not to speak for fb, but i didnt see him mention bill clinton anywhere in his post and his comments regarding hillary are right on. if you like bush you will love hillary clinton pro-iraq war - she will not commit to having the troops out by 2013 - that is unacceptable. pro-invading iran and even says bush isnt being hawkish enough pro-north american union anti-free speech pro-amnesty pro-lobbyist pro-gun control too tied to corporate interests you are against clinton b/c of what others think about her? do you actually favor her policies? if you are against the iraq war, which i believe you are, there is no way you can support hillary clinton.
No, he didn't mention Bill, but do you seriously think his wife's Presidency would be fundamentally different from his? Bill was far from perfect, to put it mildly, but he was nothing like George W. Bush. As for his wife, I won't vote for her in the primaries, but sure as hell will if she gets the nomination. I thought you all would have realized what a third party candidate means by now. Haven't we reached our Nadir before? A third party candidate cannot win. However, a third party candidate just might hand the election to the GOP. I'll do whatever I can to prevent that, even if it means working for Bill's wife if she gets the nomination and contributing dollars to help things along. As I said, Kool-Aid is bad for you. Too much sugar. Trim Bush.
The race is coming down to who do you hate least for many people. If you hate one candidate more and you do not vote, you are basically helping him/her.
the clintons are tools, just like the bushs. they are beholden to the same masters. if the democrats dont want to lose votes to a 3rd party perhaps they should run a candidate whose fundamental policies differ from the republicans. a new low for you deckard. this makes me muy triste i find it a tad hypocritical for you to call others kool-aid drinkers when you claim that you will support anyone the democrats put out, even if you disagree with their policies? what the heck is that if not drinking the kool-aid? you told basso you would support him if he was a democrat. you say you will vote for and even donate money to hillary, a candidate who refuses to end the iraq war and wants to attack iran (just like bush). that tells me that you put party over real issues and imo, this attitude is what has gotten us to where we are today.
The Clintons are not George W. Bush. If you can't see that, I can't help you. The Kool-Aid comment was meant to suggest voting for a 3rd party candidate just might hand the election to the GOP. If that's my new low, I must be slipping! What I said to basso was a joke. Geez! Here's a grin for you. Impeach Bush.
The Clintons aren't Bush, but I still want better then the Clintons in 2008. I'll vote for a 3rd party candidate if the Democrats are stupid enough to nominate Hillary, and I'll grab my glass of Kool-Aid on the way out. I simply refuse to give blind affiliation anymore to the Democratic party. They nominated a bad candidate in Kerry in 2004, and now it seems that Hillary is the front runnder in 2008. Her policies are Bush Lite and I'll vote 3rd party as a protest to the entire corrupt system. Ron Paul 2008!!!!
they are more alike than they are different and like i said, they are all beholden to the same corporate interests. usually talking about "drinking kool-aid" implies that one is brainwashed - it is in reference to jonestown. to me, supporting a candidate whom advocates policies you are against, just because of the letter infront of their name is the epitome of kool-aid drinking. and if the gop wins the presidency the democrats will have nobody to blame but themselves. right, and the implication of your joke was that you will vote for any democrat over any one else, even if basso was running as a dem. that is my point - you shouldnt support candidates b/c of the letter infront of their name. ive read enough of your posts to know that hillary clinton does not represent your positions on the key issues, but you will vote for and donate money to her campaign, just b/c of the letter infront of her name. could agree more - if the democrats werent a bunch of yellow-bellied pigs maybe this administration could be held accountable for their crimes. when elected last year what was the first thing pelosi said? - "impeachment is off the table".
Well, Hillary staged a fake press conference - similar to Bush style. She sent out attacks from her campaign, but tried to make it look like it came from Edward's camp - Similar to Bush style She tried to use Obama's words from elementary school to make him seem overly ambitious - similar to Bush style Hillary then had her campaign staff go after Obama's past drug use - similar to Bush Style Hillary then had another person associated with her campaign go after Obama's family's muslim ties, and repeating false stories about the madrassa - similar to Bush style. She voted for the Iraq war, which may have been a mistake, and not really war mongering. But in the end it wasn't a mistake that she learned from and her votes on Iran show that as well. So what Hillary has shown me is that she's underhanded and sleazy just like Bush. She doesn't learn from or admit mistakes just like Bush. I'm tired of it, and I want change. Hillary isn't a real change.
On this subject, you and I think alike. She would also operate her administration in the same walled-off, tight as a drum fashion as Bush. Her c
On this subject, you and I think alike. She would also operate her administration in the same walled-off, tight as a drum fashion as Bush. Her cabinet and adviser appointments would be based 99% on longtime personal loyalty instead of competence. It's just who she is. The same old, same old in many ways. That isn't enough change for me.
The Democratic Party gained six seats in the Texas House, a Republican Texas Senate seat, and picked up two seats in the congressional delegation in 2006. Considering the gerrymandering done by DeLay and company, the House seats were significant and for a state where "your vote doesn't count anyways," (something that always drives me crazy to hear or read, with all due respect), picking up 6 seats in the Texas House was pretty damn good. Shifting Texas away from GOP control will happen, and is happening, just not overnight. It will be a long process and take a lot of hard work. We could have had a really good shot at defeating Perry if there hadn't been a 3rd party candidate for governor. A real pity. What we are seeing in this thread is a perfect example of why the Democratic Party struggles and the GOP, discredited and rife with scandal, hangs around. Democrats spend more time fighting each other than fighting against the champions of big business and the rich, the Republican Party. Something to think about. For all the criticism I've received for saying I'd vote for Clinton if she gets the nod, I haven't received any praise for saying I'd vote for Obama if he does. Look, I was as idealistic as the next guy when I was younger. When McGovern ran in '72, I was twisting arms and telling everyone what a crook Nixon was, all the way up to the voting booth. You all saw how that went. (well maybe you weren't born yet, or a kid, but I won't hold that against anyone. ) I'm still very idealistic, but I'm a realist as well. We need to defeat the GOP in 2008. As I said, whichever Democrat wins the nomination will get my vote, my money, and whatever effort I can put into it. People, Nadir didn't help Gore get elected in 2000. Quite the opposite. Kinky didn't get Perry defeated, did he. The Kinkster, as much as I love the guy, may have helped elect him. You folks do what you want. I'm going to do what I can to defeat the GOP in 2008, whoever is running. And for what it's worth, I don't think Clinton will get the nomination. Impeach Bush.
Deckard, I agree with you on 3rd party candidates. Perot gave the 1992 election to Clinton and Nader threw it to Bush in 2000. The GOP would love it if Nader ran again next year. If Hillary gets the nod, I could see either Nader or Bloomberg possibly playing spoiler. If Edwards or Obama win the nomination, I betcha both guys stay put. There is a lot of disgust with Hillary among us independents. And it has nothing to do with her being a woman. It's too early to tell, but it's conceivable you guys could have a blowout election. Obviously most Dems feel like you do and the party would rally around her. But IMO, her selection guarantees a slim margin of victory IF the Dems win next year. In one way she might be the safe choice but in another sense she is incredibly risky. Her prior arguments about being the most electable Dem candidate may not be true. It's hard to say since Obama may not be completely vetted and tested yet.
I think she would be incredibly risky. It's why I've been against her getting the nomination since the "then unlikely" notion first appeared. As I mentioned earlier somewhere, she's been hammered non-stop for 15 years. I've listened to Rush Limbaugh's program many times, wanting to know what stuff he was tossing out to the gullible, and he's attacked her when it was a slow news day. Got nothing else to talk about? There's always something "on" Hillary Clinton. The built-in negatives are incredible. The lead she's had until recently always bothered me. It was like an inch deep and a mile wide. Bill has suffered much the same attention, but Bill has personality. Bill has charm. Bill can give a speech like few in many, many years. Bill can go into a room or in front of a crowd cold and get them in the palm of his hand. (I'm talking about Democrats) Hillary has none of that. It's why she's so stiff, especially in comparison to Bill. If she had half the natural ability of Obama's wife, she'd be lights out for the competition, regardless of the attacks over a decade and a half. I just don't think she has a shot. The GOP would love for her to get the nod. She's been primed for the worst kind of political assault, the kind that would make what she's being accused of doing now look like kid's stuff. The Clintons just aren't going to get back in the White House, in my opinion. If we didn't have term limits, Bill would still be President. We do and he isn't. I'll still repeat that I'd support her if she gets the nomination, but I just don't see it. Would she be a better President than George W. Bush if she did? Absolutely. It ain't going to happen. Trim Bush.
I don't have any idea if her Presidency would be too different from Bill's. Nobody does really. I do know what she's done with her campaign. I think it is much more rational to judge her based on her campaign and Senate record than to hope that she would be similar to her husband should she win. I've given reasons why I think the things about her I do. It is fine if you disagree with them, but they aren't imaginary, and I don't think it is irrational to look at those reasons, and decide that I don't like that style of politics, and leadership. She's the first campaign in history to make websites for the sole purpose of attacking a rival. Her campaign did it, and the only intent was to attack Obama. It wasn't to tout her qualifications or anything else. To say that is some like Bush and Rove would do seems accurate to me, especially when coupled with her other underhanded antics.
Obama/ Edwards or Edwards/ Obama anything else would be unacceptable. As far as blind party affiliation goes.......... isn't that what got us into this mess the past 7+ years. The re-election of Bush has got to be the biggest dumbf#ck decisioni in the history of our nation next to slavery.
Wow...comparing the election of a President to slavery. Are you sure about that? Why don't you just go ahead and overreact...no wait...you just did.
