The Case for CLINTON '08.

[Sensitivity]

Bill Clinton has never been more ready to be Lead the nation than he is now.
In 92 Clinton was a novice. Now he is READY. More ready than Edwards, surely, more
than Kerry, even more than Gore!

Who would have imagined -- Clinton now "Loves" George Bush (the Dad)
and has effectively broken the back anti-Clinton hatred in the Republican party.

His wife, Hillary, has endeared herself to many Republicans
and Independents by taking fairly compromised positions on issues
ranging from the War to Torture to Abortion rights. Hillary is
able to make the kind of compromises that long-time senators like
Kerry could not.

She has shown herself competent and diplomatic in negotiating with her fellow
Senators. She is actually truly experienced as an attorney, law-maker
and politician, even if historically in the shadow of her husband. She would be
excellent in the role of a titular "President" to Bill's effective role of
"Prime Minister" (regardless of the specific title -- e.g. Sec of State.)

The Clintons will win in '08.

And the rest of the world will understand this power arrangement.
The Clintons could together "uniquely" bring American out of the darkness
of world-wide opprobrium into the light of respectability and understanding
-- there is nothing about the Clinton's that the French would not understand.

[bryant69]

1. The one and only case for Clinton is that she could win

I don't doubt that she'd be better on foreign policy - but in reality it's hard to imagine someone doing worse. She's a sellout on most domestic issues, and her campaign would energize the Conservative Base and depress the Liberal Base.

I hope she doesn't run.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Sensitivity]

77. The CASE is that Hill is capable and Bill is fully ready and will be there

at the helm of state to steady the ship through trully dangerous waters.

[magnolia]

99. Question?

Can a former president run as Vice President?

[Sensitivity]

104. The combination of the 12th and the 22nd Amendment could PRECLUDE this

The 12th Amendment : "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the
office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the
United States."

This implies that if you are not eligible to the office of President you
are also not eligible for the office of Vice President.

Barring former two-term Presidents from running for Vice-President was not the
original intent, but that seems to be the effect.

Others may have more insight.

[WI_DEM]

2. You underestimate Hillary Clinton if you think she will take a back seat

to Bill. If she is elected president of the US, she will be president, not that Bill won't be a valued advisor.

[Sensitivity]

6. Bill Clinton in role of "1st Husband" is trully incredible.

[Xenotime]

76. It would be great to see him back in office.

It would be the best thing for this country that has ever happened.

[Sensitivity]

88. Yes, now that Bill is finally ready to be a great leader!

[Sensitivity]

81. Hillary has herself said that Bill is incomparable. She is not running

for herself.

[Nebraska_Liberal]

3. So how is cozying up to republicans a good thing?

Wasn't this the same argument the Kerry people made against Dean, that he4 is more "centrist?" How is it a good thing the Hillary compromises our core beliefs of pro-choice and anti-war?

[juajen]

90. Obviously, it negates some of the so-called "polarization.

N/T

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Deep13]

"...something seriously wrong with you!..."

That was unnecessary. I think an apology is in order.

[jackbourassa]

10. I don't.

This post is ridiculous.

[Sensitivity]

9. Look at the change in "dissapproval" numbers over time. Hillary-hatred

has abated. Her dissapproval is now below Gore and Kerry.

[jackbourassa]

11. Wait until the attack ads start...

Then we'll see where she's at.

Plus she does worse than Gore against McCain and Guilliani on head-to-head match-ups. Plus, her "dissapproval" numbers are FAR HIGHER than John Edwards, who will most likely be the one she will run against in the primaries.

God I pray she doesn't win the nomination. If she does we're SO screwed!

[Sensitivity]

14. Let's keep looking at the NUMBERS. Surprising what Clintons have done

in terms of their public image with the right.

[jackbourassa]

25. Are you crazy?

You think Republicans like Hillary Clinton?

You're pulling my leg, right? This is a joke, right?

Can you provide evidence of this or do you just go on message boards and cause trouble?

[Clark2008]

38. Good - let those two lightweights fight it out while a real

populist takes the lead.

Neither of them are populist (although John Edwards plays one on TV).

Oh - and Hillary won't win. She won't flip a single red state and she probably will lose us a couple of blue ones.

[Sensitivity]

89. Who is this "real populist" who is fully tested against Pug slime machine?

[magnolia]

85. Attack ads?

Attack ads need an element of surprise. EVERYBODY knows EVERYTHING there is to know about Hillary Clinton. Old news, we've heard it all, boring. If anyone is swiftboat-proof, it's Hillary.

A fresh new face sounds appealing. But this person would offer fresh new sins to be uncovered and shock the voting public with.

If we want a candidate that can focus on issues instead of constantly having to defend themselves, we need someone "seasoned".

[juajen]

91. Gee, what a foolish post!

[Imagevision]

57. Hillary hatred? - this too shall pass...

[Deep13]

5. HRC's Achille's heel:

She has alienated the base without gaining ground amoung the rabid liberals-will-sell-us-into-slavery crowd.

[jackbourassa]

21. Hillary has the worst of both worlds...

In every primary election the race always seems to come down to two candidates: the liberal/reformer/challenger of the status quo and the establishment candidate who is seem as more "moderate," but doesn't do much for the base.

Usually it comes down to "electability," with most Democrats holding their noses and supporting the establishment candidate because they want to win. However, Hillary is the establishment candidate this time who enjoys open hostility among the base...AND, she is the most unelectable candidate.

I honestly think she is BEATABLE in the primaries. She only polls 30% of the vote nationally, despite the higher name ID. This number only looks good because no one has really emerged yet to challenge her. People are still making up their minds who will be the "anti-Hillary." Remember this, when asked who they don't want...those same Democrats, by about 40%, say Hillary Clinton.

30% seems to be her ceiling.

[HamdenRice]

86. Very astute

she's the establishment moderate who is unelectable among moderate independents and republicans.

[blm]

7. And Clintons can continue covering up for BushInc, just like old times.

No need to worry about the books being opened on BushInc and all the ensuing mess that would make.

We really need to move on and ignore all the matters that brought us to 9-11 and Iraq war and oil profiteering, and drugrunning, and nuclear proliferation.

Be bipartisan and cover it all up together, America.

[fooj]

8. You're kidding, right?

has effectively broken the back anti-Clinton hatred in the Republican party.

Got any evidence to back that claim? Seems to me that Bill is STILL the Repukes whipping boy. Always has been. Always will be. The fact that Bill "loves" Poppy is repulsive. Not exactly a campaign issue, IMO.

Just my 2 cents...

[acmejack]

15. Clinton hatred in the real world.

Welfare "Reform", GATT, NAFTA, media consolidation. Well deserved condemnation. The much beloved "Big Dawg" was no friend to the working American. Why anyone would presume Ms. Clinton represents anything different is a complete and total mystery to me.

DLC politics are DLC politics, it doesn't matter how you dress that pig.

[Deep13]

18. "Why anyone would presume Ms. Clinton represents anything..."

Because she is not a robot or a clone of Bill.

[acmejack]

68. That is true.

It is rather tough to get her to say exactly where she stands. She prefers to maneuver carefully, like a ship in treacherous waters, relying on the comfort of the Luntzian focus group data. Never committing until the last possible moment. Perhaps I am overly hard on poor HRC, like a disillusioned former lover...

[Tellurian]

103. Kerry is a card carrying member of the DLC

and a Skull and Bonesman..

[zeemike]

12. It is not like we have no qualified candidates

Gore has the experience that Bill has and is our rightful president by the popular vote in 2000.
But Bill Clinton would be my first choice for Secretary of State and would make the world sigh in relief. Hillary is just fine where she is for now but I could see her in other positions in government later on, and even president once things have been put right in this country.

[Deep13]

16. We just have no candidates who know how to win.

:-(

[blm]

52. They knew HOW to win - DNC didn't secure election process for 4yrs they

were charged to do so - so many of the votes Gore and Kerry EARNED were suppressed or stolen.

[Deep13]

59. Coming down to a close race in one state each time means they blew it.

Yeah, Bush stole FL. That's bad. Really bad. Still, why didn't Gore take AR or TN? He's the first nominee to fail to win his home state since 1972. He could have won Ohio. Why didn't he staple himself to Bill Clinton? Why was he campaigning as his own man from the most anonymous office on earth?

And what about 2004? Yeah, Bush stole Ohio. No doubt. First of all, Kerry? Mike Dukakis' lt. governor? Beyond the wisdom of his selection as a nominee, that has to be the worst campaign I ever saw since, well, 2000. He made the same damn mistakes as Gore except he made them after Gore proved that they were mistakes. Howard Dean would not have taken the shit Kerry took. We would not have had to guess where he stood on anything. Edwards? Good thinking. We needed North Carolina. Richardson could have brought in New Mexico.

HRC is not an ideal candidate, but she does know how to fight.

[blm]

60. You need to read RFks article. They didn't steal just ONE state.

.

[Sensitivity]

105. Believe it. Wish we had evidence to take to impeachment hearings.

[Sensitivity]

20. Agree Both Gore and Kerry are more qualified than Hillary. But electoral

reality suggests that the Clinton's together could together win
more surely than either.

We must not discount either Bill maturity into a true leadership stature
or the "ripeness" of the time for a woman president.

[Clark2008]

40. What world do you live in?

Obviously NOT a red or purple state.

Hillary cannot flip any red or reddish-purple states and, electorally, we have to do that very thing to win.

[Bucky]

66. If you think we have any candidate beside Clinton, Gore, & Kerry you don't

watch enough TV commentators. They consistantly assure us that those are the only Democrats worth mentioning.
Now quit thinking so damn much and go watch some more television, young man.

[zeemike]

70. You smoked me out

Yes i am TV ignorant because I got rid of my satellite dish and now i get only one station clear enough to watch. I don't have to tell you which one it is, a Fox station.
I actually depend on people here to keep me informed, but I should have guessed that they are pushing Hillary or Kerry.

[juajen]

95. How condescending

As if a woman cannot put things right in this country! She's just fine cooking in that Senate kitchen. This thread proves to me that dems speak with forked tongues.

[HamdenRice]

13. Yeaahhh! Then she turn over healthcare to "networks" of insurance co's

I'm really looking forward to Hillary "solving" the health care crisis by meeting behind closed doors with health insurance companies and big pharma, shutting out patients and doctors, like she tried to do in '93. I can just imagine what wonderful plan she will come up with after having sat in the Senate club of millionaires for several years, soliciting corporate donations.

Yeah, I'm really psyched about a Hillary presidency.

[Deep13]

19. "...like she tried to do in '93..."

Jesus, I wish she had succeeded.

[Dora]

17. End Aristocratic Political Dynasties!!!

SAY NO TO CLINTON IN 2008! KEEP HER IN THE SENATE!


Your ID puts a song in my head....



Sensitivity, sensitivity, I'm just loaded with that.
In this one word is the epitome of the aristocrat.
Sensitive soul and sensitive stomach, sensitive hands and feet:
This is the blessing, also the curse, of being the true elite.

Common people don't know what exquisite agony
Is suffered by gentle people like me ....

[Deep13]

22. Aristocratic?? The Clintons??

Yah know, they're not exactly old money.

[Dora]

30. "Old money" is only one facet of aristocracy. There are others.

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

The Ancient Greek term aristocracy meant a system of government with "rule by the best". This is the first definition given in most dictionaries. The word is derived from two words, "aristos" meaning the "best" and "kratein" "to rule". Aristocracies have most often been hereditary plutocracies (see below), where a sense of historical gravitas and noblesse oblige demands high minded action from its members.

As a government term, aristocracy can be contrasted with:

autocracy - "rule by a single individual".

meritocracy - "rule by those who most deserve to rule". While this has on the surface a nearly similar meaning to "aristocracy", the term "meritocracy" has usually implied a much more fluid form of government in which one is not considered "best" for life, but must continually prove one's "merit" in order to stay in power.

plutocracy - "rule by the wealthy". In actual practice, aristocrats are often just plutocrats whose wealth allows them to portray their own virtues as the "best" ones.

oligarchy - "rule by the few". Whether an aristocracy is also an oligarchy depends entirely upon one's idea of what are a "few".

monarchy - "rule by a single individual". Historically, the vast majority of monarchs have been aristocrats themselves. However, they have also been very often at odds with the rest of the aristocracy, since it was composed of their rivals. The struggle between a ruling dynastic family and the other aristocratic families in the same country has been a central theme of medieval history.

democracy - "rule by the people". For the past two centuries, democracy has often presented itself as the greatest enemy of aristocracy. The linguistic conflict between them began with the American Revolution ideal of all men being "created equal", quickly followed by the French Revolution (the first in Europe), and continued throughout the 19th century, occasionally flaring up in violent episodes such as the revolutions of 1848. Arguably, the end of the First World War in 1918 marked the final linguistic victory of "democracy" over "aristocracy" as a preferred term for government.

[Strawman]

79. It's celebocracy

That's what it is. Celebrity and brand recognition. It's a sign of a lazy political class and lazy electorate. I don't like it.

[NoPasaran]

48. No kidding! The real Democratic aristocrats are the Kennedys anyway

But I have yet to read a post on DU demanding that they be banned from politics.

[Deep13]

56. Well you won't read it from me.

I'm from MA originally and wrote an "X" (literally) for Ted Kennedy the first time I ever voted. (1988)

[Dora]

80. I don't think the Clintons should be banned from politics....

I do believe that another Clinton in the White House is not a good idea.

[speedoo]

23. She has also shown that she does not care about winning back the Senate.

She should get her ass out on the campaign trail, as John Kerry is doing.

And please don't use the argument that she is campaigning for her own re-election this year, while Kerry is not. She could stop working for her own re-election now and still win in a landslide.

[Deep13]

26. Uh, she's campaigning alright.

I saw her at a fundraiser for Sherrod Brown in Cleveland.

[speedoo]

29. Excellent!

Unfortunately, I have not heard that she is doing anything for any of the other 8 or 9 dem senate candidates who are fighting for their lives... and ours.

Oh wait, she wrote a check for LaMont. BFD.

[Sensitivity]

100. Bill Clinton just began a multi-state national campaigning tour!

[WI_DEM]

31. You are misinformed

She gave a substantial amount of money to the Senate Campaign Committee, the NY Democratic Party, and the House Congressional Campaign Committee. She also has made through her committee substantial contributions to individual candidates including $5000 to Ned Lamont. She has campaigned for several candidates in this election cycle.

I'm not a Hillary supporter but I do think we should not misrepresent her.

[npincus]

24. she'll never win- she's the one the GOP wants

every Repub, Rwinger and Fundie would vote against her, and there are enough misogynists to go around in the gerneral population. Nope, I'm a woman but I don't want to chance it this time. We've suffered enough under GOP rule.

[Sensitivity]

28. Which Democratic primary candidate is going to make this argument

against the Clintons -- Edward? He is to soft. Kerry? He is too principled.

For good or ill, there is an inevitability about it.

[wakeme2008]

27. Stop with the Torture is OK if Bush says so Hillary thread

:grr:

[Sensitivity]

32. Let's be honest! Which Dem will ATTACK THE CLINTONS in the Primaries?

[Deep13]

39. All of 'em.

:dilemma:
She'll be the one to beat.

[blm]

62. Whichever one Clintons screwed over the most. You think McAuliffe ignored

securing the election process for four years on his own advice?

You think Carville was feeding Matalin inside info on his own?

You think Bill Clinton told Kerry to support antigay state amendments because he really believed it was a winning strategy?

I'd say it's a safe guess that Clinton did NOT want Kerry in the WH because everyone knows Kerry believes in opening the books.

Clinton covered up all outstanding matters on IranContra, BCCI and Iraqgate and CIA drugrunning for Poppy Bush. They need Hillary in there to continue the coverup for BushInc.

[Sensitivity]

73. Wish I understood why this matters when Pres can pardon themselves

[blm]

74. Even if they can pardon themselves, are citizens respected when truths are

hidden and covered up? Isn't that the very root of all dysfunction?

Hey Democrats, the Truth Matters

By Robert Parry
May 11, 2006

My book, Secrecy & Privilege, opens with a scene in spring 1994 when a guest at a White House social event asks Bill Clinton why his administration didn’t pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as the Iraqgate secret support for Saddam Hussein’s government and clandestine arms shipments to Iran.

Clinton responds to the questions from the guest, documentary filmmaker Stuart Sender, by saying, in effect, that those historical questions had to take a back seat to Clinton’s domestic agenda and his desire for greater bipartisanship with the Republicans.

Snip...

‘Politicized’ CIA

After winning Election 1992, Clinton also rebuffed appeals from members of the U.S. intelligence community to reverse the Reagan-Bush “politicization” of the CIA’s analytical division by rebuilding the ethos of objective analysis even when it goes against a President’s desires.

Snip...

Clinton’s approach also reflected a lack of appreciation for the importance of truth in a democratic Republic. If the American people are expected to do their part in making sure democracy works, they need to be given at least a chance of being an informed electorate.

Yet, Clinton – and now some pro-Iraq War Democrats – view truth as an expendable trade-off when measured against political tactics or government policies. In reality, accurate information about important events is the lifeblood of democracy.

Though sometimes the truth can hurt, Clinton and the Democrats should understand that covering up the truth can hurt even more. As Clinton’s folly with the Reagan-Bush scandals should have taught, the Democrats may hurt themselves worst of all when helping the Republicans cover up the truth.

[Sensitivity]

75. Thanks for the info. I had not followed this line of analysis

[hlthe2b]

33. God, that is insulting to assume that Hillary would take a back

seat to Bill and that he would be the defacto President! Say whatever you will about either one of them--and their marriage, but it is clear that they have a true partnership and it is one based on mutual respect. Bill is not a misognynist and he has respect for Hillary's abilities, intellect and beliefs. He would not step over the line, but would perform whatever supportive role was requested of him. If he were SOS, that would be great.. Maybe he would continue his foundation work and only be there as a supportive spouse and counsel. Either way, he would not step over the line of her authority.

Now, I'm not at all sure I want to see this happen and I have major qualms about a HRC presidency, but it would not be because I believe her inferior to Bill in any way or not up to the job. It would be policy differences with respect to HRC's positions...

God, the patronizing attitudes towards women really do come out some times--even around here! :shrug:

[Sensitivity]

35. In Most Countries Bill would be EXPECTED to run for Pres again.

Nothing is wrong with the President/Prime Minister division of roles and responsibilites
in leading in most countries. Nothing is wrong with the nation wanting Bill Clinton
in the White House playing a fairly co-equal role with Hillary.

The fact is that Hillary Clinton IS THE LEADING CHOICE OF DEMOCRATS. And it IS
largely because of Bill Clinton as her partner. Hillary is very competent, but would
not be leading without being the wife of Bill Clinton.

[Deep13]

41. You mean Bill would not have been president...

...without HRC's political mind and driving personality.

[Sensitivity]

43. Some truth to that. Hillary prob has more backbone than Bill.

[blm]

64. Bill wouldn't have been prez without Dems in congress pummelling Bush1

for four years with bad headlines from IranContra, BCCI and Iraqgate.

In return, Bill palled around with Poppy Bush and PUBLICALLY supported Bush2 and his policies throughout his first term.

[Clark2008]

44. According to who?

I see the polls, but they must only poll uninformed idiots because no DEMOCRAT I know plans to vote for her.

Honestly, check out all the Democratic website. These people are yellow dog Dems. They WILL vote in the primaries and HRC polls about 4 percent. Gore, Clark and Feingold lead amongst Democratic observers - i.e. those who WILL vote (not will likely vote, but WILL vote) in the primaries.

Polls are a gauge, not a fact. If we take both the media-pushed polls, the Democratic observers polls and, well, the fact that Lieberman led those same media-pushed polls in 2002, then I think we get a more clear picture of Hillary's popularity. I pin it at about 12 percent.

[hlthe2b]

55. I appreciate your clarification..... n/t

[Mass]

34. This would make the election of another woman president impossible

for decades.

You are basically positing that she cannot be elected on her own merits, but that her husband would be a shadow president (just last Cheney for Bush?).

This is in fact one of my major pb with the idea of her being the nominee. Whether she is competent or not to be president, many of her supporters are selling her as "8 more years of Bill".

I am ready to listen to anybody who will argue that Hillary can be elected and govern even if Bill drops dead tomorrow, but, for me, any argumentation that is built about the fact that Bill will help her is a big NO.

[Sensitivity]

36. Why? Hillary is in a UNIQUE situation. Her prominence IS based on Bill

A lot of Presidential candidates get to prominence based on conditions that have
nothing to do with merit.

Most prominently, it usually as to do with WEALTH, FAME, or ANCESTRY --
e.g. FDR, JFK, Reagan, Bush, Bayh, Edwards, McCain, Kerry, Gore ....

[Mass]

37. It is exactly the problem - Either she can be president on her own right

or she should not run.

everything else is demeaning to women in general and to her in particular.

[wisteria]

83. Exactly, the woman knows no shame. She claims she is tough and

independent minded, then it appears she is going to run using her husband's name,influence,connections and record. These are truly not signs of a real leader.

[Sensitivity]

92. What would you say about a Mrs. Rooseveldt, if the 2-term limit had

existed then?

[juajen]

96. "It appears" is the operative word here!

N/T

[SmokingJacket]

42. How about we just wait and see who's running?

And then we all vote and see who wins.

Setting people up and knocking people down this early in the campaign before we have ANY idea who's going to be in the primary is just a BAD idea.

[Sensitivity]

46. Are you saying the Clintons are NOT now running? Carville, Begala,

and the whole fundraising and strategy war-room meen nothing?

[SmokingJacket]

49. No, but we can't make any decisions until we know who all is

running.

I might vote for Hillary Clinton if the other candidates are no good.

But if they're great, she would probably be low on my list.

It's WAY too premature to make up my mind or to do much more than watch and listen. Attacking Democrats, or baiting people into attacking democrats, can only hurt us at this point.

[lastknowngood]

45. Case aginst her she is a woman. Can't win

n/t

[Sensitivity]

47. This is as slap against 52% of the electorate -- WOMEN VOTERS

Do you really think that women don't work for
their interests as a group?

[NaturalHigh]

50. No way I'll ever vote for Hillary.

Take that any way you want. I know we're supposed to vote for whomever is anointed by the Democratic party, but I will never mark a ballot for Hillary.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

51. In the immortal words of Opus: "Blecchh."

The "case" you made for the Clinton's is very convincing. Hopefully it will convince more progressives that the days of "not as bad" politics is over.

[StraightDope]

53. I won't vote for Hillary...

And I KNOW that I'm not the only Dem who feels that way, either. If the choice is between her and a Repub, I'll be proverbially staying home.

Just something to keep in mind as '08 steadily approaches.

[Sensitivity]

54. Be Real! Is a new RW era a bearable option. Hill and Bill could bring

back an era of hope and accountability, even if they are not your
"best of all worlds"

[Imagevision]

58. Bill has a year and a half to change your minds, Hillary & Bill could be

easily greater then the first go round because they have the experience to blow away any competition, certainly better then both Bush's combined!

[blm]

63. Bill needs Hillary to continue the coverup for BushInc that he started

when he closed the books on IranContra, BCCI, Iraqgate and CIA drugrunning.

Clinton knew Kerry would open those books so he had McAuliffe stand down and NOT COUNTER the four years of RNC vote suppression, purged voter rolls, or challenge their control over voting machines.

And it sure is odd that someone who claims to be concerned about secrecy doesn't mind that Clinton closed the books on BushInc instead of letting Kerry pursue the outstanding matters on BCCI as Kerry wanted to do.

In fact, Imagevision, CLINTON never even MENTIONS the BCCI matter even ONCE in his book. Considering it was all about the terrorists and the their international banking networks, don't you think it merited a mention?

That darn Clinton - just can't find too many ways to keep covering up for Poppy Bush and all his fascist, terrorist-funding CRONIES.

[Sensitivity]

72. Wonder how the sins of the father compares with the crimes of the son

Poppys evil deeds seems pale indiscretions compared with the
horrows we witness today.

[blm]

78. The son's crimes are a CONTINUATION - the blinders on Paki nuke

proliferation are deliberate because its roots are in BCCI.

[zulchzulu]

61. Hillary will have dropped out of the '08 primaries by Super Tuesday

With no wins and a bleeding campaign, she will drop out. You can count on it.

[Bucky]

65. Probably right. Her support is a mile wide and dime deep

She'll sure suck out a lot of money in the process, however. Harry Reid is right; she belongs in the Senate as majority leader. She's like our generation's Ted Kennedy.

[Sensitivity]

106. We may be surprised by the passion among Hillary supporters

[MrSlayer]

67. I might vote for her if she promised Bill would really be the President.

But I don't know that even that would be enough. I want someone new in there.

[WildEyedLiberal]

69. Am I the only person who thinks this post is brilliant satire?

"His wife, Hillary, has endeared herself to many Republicans
and Independents by taking fairly compromised positions on issues
ranging from the War to Torture to Abortion rights."

I don't think the OP is SERIOUSLY saying it's a good thing to be compromised on the war or torture.

[LSK]

71. maybe it is Stephen Colbert posting

:rofl:

[WildEyedLiberal]

94. Truthiness!

:rofl:

[Sensitivity]

102. I have seen Old Bill Clinton in action -- truly toughtful and commanding

But, what does it mean when the truly best justification
for one person's candidacy is the
qualifications of another?

[Lilith Velkor]

107. Oh, OK, it is satire

It's brilliant. Too late to rec but here's a :kick:

[wisteria]

82. I hope you are wrong. The Clinton's always put themselves first,

the country and the Democrat party second. Our party is still trying to recover from the Clinton administration. They did a lot of good, but a lot of bad also. Personally, I do not think either of them are in this for the right reasons this time. It is not so much taking our country forward and uniting us all,doing right by us and the country, as it is a power grab.
We desperately need leaders with military backgrounds. It will be a long time until the Middle East is straightened out.We have NK and China to deal with. President Clinton avoided doing the right thing militarily sometimes because it wasn't the popular thing to do and polls indicated it would not benefit his popularity. Senator Clinton follows polls and makes decisions the same way, and her position on the Senator Armed Service Committee is not enough qualifications,IMO to lead and command our troops.
Finally, I do not like dynasties. We can see how well it worked out with the Adams, and the Bush's.

[oc2002]

84. No No No No NO! Enough of Clintons already.,

Hillary will never win and Bill (although I may personaly like him) has too much bagage.

It is a lose lose for the Democrats.

We may as well not even vote.

[Katzenjammer]

87. There is *NO* case for *ANY* Clinton in '08

Except maybe as Republicans.

[savemefromdumbya]

93. maybe she doesn't want to do 2008?

although I could see a Clinton/Obama ticket

[Sensitivity]

97. And she is holding an unused $20 mill campaign fund for WHAT?

She should immediately transfer it all to help win
congressional seats across the country.

[AtomicKitten]

98. no thanks

I won't support anyone in the primary that didn't have the good sense to say "no" on the IWR.

[Swamp Rat]

101. Insane in the membrane

Insane in the brain!
Insane in the membrane
Insane in the brain!

Insane in the membrane
Plenty insane
Got no brain!
Insane in the membrane
Insane in the brain!

"...I think I'm going crazy..."