already elligble for student grants and student loans. In fact they are elligible for enough to get through college. But a student is a lot less likely to take those loans if they don't plan to do the work.

Paying for college is frightening, and the piles and piles of debt which comes afterwards is even more frightening. Most people who encounter my type of debt do plan to do the work, but that's not the only reason why students go to or avoid going to expensive schools. Some of those who opt out of going to good schools do so because they think they can't pay it all back. I think its sick that this country doesn't promote the best education possible to its students, especially the ones who not only deserve to go to college, but the students who will be successful following graduation. We talk about how our country won't be able to compete with China or other developed nations in the decades ahead, yet we can't offer the next great economist living in a slum the opportunity to go to the school which will make him or her competitive in the long run. It baffles me.

[kainedamo]

Whats this about Hilary and video games?

EDIT: Nevermind, I googled it.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-14-clinton-game_x.htm

So you can really tell quite alot about Hillary from this.

She's just like every other stupid scare mongering politician out there.

These games are not aimed at kids. It's a total non-issue.

[CorpusBlack]

Holy terror Batman!

I'm not just talking to myself here. :wow:

I'd like a Clintonite's response as well. :up:

[bell110]

Whats this about Hilary and video games?

EDIT: Nevermind, I googled it.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-14-clinton-game_x.htm

So you can really tell quite alot about Hillary from this.

She's just like every other stupid scare mongering politician out there.

These games are not aimed at kids. It's a total non-issue.

That's one issue I absolutely can't stand, censorship. I'm all for protecting kids, but don't make it harder for me to play my violent and sexist video games. :cmad:

[CorpusBlack]

That's one issue I absolutely can't stand, censorship. I'm all for protecting kids, but don't make it harder for me to play my violent and sexist video games. :cmad:

:up:

[bell110]

But there are stores that sell these games directly to kids. So at that end, I feel that the store should make a judgment call-- whatever that judgment is. If a parent purchases the game for their child, that's one thing; but if a ten-year-old purchases the game, then I think there is room for concern. But, hey, if the store sells it to the kid, whatever. Parents should be the ones to discuss the dynamics of the game, assuming they are aware that their kid has been playing it.

What 10 year old is buying $50 video games without their parents knowing about it? And if one is, yes the store should turn him down. But who really cares if a 16 buys GTA?

[CorpusBlack]

But who really cares if a 16 buys GTA?

Hillary. :oldrazz:

[The Senator]

What 10 year old is buying $50 video games without their parents knowing about it? And if one is, yes the store should turn him down. But who really cares if a 16 buys GTA?

Ten year olds with money.

[kainedamo]

Ten year olds with money.

Without their parents knowing??

10 year olds that sell crack cocaine? :huh:

[The Senator]

Without their parents knowing??

10 year olds that sell crack cocaine? :huh:

It was more of a joke, but, believe it or not, that sort of thing does happen.

Rare, but it happens.

[Malice]

Hillarycare scares me...
I want the Govt to have no invovement in any healthcare I get.

[kainedamo]

Hillarycare scares me...
I want the Govt to have no invovement in any healthcare I get.

Yeah you're right... it's better to leave it in the hands of corporations that only care about profit.

[Malice]

Yeah you're right... it's better to leave it in the hands of corporations that only care about profit.

Honestly...I would
Government has no need in getting that involved in our lives...give us freedom.
Give us protection via the armed forces...I am good at that point.

[Spider-Bite]

Hillarycare scares me...
I want the Govt to have no invovement in any healthcare I get.

You might approve of obama's health care plan. With his you have the option to buy into it. So you would have the choice of having the government involved. You could choose not to take that and just go for whatever health care you choose to buy.

[The Senator]

You might approve of obama's health care plan. With his you have the option to buy into it. So you would have the choice of having the government involved. You could choose not to take that and just go for whatever health care you choose to buy.

You, sir, didn't read Malice's sig...

[Malice]

You might approve of obama's health care plan. With his you have the option to buy into it. So you would have the choice of having the government involved. You could choose not to take that and just go for whatever health care you choose to buy.

Nope, the govt shouldnt be in the health care insurance business

[Spider-Bite]

Nope, the govt shouldnt be in the health care insurance business

Hey if it's our money and we want to buy health care, than that is our choice. If you don't like it, then you don't have to buy it. It's our choice, and not yours to make for us. You do your thing, and we'll do ours.

That is what I say to anti- government health care, and that is what I say to supporters of Hillary and Edward's health care plans.

[The Senator]

Hey if it's our money and we want to buy health care, than that is our choice. If you don't like it, then you don't have to buy it. It's our choice, and not yours to make for us. You do your thing, and we'll do ours.

That is what I say to anti- government health care, and that is what I say to supporters of Hillary and Edward's health care plans.

You make a good point, though that can easily be the other side's argument.

Personally, I support Edwards' idea of regional healthcare markets which help Americans choose which healthcare provider they want. It also has an affordable, government-run program which would help lower-income families, which would basically be an expansion of Medicaid.

But I disagree with the notion that everyone should be forced into getting healthcare, or else face a fine or some other penalty. People should have a choice in the matter, and if they don't want health insurance, it's their own decision. They'll have to pay the price eventually.

[Spider-Bite]

[quote=jmanspice;13782512]You make a good point, though that can easily be the other side's argument.

NO they can't. Under Barack Obama's plan you have to buy the health care from the government in order to get it from the government. Others can buy health care from whatever health care provider they want. the other side of the argument says "I can't buy it from the government" so they can't use that "choice" argument.


Personally, I support Edwards' idea of regional healthcare markets which help Americans choose which healthcare provider they want. It also has an affordable, government-run program which would help lower-income families, which would basically be an expansion of Medicaid.

But I disagree with the notion that everyone should be forced into getting healthcare, or else face a fine or some other penalty. People should have a choice in the matter, and if they don't want health insurance, it's their own decision. They'll have to pay the price eventually.

I agree.

[The Senator]

I was watching Real Time with Bill Maher a few minutes ago, and he raised a very good point, which Tony Snow surprisingly supported: The right-wing media, in addition to some of her left-wing and independent opponents, have transformed Hillary Clinton into some sort of succubus, Anti-Christ-like figure who is hated for no rational reason. Whether or not you agree with her politics, there's no sensible reason to hate her as adamantly as some people do. She's a polarizing person, but it's so strange to see so many people think of her as some sort of abomination brought onto mankind. I don't think anyone should hate a politician as much as some of the anti-Hillary people do. At the end of the day, she's a normal person. She tells jokes, she has a beer or two, watches late night TV... she's not some sort of soulless being which harbors a wickedness deserving of the amount of hatred she receives on a daily basis.

I've defended Hillary a lot, mainly because I do think she's one of the best politicians in America. But I'm also defending her because I don't think a lot of people "get it." What I mean by that is that is, our government does not work the way the media portrays it. Senators and Congressmen don't sit on one side of the chamber, sticking with their own kind while avoiding some sort of imaginary line drawn down the center of Congress. Regardless of their party lines, they are all people doing their jobs... they get along with each other, despite what they personally believe in. On the Senate floor, I've seen Hillary talking to Trent Lott and others, laughing and mingling as you or I would do in our day jobs. People seem to be so divided on some of these issues, that they have begun to harbor hatred for the opposing side, when it really shouldn't be that way. Politicians themselves don't hate one another. There's hatred towards a belief or a principle, but it isn't directed towards a particular person.

One of the things I've grown so sick of is this irrational hatred towards Hillary Clinton. I think liberals can be accused of irrational hated, too, namely towards George W. Bush and some of his cronies. I am guilty of hating Bush at times, but really, at the end of the day, I truly hate his policies and his politics. I'm sure that he's a nice guy, probably someone I could have a decent conversation with as long as the war doesn't come up. So, anti-Clintonites, feel free to hate her policies all you want, but hating her on a personal level is just rather silly.

Soapbox over.

[cookiva]

Good rant. Honestly, good post. Its true to a point with myself sometimes too.

[Spider-Bite]

I was watching Real Time with Bill Maher a few minutes ago, and he raised a very good point, which Tony Snow surprisingly supported: The right-wing media, in addition to some of her left-wing and independent opponents, have transformed Hillary Clinton into some sort of succubus, Anti-Christ-like figure who is hated for no rational reason. Whether or not you agree with her politics, there's no sensible reason to hate her as adamantly as some people do. She's a polarizing person, but it's so strange to see so many people think of her as some sort of abomination brought onto mankind. I don't think anyone should hate a politician as much as some of the anti-Hillary people do. At the end of the day, she's a normal person. She tells jokes, she has a beer or two, watches late night TV... she's not some sort of soulless being which harbors a wickedness deserving of the amount of hatred she receives on a daily basis.

I've defended Hillary a lot, mainly because I do think she's one of the best politicians in America. But I'm also defending her because I don't think a lot of people "get it." What I mean by that is that is, our government does not work the way the media portrays it. Senators and Congressmen don't sit on one side of the chamber, sticking with their own kind while avoiding some sort of imaginary line drawn down the center of Congress. Regardless of their party lines, they are all people doing their jobs... they get along with each other, despite what they personally believe in. On the Senate floor, I've seen Hillary talking to Trent Lott and others, laughing and mingling as you or I would do in our day jobs. People seem to be so divided on some of these issues, that they have begun to harbor hatred for the opposing side, when it really shouldn't be that way. Politicians themselves don't hate one another. There's hatred towards a belief or a principle, but it isn't directed towards a particular person.

One of the things I've grown so sick of is this irrational hatred towards Hillary Clinton. I think liberals can be accused of irrational hated, too, namely towards George W. Bush and some of his cronies. I am guilty of hating Bush at times, but really, at the end of the day, I truly hate his policies and his politics. I'm sure that he's a nice guy, probably someone I could have a decent conversation with as long as the war doesn't come up. So, anti-Clintonites, feel free to hate her policies all you want, but hating her on a personal level is just rather silly.

Soapbox over.

I don't hate Hillary. As I've said many times, most of the negative things that can be said about her can be said about any politician. My main beef with Hillary is that she is too far to the right on foreign policy.

but Bush? He is not a nice guy. He has the blood of many on his hands from his foreign policies which are corrupted by his oil connections. He quite possibly has the blood of millions from his vetoing the embryonic stem cell research bill. When he did that, he committed a horrible act against his own people. I hope so strongly that my sister's blood wont be on his hands.

What he has done is very inhumane and cruel. My sister should not be suffering because of his religous beliefs. There is a name for people like that. Religous extremist. My eight year old sister might die becuase of what he has done. My hatred for Bush is completely justified.

To simply agree to disagree with those decision made by Bush would be like agreeing to disagree with Osama Bin Laden's decisions, and then say your sure he's a nice guy.

These are murderous war maniacs who don't deserve to have nice conversations. They belong in a cell.

[Kel]

Hillarycare scares me...
I want the Govt to have no invovement in any healthcare I get.

Texas government is involved in my healthcare, and its excellent......

[Malice]

I live in Texas....but the Texas govt doesnt just hand out healthcare

[cookiva]

I live in Texas....but the Texas govt doesnt just hand out healthcare


I think if Texas gave us heathcare, it would involve an IV full of butter or ranch....

[Kel]

I live in Texas....but the Texas govt doesnt just hand out healthcare


No, but as a government employee, the government does subsidize my insurance....

[Green Goblin 1964]

Go HIL!

[souvlaki]

Yes, I know there technically was no primary for the democrats last night, but even still, it doesn't appear that it was a good night for Hillary.



Michigan's Ominous Message for Hillary Clinton

John Nichols

The Nation -- DETROIT -- The question in Tuesday's Michigan Democratic primary was not whether Hillary Clinton could beat anybody.

The question was whether Clinton could beat nobody.

As the only leading Democratic contender to keep her name on the ballot after Michigan officials moved their primary ahead of the opening date scheduled by the Democratic National Committee, Clinton was perfectly positioned. She had no serious opposition. She also had the strong support of top Michigan Democrats such as Governor Jennifer Granholm and U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow.

Usually, a prominent presidential contender running a primary campaign without serious opposition and with strong in-state support from party leaders can count on winning 90 percent or more of the vote. That's how it went for George Bush when he was running without serious opposition in Republican primaries in 2004, and for Bill Clinton when he was essentially unopposed in the Democratic primaries in 1996.

But Hillary Clinton got nowhere near 90 percent of the vote in Tuesday's Michigan primary.

With most of the ballots counted, the New York senator was winning uninspiring 56 percent of the Democratic primary vote.

A remarkable 39 percent of Michiganders who participated in the primary voted for nobody, marking the "Uncommitted" option on their ballots. Another 4 percent backed Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, who brought his anti-war, anti-corporate campaign to Michigan and made some inroads among Muslim voters in the Detroit area and liberals in Washtenaw County -- where he was taking 10 percent.

But "Uncommitted" was Clinton's most serious challenger in Michigan.

"Uncommitted" was actually beating Clinton in some counties and coming close to her in others, including Detroit's Wayne County.

Ominously for the Clinton camp, the former First Lady was losing the African-American vote -- in Wayne County and statewide -- to "Uncommitted." African-American leaders such as Detroit Congressman John Conyers, who backs Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, had urged an "Uncommitted" vote. And the message seemed to connect. Exits polls showed "Uncommitted" winning by a 70-26 margin among African-Americans. (Had Michigan voters been allowed to choose between all the serious contenders for the Democratic nod, CNN's exit poll found, Obama would have won the African-American vote by a 73-22 margin over Clinton.)

"Uncommitted" also beat Clinton among independent voters who participated in the Democratic primary, and among young voters.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20080116/cm_thenation/1271003

[sithgoblin]

Why was she on the ballot in the first place? The Dems were supposed to boycott that primary.

[rdh007]

She's picking up cheap delegates if you ask me. Or she's a Lieberman-Dem.

[The Senator]

Um, she kept her name on the ballot. She didn't campaign in the state after the delegates were taken away.

She didn't win anything last night, nor did she try to.

I don't see people criticizing Dennis Kucinich for keeping his name on the ballot.

It's just because she did it. If Obama did it, it would absolutely fine and perfect because he's teh change candidate.

[SuBe]

I Haven't paid too much attention to the Demacrat Primaries, but why did they boycott Michigan?

[Gilpesh]

I Haven't paid too much attention to the Demacrat Primaries, but why did they boycott Michigan?

I think it was because of Hillary and not all canidates were going to be on the ballot.

[hippie_hunter]

I Haven't paid too much attention to the Demacrat Primaries, but why did they boycott Michigan?

Because Michigan moved their primary too early according to the DNC rules. As a result the DNC punished Michigan, and other states like Florida, by taking away all of its delegates to the Democratic National Convention.

It's not that the candidates boycotted Michigan, it's more like they simply ignored it because campaigning (and voting) there was a complete waste of time. Only Clinton, Dodd, and Kucinich bothered to put their names on the ballot. Why waste time in Michigan for absolutely no delegates when states like Nevada and South Carolina are right up there and have much needed delegates for Clinton and Obama.

[hippie_hunter]

I think it was because of Hillary and not all canidates were going to be on the ballot.

Not at all.

[The Senator]

I think it was because of Hillary and not all canidates were going to be on the ballot.

No.

They boycotted Michigan because the DNC took away Michigan's convention delegates. The delegates were taken away because Michigan moved their primary up two weeks before Super Tuesday, which went against the DNC's 2008 primary calendar/ primary rules.

The other candidates took a vow to essentially further "punish" Michigan by not campaigning in the state.

There were no delegates to be had, no one won, no one had any advantage.

[SuBe]

Because Michigan moved their primary too early according to the DNC rules. As a result the DNC punished Michigan, and other states like Florida, by taking away all of its delegates to the Democratic National Convention.

It's not that the candidates boycotted Michigan, it's more like they simply ignored it because campaigning (and voting) there was a complete waste of time. Only Clinton, Dodd, and Kucinich bothered to put their names on the ballot. Why waste time in Michigan for absolutely no delegates when states like Nevada and South Carolina are right up there and have much needed delegates for Clinton and Obama.
Thanks Hippy. I was wondering.

[Gilpesh]

No.

They boycotted Michigan because the DNC took away Michigan's convention delegates. The delegates were taken away because Michigan moved their primary up two weeks before Super Tuesday, which went against the DNC's 2008 primary calendar/ primary rules.

The other candidates took a vow to essentially further "punish" Michigan by not campaigning in the state.

There were no delegates to be had, no one won, no one had any advantage.

Thank you for correcting me. I had heard something about her, so my hate of her automatically made it her fault...

But now I know it was cause Michiganites are greedy.

[souvlaki]

edit- nevermind... looks like several people already answered that question....

[rdh007]

Um, she kept her name on the ballot. She didn't campaign in the state after the delegates were taken away.

She didn't win anything last night, nor did she try to.

I don't see people criticizing Dennis Kucinich for keeping his name on the ballot.

It's just because she did it. If Obama did it, it would absolutely fine and perfect because he's teh change candidate.

Why keep your name on the ballot if you truly believe the delegates will be taken away after all is said and done? So, she tried to win the state by leaving her name on the ballot in case the delegates are restored. Kucinich did the same thing, but he isn't potentially our president. If Obama and Edwards had kept their names on the ballot, then one major candidate doing it would not be an issue. However, they played by the rules and she did not. Therefore, she sucks even more. Maybe she'll cry on Friday and win Nevada and when she loses to President Huckabee and we finally change the national symbol to a bathtub Virgin Mary, we'll all be too full of the healing power of Jesus Christ to remember Michigan's primary.

[souvlaki]

I don't see people criticizing Dennis Kucinich for keeping his name on the ballot.

I believe I heard Kucinich remained on the ballot because he didn't fill out his paperwork in time to have his name removed.

[The Senator]

Why keep your name on the ballot if you truly believe the delegates will be taken away after all is said and done? So, she tried to win the state by leaving her name on the ballot in case the delegates are restored. Kucinich did the same thing, but he isn't potentially our president. If Obama and Edwards had kept their names on the ballot, then one major candidate doing it would not be an issue. However, they played by the rules and she did not. Therefore, she sucks even more. Maybe she'll cry on Friday and win Nevada and when she loses to President Huckabee and we finally change the national symbol to a bathtub Virgin Mary, we'll all be too full of the healing power of Jesus Christ to remember Michigan's primary.

Wow! Look at all those hyperboles!

[Gilpesh]

I believe I heard Kucinich remained on the ballot because he didn't fill out his paperwork in time to have his name removed.

Who can blame him?

He was too busy doing his hot wife.

[rdh007]

Wow! Look at all those hyperboles!
This is teh intertubes, and when in Rome...

[ShadowBoxing]

Hilraising this thread...

[Gilpesh]

http://www.alternet.org/story/73782

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20080116/cm_thenation/1271003_1

http://www.slate.com/id/2182073/pagenum/all

Soooo.

[Zero_Vault]

No, women are weak and frail, I believe, in my opinion, unfit to become the President.

Because that's a man's job.

[Matt]

I personally don't like the idea of the same two families controlling the White House for 24 years if she wins (and that is assuming she does not win re-election. Nearly 30 years if she does).

That being said...moving to politics.

[ShadowBoxing]

Wow, old thread bump.

Hmmm, I will say this. While this is not a reason to vote for Hillary, at least not a good one, it's something to consider. Women make up slightly more than 50% of the population in this country, and for almost 250 years we have not seen a woman in the Presidency. I think this is a crime, even more than not having a Hispanic or African American hold that office, and those are problems too. Women deserve to be seen as equals to men, maybe not in a physical sense but certainly in a moral sense and certainly they have earned the same status and respect...long before guys like me ever did. So I would say this: don't vote for Hillary because she is a woman, but don't vote against her because she is.

[The Senator]

YES.
(But I'll take Obama, Edwards or Bloomberg, too)

[Zero_Vault]

Wow, old thread bump.

Hmmm, I will say this. While this is not a reason to vote for Hillary, at least not a good one, it's something to consider. Women make up slightly more than 50% of the population in this country, and for almost 250 years we have not seen a woman in the Presidency. I think this is a crime, even more than not having a Hispanic or African American hold that office, and those are problems too. Women deserve to be seen as equals to men, maybe not in a physical sense but certainly in a moral sense and certainly they have earned the same status and respect...long before guys like me ever did. So I would say this: don't vote for Hillary because she is a woman, but don't vote against her because she is.

So just ignore her.

Vote as if she's not there at all.

[kronos251]

To answer the thread title question:


NO.

[rdh007]

Not particularly. But if she wins the nomination, it'll save me having to help the campaign, so that gives me some time back.

[Captain Planet!]

Would you rather have Bush or Ms. Clinton?

If you had to choose between the two (because there is a gun aimed at your head) who would you choose?
Clinton FTW. Things were a lot better when she was the president before.

[Malice]

I dont like Hillary since she is a Socialist.
Socialism is not what I want for the country

[Comicfilmer]

I dont like Hillary since she is a Socialist.
Socialism is not what I want for the country

:up:

[SuBe]

I dont like Hillary since she is a Socialist.
Socialism is not what I want for the country
Agreed. I found a new Bumper Sticker for the Hilliary Campain:

http://boortz.com/images/i_want_my_mommy_hillary.gif

In reference to the Nanny State that would come about from her Socialistic ideals.

[Venom'sDad]

Agreed. I found a new Bumper Sticker for the Hilliary Campain:

http://boortz.com/images/i_want_my_mommy_hillary.gif

In reference to the Nanny State that would come about from her Socialistic ideals.

:pal: Great bumper sticker :up: No one is questioning how she will pay for that, bankrupting the country, killing and rationing healthcare(like Canada, Cuba, and most European countries). OMG!!! This is why I say the Majority in this country want a European Style Socialist System. Proof has been in the pudding for years, this mind-set didn't just happen over night.

[ElToro]

Yes!!

[rdh007]

Yeah, 'cause we haven't been living in a fear-induced panic since 01. :rolleyes:

By the way, the country's already been bankrupted. No one will ever pay for Bush/Clinton (she seems to love it) vanity war, it'll take decades. Of course, thousands have paid dearly already and it is sickening.

[rdh007]

I dont like Hillary since she is a Socialist.
Socialism is not what I want for the country
Pics or it never happened.

[Venom'sDad]

By the way, the country's already been bankrupted. No one will ever pay for Bush/Clinton (she seems to love it) vanity war, it'll take decades. Of course, thousands have paid dearly already and it is sickening.

I agree rdh007... and yes thousands have paid dearly for it in more ways than one... I guarantee it.

Americans does not want to take on personal responsibility. They are satisfied being dumb-down, until one call them that.

[teseract]

I dont like Hillary since she is a Socialist.
Socialism is not what I want for the country
Oh gee, what to do, on the one side we got the left socialists called the Democrats, who want more state power to control firearms and to ensure a functional social network, on the other hand we have the right wing socialists better known as the Republicans, who also want more state power to control what others do in their bedroom, what kind of entertainment they consume and who also want control over information outlets Hmmm, tough choice, should one take the ones who take away content of the wallet or the ones who take away rights and privacy? What a pitch!

Well, I know who I would chose. I'd prefer Hillary's version of the Nanny State tenfold over the Republican version of the Nanny state.

[hippie_hunter]

Oh gee, what to do, on the one side we got the left socialists called the Democrats, who want more state power to control firearms and to ensure a functional social network, on the other hand we have the right wing socialists better known as the Republicans, who also want more state power to control what others do in their bedroom, what kind of entertainment they consume and who also want control over information outlets Hmmm, tough choice, should one take the ones who take away content of the wallet or the ones who take away rights and privacy? What a pitch!

Well, I know who I would chose. I'd prefer Hillary's version of the Nanny State tenfold over the Republican version of the Nanny state.

:whatever:

[teseract]

:whatever:
It's a fact that state influence increased a lot more during the Bush administration than under Bill Clinton. None of the Big Two are "small government" They both want "Big Government", they just have different reasons and the Democrats reasons are imho. far less damaging than the Republicans and their weird utopian engeneering fetish they call "social conservatism".

[The Senator]

I <3 Nanny States!!

[StorminNorman]

Hillary will not win the Presidency.

[The Senator]

Hillary will not win the Presidency.

Neither will Mitt Mormon.

Er, I mean Romney :o

[StorminNorman]

Neither will Mitt Mormon.

Er, I mean Romney :o

If Romney wins the GOP nomination against Hillary - Romney will win.

Honestly his biggest "flaw" is the fact he is a mormon - its a shame that religious bigotry (like you displayed) is still a large factor in America. :o

[teseract]

Hillary will not win the Presidency.
As long as it isn't a Republican I don't care who wins. That Party must be kicked out of power for good.

[hippie_hunter]

It's a fact that state influence increased a lot more during the Bush administration than under Bill Clinton. None of the Big Two are "small government" They both want "Big Government", they just have different reasons and the Democrats reasons are imho. far less damaging than the Republicans and their weird utopian engeneering fetish they call "social conservatism".

I was going :whatever: over your generalization of Republicans by controlling our entertainment when we have Democrats like Hillary Clinton, Tipper Gore, and Joe Lieberman wanting to do the same thing and generalization of Democrats who want to destroy our gun rights when nowhere near all Democrats are like that.

[hippie_hunter]

As long as it isn't a Republican I don't care who wins. That Party must be kicked out of power for good.

:whatever:

[Arc-Light]

If Romney wins the GOP nomination against Hillary - Romney will win.

Honestly his biggest "flaw" is the fact he is a mormon - its a shame that religious bigotry (like you displayed) is still a large factor in America. :o

Oh you mean that FACT that this country will vote only ppl who are religious and believe in God. You righties need to look up the word hypocrisy.

[The Senator]

If Romney wins the GOP nomination against Hillary - Romney will win.

Honestly his biggest "flaw" is the fact he is a mormon - its a shame that religious bigotry (like you displayed) is still a large factor in America. :o

Yeah, it's a real shame that religious bigotry is the largest factor affecting American politics.

Not bigotry in any other sense, like, I don't know... opposition to gay marriage, proposing and supporting an amendment to the constitution defining marriage as something which should between a man and a woman, opposing gay adoption, and countless other statements Mr. Romney has made regarding my people. Because apparently, as long as its a lifestyle and not a religion, any attacks made are done so for the protection of the people, therefore not making him a bigot in the least bit.

Mitt Romney has numerous flaws he has to work on if he hopes to win the Presidency. Addressing his faith is one of them, because while I don't really give a flying **** what that jackass believes, a good percentage of the American people do-- especially those who live in the South, who don't consider the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints an actual religion, but a cult. And there are other uneducated people who think the exact same thing.

Not to mention his constant flip-flopping over every issue and his downright smarmy attitude. Seriously, I can't think of one issue which Romney hasn't flip-flopped on. If you thought the attacks on Kerry were bad, they're going to get a hell of a lot worse with Romney.

The man was a blue-as-blue liberal when he ran for the Senate the first time, and was the same when he became Governor of Massachusetts in 2002. Then, he magically decided that he was pro-life, against gay marriage, against stem cell research, for the war in Iraq, and against amnesty for illegals... only six months before he set up his exploratory committee for the Presidency!

Wow, way to go Mitt Romney. You really know how to find a position and stick with it-- depending on which ever office you're running for.

[hippie_hunter]

Mitt Romney has numerous flaws he has to work on if he hopes to win the Presidency. Addressing his faith is one of them, because while I don't really give a flying **** what that jackass believes, a good percentage of the American people do-- especially those who live in the South, who don't consider the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints an actual religion, but a cult. And there are other uneducated people who think the exact same thing.

Not to mention his constant flip-flopping over every issue and his downright smarmy attitude. Seriously, I can't think of one issue which Romney hasn't flip-flopped on. If you thought the attacks on Kerry were bad, they're going to get a hell of a lot worse with Romney.

The man was a blue-as-blue liberal when he ran for the Senate the first time, and was the same when he became Governor of Massachusetts in 2002. Then, he magically decided that he was pro-life, against gay marriage, against stem cell research, for the war in Iraq, and against amnesty for illegals... only six months before he set up his exploratory committee for the Presidency!

Wow, way to go Mitt Romney. You really know how to find a position and stick with it-- depending on which ever office you're running for.

:up:

That and just look at him. He looks like a douche with oh so perfect hair.

God I wish I had hair like that :csad:.

[StorminNorman]

Yeah, it's a real shame that religious bigotry is the largest factor affecting American politics.

It is. A man's religion shouldn't play a role - but as you showed, it does. I don't like that.

Not bigotry in any other sense, like, I don't know... opposition to gay marriage, proposing and supporting an amendment to the constitution defining marriage as something which should between a man and a woman, opposing gay adoption, and countless other statements Mr. Romney has made regarding my people. Because apparently, as long as its a lifestyle and not a religion, any attacks made are done so for the protection of the people, therefore not making him a bigot in the least bit.

I am not going to argue against Gay Marriage. I don't share Mr. Romney's view on that issue. However you point this out as if this is a view unique to Romney.

Hillary Clinton's husband is the one that enacted "Don't ask, Don't Tell" forcing military homosexuals to hide their life style as if its something to be ashamed of. If you argue that Bill does not reflect Hillary's views - then you also can not argue her position as First Lady is relevant experience for the Presidency making her a Senator of not quite a term and a half with no real important bill authored by her and a fairly unremarkable record overall.

If her name was anything but Clinton - she would be an unknown Senator from New York.

Mitt Romney has numerous flaws he has to work on if he hopes to win the Presidency. Addressing his faith is one of them, because while I don't really give a flying **** what that jackass believes, a good percentage of the American people do-- especially those who live in the South, who don't consider the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints an actual religion, but a cult. And there are other uneducated people who think the exact same thing.

He has some flaws - but his Mormonism is his largest. I agree with this.

Not to mention his constant flip-flopping over every issue and his downright smarmy attitude. Seriously, I can't think of one issue which Romney hasn't flip-flopped on. If you thought the attacks on Kerry were bad, they're going to get a hell of a lot worse with Romney.

He has not "flip-flopped". Flip Flop implies constant changing. Now as he grew older, his views on abortion and gay marriage did change. He went from Pro-Choice to Pro-Life, for example - but even then his record as governor reflects his Pro-Life stances. His record on gay marriage as Governor reflects his belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman. This negates the implication that he changed those views just to make himself more tolerable for a Republican nomination.

The man was a blue-as-blue liberal when he ran for the Senate the first time, and was the same when he became Governor of Massachusetts in 2002. Then, he magically decided that he was pro-life, against gay marriage, against stem cell research, for the war in Iraq, and against amnesty for illegals... only six months before he set up his exploratory committee for the Presidency!

His voting record as Governor reflects the stances he holds today.

He has always been for the war in Iraq, against amnesty for illegals, etc. You are blowing the Governor's change of issues on personal, emotional issues like abortion and gay marriage completely out of proportions - issues that the President doesn't have that large an impact on anyway.

Wow, way to go Mitt Romney. You really know how to find a position and stick with it-- depending on which ever office you're running for.

Again - this is simply just incorrect.

[The Senator]

It is. A man's religion shouldn't play a role - but as you showed, it does. I don't like that.

Thought I'd point out, for the record-- which you won't believe anyway-- that I called him Mitt Mormon because his faith is what he's most known for by those who are adamantly against him, and that's the primary reason why most people won't vote for him. I won't vote for him because-- aside from the fact that he's a complete douche-- I don't agree with the current positions he holds on the major issues. I don't have issues with Mormons. Just like I don't have issues with Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Scientologists, Humanists, Taoists or any other religious followers. Now that I've cleared that up...


I am not going to argue against Gay Marriage. I don't share Mr. Romney's view on that issue. However you point this out as if this is a view unique to Romney.

Hillary Clinton's husband is the one that enacted "Don't ask, Don't Tell" forcing military homosexuals to hide their life style as if its something to be ashamed of. If you argue that Bill does not reflect Hillary's views - then you also can not argue her position as First Lady is relevant experience for the Presidency making her a Senator of not quite a term and a half with no real important bill authored by her and a fairly unremarkable record overall.

If her name was anything but Clinton - she would be an unknown Senator from New York.

He has some flaws - but his Mormonism is his largest. I agree with this.

He has not "flip-flopped". Flip Flop implies constant changing. Now as he grew older, his views on abortion and gay marriage did change. He went from Pro-Choice to Pro-Life, for example - but even then his record as governor reflects his Pro-Life stances. His record on gay marriage as Governor reflects his belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman. This negates the implication that he changed those views just to make himself more tolerable for a Republican nomination.

His voting record as Governor reflects the stances he holds today.

He has always been for the war in Iraq, against amnesty for illegals, etc. You are blowing the Governor's change of issues on personal, emotional issues like abortion and gay marriage completely out of proportions - issues that the President doesn't have that large an impact on anyway.



Again - this is simply just incorrect.

So, Mitt Romney's four years as Governor of Massachusetts is more experience than Hillary Clinton's six years as a Senator? Because the last I heard, Romney didn't pass anything substantial with his name on it, either. The health care package he passed in Massachusetts might be the only example of this, but I know many Massachusettsians who downright hate it and want it abolished (oh, the things you learn when you work for a Massachusetts congressman's office).

Mitt Romney's political views didn't "mature" over time. That's a ludicrous, completely naive statement to make. If any Democrat running for president magically became pro-life overnight, that candidate's Republican opponent would be slamming him or her left and right over the issue. I don't see how this is any different. Mitt Romney was pro-choice when he took office; it somehow surprises me that he woke up one morning and said, "Gee golly gosh, I think I want the little fetuses live! They're just so damn cute!"

Total political maneuvering.

As for Clinton's stance on gay marriage... DOMA was shoved down his throat by Newt Gingrich and the Republican congress. It passed the House with 342 votes and the Senate with 85 votes. Even if Clinton had vetoed the bill, it would have passed none the less. And he didn't support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as something between a man and a woman, and his wife didn't vote for it while she was a Senator.

[StorminNorman]

So, Mitt Romney's four years as Governor of Massachusetts is more experience than Hillary Clinton's six years as a Senator? Because the last I heard, Romney didn't pass anything substantial with his name on it, either. The health care package he passed in Massachusetts might be the only example of this, but I know many Massachusettsians who downright hate it and want it abolished (oh, the things you learn when you work for a Massachusetts congressman's office).

Romney took a state who had jobs leaving the state - and reversed it. He took a 3 Billion dollar deficient and left a surplus. He lowered the numbers of state workers while increasing the numbers of police and firemen. Thats an impressive term as Governor.

But I don't support him because of his Governorship. The experience I like most is his incredibly successful business experience. That shows great responsibility, a keen mind and leadership that I want in a President. Especially when I have major problems with Bush's increases to National Government, the deficient and the worsening economy.

Mitt Romney's political views didn't "mature" over time. That's a ludicrous, completely naive statement to make. If any Democrat running for president magically became pro-life overnight, that candidate's Republican opponent would be slamming him or her left and right over the issue. I don't see how this is any different. Mitt Romney was pro-choice when he took office; it somehow surprises me that he woke up one morning and said, "Gee golly gosh, I think I want the little fetuses live! They're just so damn cute!"

Naturally. And if you were supporting that Democrat candidate - you would be making the same argument I am. I don't view Romney's change on a few matters I don't at all find important enough to sway me.

His voting record as a governor was always Pro-Life. That shows his change was not simply to increase his chances with Conservative Republicans.

As for Clinton's stance on gay marriage... DOMA was shoved down his throat by Newt Gingrich and the Republican congress. It passed the House with 342 votes and the Senate with 85 votes. Even if Clinton had vetoed the bill, it would have passed none the less. And he didn't support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as something between a man and a woman, and his wife didn't vote for it while she was a Senator.

So Clinton didn't take a stand? He didn't have the spine to call a bill insulting? Very telling.

[The Senator]

Romney took a state who had jobs leaving the state - and reversed it. He took a 3 Billion dollar deficient and left a surplus. He lowered the numbers of state workers while increasing the numbers of police and firemen. Thats an impressive term as Governor.

But I don't support him because of his Governorship. The experience I like most is his incredibly successful business experience. That shows great responsibility, a keen mind and leadership that I want in a President. Especially when I have major problems with Bush's increases to National Government, the deficient and the worsening economy.

I won't argue the business aspect of him. I dislike him because of current stance on the issues; you like him because of his experience as a businessman. Bain Capital is a great company, one I may consider working for some day. I'll let that pass.



Naturally. And if you were supporting that Democrat candidate - you would be making the same argument I am.

I would never vote for a pro-life candidate.

So Clinton didn't take a stand? He didn't have the spine to call a bill insulting? Very telling.

I don't care what he did during his Presidency. I'm voting for his wife, based on what she did for my part of the state, and the stances she has taken on the issues which matter to me. The war in Iraq, I feel, is a foreign policy disaster. But immediate withdrawal would be an even bigger disaster. Her Iraq policy, I feel, best fits what I want. Same thing for her health care plan. It isn't universal health care, but it opens up the markets, and creates a government funded program which gives Americans additional, low-cost alternatives to the current highway robbery of existing health care companies. This hits hard for me. When my father was unemployed for three months, he lost his health insurance. Ongoing coverage for seemingly little things, such as my brother's braces, or the medication I needed for a torn muscle, was discontinued. Long story short, it was frightening and stressful, and I can only imagine what families without health care coverage have to deal with on a daily basis (at the same time, I strong oppose forcing those who do not want health care to pay for it if they don't want it; it's their call).

Iran is another issue, and while I don't support any military action against the country, I don't think we should be offering hugs to that slimeball currently in charge over there. I feel that she is the only Democrat hawkish enough to deal with him head-on. She may not be taken seriously because she is a woman; but will they take Barack or Edwards seriously if they all of a sudden want to hold hands and skip happily into the sunset together? I strongly doubt it.

Among other things, I support her calls for ending the Bush tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans and extending those cuts to the middle class.

Those are only a few reasons why I support her. Her husband, I feel, has been a bumbling cock throughout this campaign. I hope to see less of him once/ if she wins the nomination.

[Arkady Rossovich]

I'm starting to get the feeling that if America elects Clinton,it will be basically be the same as Bush..but to a lesser degree.

[Chris B]

Not really. For a long time, I've stood by the belief that the next President will need to be an agent of change and I think Hillary owes too much to corporate interests to really do that. However, I think I would be more willing to vote for her in November than I would Obama. I simply think Obama will end up being the new Jimmy Carter if elected now. Even if things wouldn't really change that much, I do think Hillary would still get more done.

[MaskedManJRK]

Yeah, it's a real shame that religious bigotry is the largest factor affecting American politics.

Not bigotry in any other sense, like, I don't know... opposition to gay marriage, proposing and supporting an amendment to the constitution defining marriage as something which should between a man and a woman, opposing gay adoption, and countless other statements Mr. Romney has made regarding my people. Because apparently, as long as its a lifestyle and not a religion, any attacks made are done so for the protection of the people, therefore not making him a bigot in the least bit.

Mitt Romney has numerous flaws he has to work on if he hopes to win the Presidency. Addressing his faith is one of them, because while I don't really give a flying **** what that jackass believes, a good percentage of the American people do-- especially those who live in the South, who don't consider the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints an actual religion, but a cult. And there are other uneducated people who think the exact same thing.

Not to mention his constant flip-flopping over every issue and his downright smarmy attitude. Seriously, I can't think of one issue which Romney hasn't flip-flopped on. If you thought the attacks on Kerry were bad, they're going to get a hell of a lot worse with Romney.

The man was a blue-as-blue liberal when he ran for the Senate the first time, and was the same when he became Governor of Massachusetts in 2002. Then, he magically decided that he was pro-life, against gay marriage, against stem cell research, for the war in Iraq, and against amnesty for illegals... only six months before he set up his exploratory committee for the Presidency!

Wow, way to go Mitt Romney. You really know how to find a position and stick with it-- depending on which ever office you're running for.

Not to mention that he seems to grow more Dracula-like every time I see him.

Seriously, does he look like a vampire to anyone else? :o

[Malice]

Oh gee, what to do, on the one side we got the left socialists called the Democrats, who want more state power to control firearms and to ensure a functional social network, on the other hand we have the right wing socialists better known as the Republicans, who also want more state power to control what others do in their bedroom, what kind of entertainment they consume and who also want control over information outlets Hmmm, tough choice, should one take the ones who take away content of the wallet or the ones who take away rights and privacy? What a pitch!

Well, I know who I would chose. I'd prefer Hillary's version of the Nanny State tenfold over the Republican version of the Nanny state.

Please do no pigeon hole me into a party.
I hate them both with equal enthusiasm.

Dont also compare because I happen to be more conservative in the general thinking that I think Bush is a nice guy.

But fiscal socialism will really do more damage then we can take. Bushy has done enough with finance and then with all the lack of privacy now....

[teseract]

Please do no pigeon hole me into a party.
I hate them both with equal enthusiasm.

Dont also compare because I happen to be more conservative in the general thinking that I think Bush is a nice guy.

But fiscal socialism will really do more damage then we can take. Bushy has done enough with finance and then with all the lack of privacy now....

And yet it's the lesser evil than republicans who want to change the Constitution into the Bible 2.0. The Dems may attack the countries wallet, the Reps attack the countries soul. The first can be repelished relatively easily, the second can not be easily repaired.

[Malice]

And yet it's the lesser evil than republicans who want to change the Constitution into the Bible 2.0. The Dems may attack the countries wallet, the Reps attack the countries soul. The first can be repelished relatively easily, the second can not be easily repaired.

Thats interesting, since I see it exactly opposite.
I see Political Correctness as being the problem that has been the cancer in the system lately....

Bush and his staff have completely destroyed all semblence of privacy which I dont care for at all, plus his finance policy is terrible.

[hippie_hunter]

And yet it's the lesser evil than republicans who want to change the Constitution into the Bible 2.0. The Dems may attack the countries wallet, the Reps attack the countries soul. The first can be repelished relatively easily, the second can not be easily repaired.

You know that most Republicans are opposed to the Bush Administration and are turned off by evangellical leaders like Huckabee who compared the Constitution to the Bible.

[StorminNorman]

I would never vote for a pro-life candidate.

The actual issues weren't important. If a candidate who had (in your mind) great credentials, great presence, great ideas and great morals who had once held a few views (like abortion) that are now different than the ones he now has - you would defend that candidate not unlike what I am doing. That was my point.

I don't care what he did during his Presidency. I'm voting for his wife, based on what she did for my part of the state, and the stances she has taken on the issues which matter to me. The war in Iraq, I feel, is a foreign policy disaster. But immediate withdrawal would be an even bigger disaster. Her Iraq policy, I feel, best fits what I want. Same thing for her health care plan. It isn't universal health care, but it opens up the markets, and creates a government funded program which gives Americans additional, low-cost alternatives to the current highway robbery of existing health care companies. This hits hard for me. When my father was unemployed for three months, he lost his health insurance. Ongoing coverage for seemingly little things, such as my brother's braces, or the medication I needed for a torn muscle, was discontinued. Long story short, it was frightening and stressful, and I can only imagine what families without health care coverage have to deal with on a daily basis (at the same time, I strong oppose forcing those who do not want health care to pay for it if they don't want it; it's their call).

Iran is another issue, and while I don't support any military action against the country, I don't think we should be offering hugs to that slimeball currently in charge over there. I feel that she is the only Democrat hawkish enough to deal with him head-on. She may not be taken seriously because she is a woman; but will they take Barack or Edwards seriously if they all of a sudden want to hold hands and skip happily into the sunset together? I strongly doubt it.

Among other things, I support her calls for ending the Bush tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans and extending those cuts to the middle class.

Those are only a few reasons why I support her. Her husband, I feel, has been a bumbling cock throughout this campaign. I hope to see less of him once/ if she wins the nomination.

See - I can respect this. Obviously I do not agree but you clearly understand exactly what you are getting with a Hillary Clinton Presidency.

[Manic]

I would never vote for a pro-life candidate.
You say that as if pro-life politicians would actually do anything. We've had a pro-life president and (in his first term) a pro-life legislative body backing him up. The government could've fought to make abortion illegal, but none of them were ready to pick their college-aged, Spring Break fanatic daughters up from back-alleys with coat-hangers up their crotches.

[The Senator]

You say that as if pro-life politicians would actually do anything. We've had a pro-life president and (in his first term) a pro-life legislative body backing him up. The government could've fought to make abortion illegal, but none of them were ready to pick their college-aged, Spring Break fanatic daughters up from back-alleys with coat-hangers up their crotches.

The problem isn't whether the candidate is pro-life. It's whether the Supreme Court justices he or she nominates will be. The issue of abortion has already come to the current Supreme Court. Just last year, the court ruled against late-term or so-called "partial birth abortions." And while I disagree with the entire concept of partial-birth abortion, the practice exists for strictly medical purposes only. Teenage-girls who got knocked up because they decided to get drunk and not wear a condom weren't getting their pregnancies terminated; mothers who faced severe medical risks which would affect both their pregnancies and the child upon birth were.

If the Supreme Court could rule against that concept, I'm certain they could very well rule against Roe v. Wade. I believe the Supreme Court could make a decision which would overturn Roe v. Wade this year, if I'm not mistaken.

Bob Casey, the former Governor of Pennsylvania who considered running for President in 1992, said that if he was President, he would appoint strict, pro-life justices to the Supreme Court, and would fight to overturn Roe v. Wade. His son is currently the junior Senator from PA, and he's echoed his sentiments. While I think they were/ are both fantastic politicians, I don't want to elect a President who would be in the position of appointing justices to the bench who could overturn Roe v. Wade.

That's just me.

[teseract]

The problem isn't whether the candidate is pro-life. It's whether the Supreme Court justices he or she nominates will be. The issue of abortion has already come to the current Supreme Court. Just last year, the court ruled against late-term or so-called "partial birth abortions." And while I disagree with the entire concept of partial-birth abortion, the practice exists for strictly medical purposes only. Teenage-girls who got knocked up because they decided to get drunk and not wear a condom weren't getting their pregnancies terminated; mothers who faced severe medical risks which would affect both their pregnancies and the child upon birth were.

If the Supreme Court could rule against that concept, I'm certain they could very well rule against Roe v. Wade. I believe the Supreme Court could make a decision which would overturn Roe v. Wade this year, if I'm not mistaken.

Bob Casey, the former Governor of Pennsylvania who considered running for President in 1992, said that if he was President, he would appoint strict, pro-life justices to the Supreme Court, and would fight to overturn Roe v. Wade. His son is currently the junior Senator from PA, and he's echoed his sentiments. While I think they were/ are both fantastic politicians, I don't want to elect a President who would be in the position of appointing justices to the bench who could overturn Roe v. Wade.

That's just me.

Exactly, not to speak of the social rammifications. You guys think america is already devided? Just wait what a **** storm will come loose if Roe vs. Wade gets overruled.

[Gilpesh]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/19/162953/644/790/439573

Anyone else see this? Or know if any of this is true?

[LuiECuomo]

Wouldn't surprise me.

[rdh007]

The Clintons are such great Republicans.

A Democrat, A Democrat; my kingdom for a Democrat!

[LuiECuomo]

Indeed, because only Republicans are capable of corruption? LOL.

[Yurka]

Doesnt suprise me. Anyway to snake her way into office, I've said it since the beginning.

[Gilpesh]

Wow. No one wants to refute this article or talk about it in any way?

Of course that was to be expected. All the Clinton haters would show up and say 'Told ya so' and all the Clinton supporters would just never say anything.

:whatever:

[The Professor]

The whole caucus/primary system is just so silly to begin with.

[The Senator]

Daily Kos has opposed the Clinton candidacy since day one. They've done everything they can to blast her and her campaign.

Funny how every time she wins, they're always the first to point fingers and scream, "she cheated! she cheated!"

What happens when she wins the primary? Will she have cheated all the way to the nomination?

This statement would be ridiculed by anti-Clintonites: "Barack Obama cheated in Iowa. You know how I know this? Well, psshh... I don't know... there were all those white people in Iowa... why would they want to vote for an African American candidate?"

The reverse of this seems to be echoed everywhere else. "There's no way Clinton could have won Nevada; all those African-Americans got screwed over!" or "all the African-Americans got screwed over in New Hampshire!"

It's nonsense. No one did anything to prohibit anyone from voting. No one did anything to rig the election, either. These are just moronic attacks from people who hate her down to the core, and it really needs to stop.

[Excel]

That *****

[Gilpesh]

Daily Kos has opposed the Clinton candidacy since day one. They've done everything they can to blast her and her campaign.

Funny how every time she wins, they're always the first to point fingers and scream, "she cheated! she cheated!"

What happens when she wins the primary? Will she have cheated all the way to the nomination?

This statement would be ridiculed by anti-Clintonites: "Barack Obama cheated in Iowa. You know how I know this? Well, psshh... I don't know... there were all those white people in Iowa... why would they want to vote for an African American candidate?"

The reverse of this seems to be echoed everywhere else. "There's no way Clinton could have won Nevada; all those African-Americans got screwed over!" or "all the African-Americans got screwed over in New Hampshire!"

It's nonsense. No one did anything to prohibit anyone from voting. No one did anything to rig the election, either. These are just moronic attacks from people who hate her down to the core, and it really needs to stop.

Alright. So this is a biased source of information?

Thanks. Didn't know that.

[The Senator]

Alright. So this is a biased source of information?

Thanks. Didn't know that.

It's a blog. The creator-- I used to know his name; Markos something I think-- is always interviewed on MSNBC, and he always speaks out against Hillary Clinton.

[Gilpesh]

It's a blog. The creator-- I used to know his name; Markos something I think-- is always interviewed on MSNBC, and he always speaks out against Hillary Clinton.

Well, the type of answer you gave is what I was looking for. Someone actually knowing something about the issue speaking on it and debunking it or upholding it.

[Super_Ludacris]

Bill Clinton making that accusation of being threatened down in Nevada was worse lol

[Venom'sDad]

hillary is destroying the Democrat Party by spliting it to gain a Chapter in the History Books.

[The Senator]

hillary is destroying the Democrat Party by spliting it to gain a Chapter in the History Books.

And Barack Obama isn't?

[Gilpesh]

And Barack Obama isn't?

It seems less his fault when all you can see around the net and news, is Hillary provoking him so much during the debate and continuously interrupting him when he is trying to clean up the mud she threw.

And also her statement the day after where she says that it was Obama who showed up looking for a fight and that she never said those things ever... when she did.



So it currently looks like she is not only frontrunnerish in the race but also in the mud slinging through the news.

[Matt]

So its okay for the politican who represents "change" to adopt a mentality of "Well she did it first!"?

[Gilpesh]

So its okay for the politican who represents "change" to adopt a mentality of "Well she did it first!"?

Hey, look there goes the point!



:whatever:

[The Senator]

It seems less his fault when all you can see around the net and news, is Hillary provoking him so much during the debate and continuously interrupting him when he is trying to clean up the mud she threw.

And also her statement the day after where she says that it was Obama who showed up looking for a fight and that she never said those things ever... when she did.



So it currently looks like she is not only frontrunnerish in the race but also in the mud slinging through the news.

I was talking about the "making history" part.

If Barack Obama wasn't black, he wouldn't be getting half the attention he's been getting. That's just the tough-as-nails truth.

And the mudslinging is stupid, but... Obama did it first, and now he's paying the price. He got what he put in, and he should have known that Hillary would have fired back twice as hard on his record. You never poke a hungry bear with a stick, and that's exactly what Obama had been doing since April.

[Venom'sDad]

And Barack Obama isn't?

No, he's not.

It seems less his fault when all you can see around the net and news, is Hillary provoking him so much during the debate and continuously interrupting him when he is trying to clean up the mud she threw.

And also her statement the day after where she says that it was Obama who showed up looking for a fight and that she never said those things ever... when she did.

I agree and like I have said from the beginning, she has the media on her side... the Clinton Media Machine(CMM). Just look at the sound bytes the major networks choose to show. It makes him look like an outragged Negro... Dean Style.

There tactics are working and taking him in the direction they hope to move him in. The race war, started by the Clintons, is hurting Obama, who tried the whole campaign to stay above that.

I think hillary panic going into NH, and ramped up the attack 10 fold against him. IMO, unnecessarily, because she was always going to win the nomination. They want what she can offer, a European Style Socialist System.

[Gilpesh]

I was talking about the "making history" part.

Yeah. Thought that. But everyone who runs for president is egotistical enough to want to make history, even if they are 'the better candidate'.

If Barack Obama wasn't black, he wouldn't be getting half the attention he's been getting. That's just the tough-as-nails truth.

Never said it wasn't. Just pointing out that recently in the media, it appears Hillary is doing the heavy mudslinging. With no coverage of her policies.

And the mudslinging is stupid, but... Obama did it first, and now he's paying the price. He got what he put in, and he should have known that Hillary would have fired back twice as hard on his record. You never poke a hungry bear with a stick, and that's exactly what Obama had been doing since April.

Link me to how he did it first? (just trying to get over the media bias as I have stated that smears Clinton more than Obama.)

But you would think that if Obama did it first, Hillary would try and keep avoiding it so that she could run on the high road. Instead she has stooped to his level and seemingly went lower than him by having everyone that is a satellite of her campaign bashing him, so she can sit back and pretend to play the high road.

[The Senator]

No, he's not.



I agree and like I have said from the beginning, she has the media on her side... the Clinton Media Machine(CMM). Just look at the sound bytes the major networks choose to show. It makes him look like an outragged Negro... Dean Style.

There tactics are working and taking him in the direction they hope to move him in. The race war, started by the Clintons, is hurting Obama, who tried the whole campaign to stay above that.

I think hillary panic going into NH, and ramped up the attack 10 fold against him. IMO, unnecessarily, because she was always going to win the nomination. They want what she can offer, a European Style Socialist System.

WRONG

The media has been ADAMANTLY against her campaign throughout the election season. They've chronicled everything she's done and torn every move she's made apart. They've even done double duty because her bumbling cock of a husband has been opening his mouth left and right. And then here comes the GREAT CHANGE CANDIDATE who looks better than her in photographs, who talks better than her (even though he sounds like William Shatner when he's asked questions on the spot), who's younger than her, who has the so-called "youth vote" on his side... and the media ADORES him. There's NOTHING he can do wrong, even though he's run a lopsided campaign with no real message whatsoever other than "I can change things."

Then he wins Iowa, and EVERYONE jumps on the Obama bandwagon. They abandon EVERY poll released before Iowa showing Clinton ahead in 46 of the fifty states; they abandon EVERY national poll which showed her ahead by upwards of twenty points... and they start jumping on polls which show him ahead in New Hampshire. They overhype him, saying he's a JFK or RFK figure. They call him the definition of the American dream, the epicenter of hope-- all of this because the pundits want to see the juggernaut that is the Clinton machine stopped dead in its track.

And then guess what? Hillary defies conventional wisdom and wins not one, not two-- but three post-Iowa states! And what does the media do? They start publishing claims that HER campaign is RACIST, that they want to SUPPRESS the black vote, they HATE Obama... It's a complete crock of ****. The media loves a good story. They love the death of one American dream and the birth of another. They want to see her fail, and they're doing EVERYTHING to not only overhype every single comment she makes, but overhype them in such a way that her campaign comes CRASHING DOWN in flames. Funny thing, though-- it isn't working!

Now she's gone on the defensive, not only defending herself from Obama's baseless accusations, but unleashing the attack dogs on her own. The points she made last night were excellent, and this one stands out the most: Obama keeps talking about how collectively he has the longest tenure of public service when matched against Clinton or Edwards. But guess what? He was absent for hundreds of important votes, including votes on bills he sponsored! Personally, I don't want a President who doesn't take the initiative to follow through on his promises. Even if the bills he presented wound up so distorted and against what he had originally wanted, he could have at least voted against them and explained his position. But he didn't vote at all, and to me, that shows a sign of cowardice.

Of course, the media hasn't made ANY effort to discuss this. Instead, they're right back on top of Clinton. I hope they keep attacking her, though, because she keeps coming out looking stronger and better than ever. She won't be winning South Carolina next week, but I can't wait to see the look on all the disappointed Obama supporters when she sweeps Super Tuesday and crushes any chance of keeping that hope alive.

[The Senator]

Yeah. Thought that. But everyone who runs for president is egotistical enough to want to make history, even if they are 'the better candidate'.



Never said it wasn't. Just pointing out that recently in the media, it appears Hillary is doing the heavy mudslinging. With no coverage of her policies.



Link me to how he did it first? (just trying to get over the media bias as I have stated that smears Clinton more than Obama.)

But you would think that if Obama did it first, Hillary would try and keep avoiding it so that she could run on the high road. Instead she has stooped to his level and seemingly went lower than him by having everyone that is a satellite of her campaign bashing him, so she can sit back and pretend to play the high road.

There is a quote in another thread, maybe Hypesters for Hillary or Questions for Barack Obama Supporters.

[Gilpesh]

There is a quote in another thread, maybe Hypesters for Hillary or Questions for Barack Obama Supporters.

Yeah. I don't go there. Unlike you, the people in the Hypesters for Hillary thread don't look at the articles I post and refute them or even mentioned them.

[The Senator]

Yeah. I don't go there. Unlike you, the people in the Hypesters for Hillary thread don't look at the articles I post and refute them or even mentioned them.

Well, they need to be refuted, especially if you're posting one-sided crap.

[Gilpesh]

Well, they need to be refuted, especially if you're posting one-sided crap.

Yeah, to get to actual problems if they exist.

[souvlaki]

And then guess what? Hillary defies conventional wisdom and wins not one, not two-- but three post-Iowa states!

Um... maybe I'm just drawing a blank, but what state did Hillary win other than Nevada, and North Carolina?

[hippie_hunter]

Um... maybe I'm just drawing a blank, but what state did Hillary win other than Nevada, and North Carolina?

Clinton won New Hampshire, Nevada, and the pointless Michigan contests.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

At this point the coverage of Bill Clinton has actually topped Hilary to the point it's like we are watching another candidate in the mix. It makes Hilary look quite weak and not capable of speaking her mind and showing her own personality.

Are you ok with how involved Bill is with her campaign or do you feel (as I do) it has gone into the category of overkill?

[souvlaki]

Clinton won New Hampshire, Nevada, and the pointless Michigan contests.

Well, I hope jmanspice is not trying to use Michigan as an example of a win, especially given she only won by about 10% against nobody. The way I'm seeing it, Clinton has won two states, Obama one. And I have a good feeling he will win South Carolina by a decent margin. I think that puts him in a pretty good position for Super Tuesday. I am not doubting that Hillary might win the nomination, but I certainly don't think Hillary has this in the bag.

[Venom'sDad]

^ Oh... it's in the BAG. Clinton Media Machine(CMM)

[The Senator]

Well, I hope jmanspice is not trying to use Michigan as an example of a win, especially given she only won by about 10% against nobody. The way I'm seeing it, Clinton has won two states, Obama one. And I have a good feeling he will win South Carolina by a decent margin. I think that puts him in a pretty good position for Super Tuesday. I am not doubting that Hillary might win the nomination, but I certainly don't think Hillary has this in the bag.

I think, that when you look at the polls in states like California, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Texas, where she leads with 15-30% of the vote, it's almost safe to assume she has it in the bag. She will win these states regardless of whether Obama wins South Carolina or not. The polls in those states barely budged after he won Iowa. Plus, they are 'establishment' states, with a huge base of 'political intellectuals' who have been supporting Clinton since the very beginning. The voters who have primarily been rooting for Obama have been young college kids who simply don't vote, and that's going to kill him. We saw that in New Hampshire, and that was when most students were out on Winter Break and physically able to vote. I don't know how many college kids will take time off from their schedules to go to the polls in those states, and I don't see why any college kid would want to go through all the hassle to get an absentee ballot.

I included Michigan because voters had the opportunity to vote 'uncommitted.' There was such a huge move for Edwards' and Obama's supporters to come out and vote 'uncommitted,' and it didn't work the way they expected it to.

Like I said, when she does win these states, I really want to know how Obama supporters are going to react. Even if she manages to lose California-- which is as unlikely as the sun exploding tomorrow morning-- she will still rake up a majority of delegates in the other four 'big' states. Will it be a surprise? Because it really shouldn't be, if you look at the numbers and how the numbers have been reflected since polling began last January.

Also, Obama needed to win either New Hampshire or Nevada, or both Nevada and South Carolina, to put him in a safe position for Super Tuesday. He hasn't done either, and his campaign is and will be severely affected by it.

Now, if he was behind in South Carolina, I could see why a South Carolina win would give him momentum. But he's been ahead by 8-12 points for the past two weeks, and I simply don't see how his win will be such a big shocker that it will knock Hillary out of the game in the states she has had such large leads in throughout the course of this campaign.

[The Senator]

^ Oh... it's in the BAG. Clinton Media Machine(CMM)

Yeah, because the media moguls are the only people who vote :whatever:

Maybe if you Obama supporters had the willpower to stop complaining about how horrible Clinton is and go to the polls and vote, he could win.

[Gilpesh]

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/bill_clinton_screw_it_im_running

[The Senator]

I could do without Bill's involvement, personally. He doesn't bring anything good to her image, and from what internal polls have shown, he isn't helping her campaign all that much.

When she wins the nomination, I have a feeling he'll take a less active role in Hillary's campaign. Right now, she wants to win the nomination, and her husband is still seen as the defacto head of the Democratic Party. Had she not run, any candidate would vie for his endorsement, because he has such influence among the Democratic base. Whether you agree with it or not, many Democrats still love him and pay attention to what he has to say.

Now that the base is divided, his role is becoming less and less essential. Aside from a few stump speeches in swing states which he won by large margins, or the national convention, I don't see him being as active in the future.

[hippie_hunter]

^ Oh... it's in the BAG. Clinton Media Machine(CMM)
Enough about your god damn CMM. You've said it so many damn times already that we all know what the hell CMM stands for so you don't have to keep going "Clinton Media Machine (CMM)" every freaking time! Plus it's another one of your completely baseless outlandish right wing theories. The media has been pouncing on Hillary Clinton for the past couple of weeks, rather unfairly if you ask me, they've been hopping all over the Obama Gravy Train (OGT), and making Bill Clinton look like a douche because the man's defending his wife.

God look at what you've made me do. I'm freaking DEFENDING Hillary now and I can't stand the b***h :cmad:.

Well, I hope jmanspice is not trying to use Michigan as an example of a win, especially given she only won by about 10% against nobody. The way I'm seeing it, Clinton has won two states, Obama one. And I have a good feeling he will win South Carolina by a decent margin. I think that puts him in a pretty good position for Super Tuesday. I am not doubting that Hillary might win the nomination, but I certainly don't think Hillary has this in the bag.

I think, that when you look at the polls in states like California, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Texas, where she leads with 15-30% of the vote, it's almost safe to assume she has it in the bag. She will win these states regardless of whether Obama wins South Carolina or not. The polls in those states barely budged after he won Iowa. Plus, they are 'establishment' states, with a huge base of 'political intellectuals' who have been supporting Clinton since the very beginning. The voters who have primarily been rooting for Obama have been young college kids who simply don't vote, and that's going to kill him. We saw that in New Hampshire, and that was when most students were out on Winter Break and physically able to vote. I don't know how many college kids will take time off from their schedules to go to the polls in those states, and I don't see why any college kid would want to go through all the hassle to get an absentee ballot.

I included Michigan because voters had the opportunity to vote 'uncommitted.' There was such a huge move for Edwards' and Obama's supporters to come out and vote 'uncommitted,' and it didn't work the way they expected it to.

Like I said, when she does win these states, I really want to know how Obama supporters are going to react. Even if she manages to lose California-- which is as unlikely as the sun exploding tomorrow morning-- she will still rake up a majority of delegates in the other four 'big' states. Will it be a surprise? Because it really shouldn't be, if you look at the numbers and how the numbers have been reflected since polling began last January.

Also, Obama needed to win either New Hampshire or Nevada, or both Nevada and South Carolina, to put him in a safe position for Super Tuesday. He hasn't done either, and his campaign is and will be severely affected by it.

Now, if he was behind in South Carolina, I could see why a South Carolina win would give him momentum. But he's been ahead by 8-12 points for the past two weeks, and I simply don't see how his win will be such a big shocker that it will knock Hillary out of the game in the states she has had such large leads in throughout the course of this campaign.

Yeah, what he said. Clinton's going to win because of states like Texas, California, New York, and other big delegate states even if Obama makes the completely unsurprising victory in South Carolina. Clinton's pretty much got this nomination in the bag. Which will lead to another 4 years of a Republican President....unless douchebag Romney's nominated. :word:

[Venom'sDad]

Enough about your god damn CMM. You've said it so many damn times already that we all know what the hell CMM stands for so you don't have to keep going "Clinton Media Machine (CMM)" every freaking time! Plus it's another one of your completely baseless outlandish right wing theories. The media has been pouncing on Hillary Clinton for the past couple of weeks, rather unfairly if you ask me, they've been hopping all over the Obama Gravy Train (OGT), and making Bill Clinton look like a douche because the man's defending his wife.


I know, I know.... the truth hurts. You eyes always hurt when you step out of darkness to the light.

Rightwing.....

God look at what you've made me do. I'm freaking DEFENDING Hillary now and I can't stand the b***h :cmad:.

I didn't do that, don't blame me.... blame the Clinton Media Machine(CMM)


Seriously, all kidding aside, you know it's true.

[The Senator]

I know, I know.... the truth hurts. You eyes always hurt when you step out of darkness to the light.

Rightwing.....



I didn't do that, don't blame me.... blame the Clinton Media Machine(CMM)


Seriously, all kidding aside, you know it's true.

Here you go again, thinking you know everyone better than they know themselves.

You know it's true... I think Hitler said that when he scapegoated the Jews during World War II.