Molly Ivins: NOT. BACKING. HILLARY.

PB

Succinct and spot on, as always! :applause:

she is still the same Hillary that put protecting the flag ahead of protecting our nation from a reckless war of choice in Iraq.

I hope it that soon it will be too loud for any candidate to ignore.

We're mostly adults here -- fully literate and capable of reading without your help. Post the text, the link, your comments, and let it go.

And I doubt many others did either.

Here's an idea -- start a poll. :eyes:

Amazing how all the Hillary supporters all showed up at the same time.

I also think her support of Nader can not be forgotten..

Lots of us did.

No one realized at the time in our wildest nightmares how completely insanely horribly bad this presidency was going to be. We knew it would be awful because the Republicans would be bad, but very few people knew how bad it was going to get.

YES, let's tar and feather everyone who voted the way you didn't SIX YEARS AGO, when they're trying to wake people up now.

My cousin's son worked with Hillary at a law firm in Arkansas years ago. My hesitancy with her is not just from her political history.

No one said anything about "tar and feathers." And I didn't say that I was supporting Hillary.

I'm not sure what you call it, but it's oh so relevant now that she voted for Nader, when any progressive voice that we have in Texas is speaking some sense, and people are actually listening for a change.

and have since the end of Clinton's time as governor. My friends and neighbors have lived here even longer. The most support the lady gets from them is lukewarm--they'll vote for her if she's the candidate. And yes, the opinion was formed from her time in Arkansas.

Edited for spelling.

would have known all they needed to know about him.

I knew plenty about him.

But my Democratic vote was NOT going to count here, same as Molly's. Good thing that the situation has changed somewhat in 6 years.

Excuse my fit of idealism. In 2000, I had just married a Canadian, who convinced me that nothing in this country would ever change unless we had a viable third party like Canada does. It was the only non-Democratic vote I have ever cast (except protest votes for Libertarians in local races against Republicans where there is no Democratic candidate).

And what a way to unify our ranks by constantly bringing up an election that occurred over 6 years ago that we cannot change.

Don't have time to read it all right now, and that helps me decide if I do want to read it all later.

The boldface was not that big a deal. You need to attenuate the caffeine in your morning Starbucks, "Buzz".

If Hillary really wants to make a difference she should
stay in the senate .....

If Hillary wins 2 terms that will make 38 years of a Bush or Clinton in
Power (bush had 8 as V.P.).

This country needs real leadership and not calculations on what one
should speak out on.

And she backed Nader in 2000...

Calls her judgement into question as far as I am concerned!!!

That voting for Nader in 2000 was a wise thing to do...then yes I question her judgement...

And naively encouraged Democrats to vote for Nader...

that was my vote....to give the liberals more of a voice because it was clear from that election that Democrats wanted nothing to do with liberals. I stand by my vote and personally do not give a hoot about whether Democratic loyalists think I am unqualified to say anything on this site because of it.

I have been voting Democratic ever since...not because the Democrats are the greatest party in the world that I would give my life for, but because they are the best shot we have of getting rid of Bush and removing corporate influence from our goverment.

Molly speaks for a LOT of us liberal Texans. I'd vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination (because what other choice do I have in Ohio?), but that does not mean I am going to support her one iota during the primary. Her ideas represent the 1990's Democrats...which I hope is a moribund ideology in the face of so much activism nowadays.

I cannot stand triangulation, keep the powder dry, and bipartisanship because all three of these principles now have a body-count.

I completely agree with your post. I live in Texas 91, a district so rethug my vote never counts as anything more than a minor protest. I voted for Nader in 2000 and have voted straight Democrat ever since, for the same reason you state, ZI. Anyone who thinks Texas could have gone to anyone but Bush in 2000 needs their head examined, so as a Texas voter, the candidate I chose in 2000 was more a statement of what principles and ideas I stand for than who I thought would win, at least that's the way I saw it on election day in 2000.

As far as Hillary is concerned, I think Molly's editorial was right on a year ago and right on today. The reasons she states are significant, but I'll add something. There are Democratic candidates who can swing Republican voters, but Hillary is not one of them. The people I'm surrounded with here in Texas and some friends and family members in other states will have nothing to do with her. Most of these people I've talked with are politically ignorant, but they still vote. Hey, I'm pretty far from being politically astute, but nearly everyone I talk to knows even less than me. In my opinion, she cannot win the presidency because there are too many of these zombie voters and they will never go to her side. She's not a compelling speaker like her husband. In fact, she is a boring speaker and that is a huge disadvantage. Look at the pandering to the zombies she attempted with the flag thing - that fell flat, and if you can't get those people with a burning flag, what can you possibly use?

The one thing she can do is suck negative rethug attention away from the other Democratic candidates during the primaries. Rush Limbaugh and all the idiots he commands will destroy her campaign with falsehoods before it ever starts, so I don't think she's really a serious candidate, or at least she won't be for long.

This next presidential election cannot be about another wealthy Northeasterner vs. the Bush crime regime. There's too much similarity to the average zombie voter. They are finally coming around to the idea that Bush is a fucking idiot and doesn't give a shit about anything except taking care of the oil. But that just puts him in the same boat as some other rich Yankee politician, only with Bush you know it's about the oil and you don't necessarily know what the Yankee is after. Still, the one thing Bush has going for him is that they still believe Bush has balls and is serious about protecting America from this terror nonsense. These play-nice rich Yankee Democrats are viewed as wimps. Right or wrong that's the way it comes across. John Kerry basically had the presidency given to him by the end of the primary cycle - all he had to do was ride it out. But he didn't go for the throat when the Swift Boat ads came out. He wasn't a compelling debater or speaker, either, but it was the fact that he sat back and took the abuse instead of shouting, "at least I went to the battle, you draft-dodging piece of shit!" You can't say something like that and be polite about it - no, that would destroy your career and it could backfire, oh no! But if he'd done even the polite version of that sentiment and given Bush the kick in the balls he deserved over that, we'd be arguing over the size of the coming home parade for our Iraq veterans right now. The fact is he did nothing about it and we all paid for it. His popularity basically dwindled as people were exposed to him more. I voted for him and prayed like hell he'd win, but I knew it was going to be close and doubt even crept in toward the end. And it turned out he didn't win (or if he did, it was still close enough to "fix").

The next Democratic candidate needs to be someone who can deliver a crushing defeat to the Bush crime regime. John Kerry couldn't do it in 2004 - as great a candidate as he was to anyone who took the time to find out about him or Bush. And Hillary can't do in 2008. You'll hear that she's a socialist because she said "it takes a village" or that she was the real power behind the throne when her husband was president (which is automatically a bad thing to right wing idiots) and tons of other things that are completely out of whack. The entire media machine has been salivating over her inevitable candidacy since the 90s, and you can be guaranteed they'll jump all over her with tabloid feverishness.

Her only chance is if Bush and Cheney are impeached, but even then I think it's a gamble. I don't want to gamble. I want to crush the rethugs to the point where they have to break into new little parties, come back together over several years and change their name to play ball in politics again. You can't be polite with a bully and you can't win intellectually with them. But you can smack them down publicly and shame them into irrelevance. Honestly, would Hillary do that? No, and that's why I won't support her until her name is on a ballot as the Democratic nominee for president.

I like your analysis, especially because you have your ear to a very important ground, viz., that of republican drones. You put Hillary's candidacy and Kerry's campaigning as seen by them in clear terms. It is also that many of us felt during the 2004 election, and what we feel in terms of the 2008 Clinton campaign.

I also liked this:


I think that the crushing of the Republican party is the prerequisite for any chance of bringing the US back from the brink. If the Republican party is not wholly crushed in 2008, it will keep popping up everywhere, in new disguises. What I think many of us here are now fearing is that, 2006 elections, Pelosi, 100hr law-making etc notwithstanding, the Democratic party as it now stands does not have the leadership principled and strong enough to do the job. It is for certain that Hillary is not the party leader who will do what must needs be done.

Love you, Molly. But I ain't listenin' to you.

Honestly, nobody even bothers to study the peculiarities of the Electoral College anymore.

I can lecture fully on the Electoral College if you want. I don't care if she changed anything by her vote. My point is she picks bad candidates.

I want to see how her vote changed the outcome of the EC vote.

Reread my post.

Then, you brought up a counter-point saying she voted for a bad candidate. OK. I get that. However, you still haven't addressed my question on the EC vote. You said it doesn't matter. My question now is "Why doesn't it matter"?

Read my post. I didn't say the EC didn't matter. I said your objection to my post didn't matter.

Since you said, "I didn't say the EC didn't matter," that satisfies my own query.

:hi:

I wasn't happy with the Dems politicking then, when Gore was still running under residual DLC control and earlier was campaigning as "not Bill Clinton" instead of himself. Since that time he's grown a lot and away from the DLC, and I would full heartedly support him now.

I would have voted for Nader not so much as a vote for Nader then, but as a means to give the Green Party more viability then when he was running on their ticket. I wanted them to get matching funds the next time if they got a high enough percentage. I voted for the Greens against Diane Feinstein instead for this reason and due to my displeasure with DiFi at the time, who was a lot more of a shoe-in than Gore was here in California.

I think Molly is basically saying the same thing. We need to have someone representing a majority of AMERICANS, not supporting corporate agenda that is being bought and paid for with the money floating around on Capitol Hill. Before a lot of us would touch Hillary Clinton, we would need to see some standing up to the corporate money machine instead of jumping in bed with it like she's been doing with Rupert Murdoch, and also in record setting fashion going away from public campaign financing to start inflating the hell out of campaign financing by her and her competitors this time around.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2007/01/26/EDGC7N75S71.DTL

That ISN'T the move that a candidate would make that would eventually choose to put in place public campaign financing at a national level. That to me is THE MOST important issue I'm judging candidates on this time around, since it is the only way we bring down the corporatocracy. The real battle isn't about "the left vs. the right", or "Democrat vs. Republican". It is about throwing off the controls of the corporatocracy, which controls the Republican Party now, and controls a good enough chunk of the Dems as well to help them put in place their own one party rule system, even if they try to make it an illusion that there are multiple voices with folks like HRC running in campaigns.

Though this article is a year old, as people note, it still rings true. Speaking of Molly, is she healthy again or is she still absent from much writing. I've not seen a lot of recent writing on her part. Wishing her well, as we need more articles like this the next two years.

this thread was just posted about Molly....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2704764

Let's all think good thoughts for her.

... as much as God will allow an agnostic to pray for something/someone.

When I first saw this thread and the article she wrote, she seemed to feisty and well again from what I heard of her being ill a month or two ago and not having many articles out there. Before I saw the date of the article, I was hoping that was a good sign that she'd made a comeback. Sorry to hear that she's still fighting the tough battle that she's fighting! Molly, fight this off because we need to have you to help us fight with us over the next two years!

:shrug:

I often think of whether or not I should have joined nadertrader.org, since I was (and still am) in a red state.
If I could have been assured that someone in Florida would have changed to Gore, I would have held my nose and voted for (expletive deleted).

;-)

:rofl:

From an appearance by Al From on C-Span's Washington Journal on October 25th, 2005. Al From listed "our candidates" for President--Clinton, Warner, Vilsack and Bayh. Only Hillary Clinton and Tom Vilsack remain.

I'm sure From didn't predict how long they would remain in the race.

I'm sorry that Kerry dropped out because it's healthy to have a corps of strong candidates. I look forward to Gen. Clark entering the fray. He'll provide a "Jim Webb" type flavor to the mix.

Tell ya what, Molly. If Clinton is the nominee, DON'T support her. And encourage all "real progressives" not to support her. And just on the outside chance you can sway enough "real progressives" to sit out the election or vote third party, don't whine when we have a President McCain. Or President Romney. Don't write anymore columns or books on how evil the Republicans are. Because YOU will be partially responsible for giving us another Republican president.

someone else posted the same article.

However, for some here it's mother's milk to review Molly's two cents.

You and everyone of us shoud keep getting the message across. Hillary would be a disaster for the Democrats and for America.


John

Stunningly simple in logic, but ferociously complicated upon execution.

That same majority was voicing the same opinions for the past 6 years about environmental concerns, but the GOP allowed continual and accelerating erosion of the environment anyway. Clearly, it is not the base of voters that has Hillary and all the other politicians running to "the center", but those whose influence really matters. $$$

So let's see. Didn't vote for Gore, didn't like Kerry and is not going to support Hillary.

Now, I don't want Hillary either but thus far she's two for two in writing against the best hopes of not having a George W Bush Presidency, which by the way has been a disaster for every liberal cause she claims to hold dear.

Sorry Molly, your relevency on this topic is nil.

Rp

She was accusing him of "having no Elvis" and being boring. Exactly how was he supposed to change that? Put a fucking Clown outfit on and scream, "LOOK AT ME!"?

Sorry she made the same attacks Republican pundits made on Kerry and in essence she told her readers, 'it doesn't matter his substance, his style is lacking and we don't want him.'

Great message to convey.

Rp

She really hated Kerry... :sarcasm:

"The more I look into his record, the more impressed I am. One of the real shames of this campaign is the attack on Kerry's war record -- outright lies, the lot of it."


http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/1/2004/975

My recollection was that she slammed Kerry at times, but when the spectre of Bush re-election loomed, she decided she ought to join the better team.

Too little and way too late, if she waited until the date of that article (10/28/2004) to speak in favor of Kerry.

I think she has good progressive views at times, but like most pundits is too quick to jump to conclusions and attack without getting the facts. As you quote, "The more I look into his record, the more impressed I am." Gee, maybe she could have looked more closely at his record a little sooner?

I'm pretty much in agreement with her about Hillary. But I also agree that she isn't the most credible messenger on the topic.

I sent this to Howard Dean. I do NOT support Hillary and the only way she can get the nomination is if she wins all the primaries. And the only way that can happen is if the pubs pull a lieberman; they will all turn out and vote for her. SHE is the one that they want to run against because they could beat her even if they run Mickey Mouse against her.

Molly rocks

Nader again? That worked out well last time. I love Molly, but sometimes you have to hold your nose and vote for your least favorite choice in order to avoid the hellish mess we now find ourselves in. I'm not a Hillary fan, either, but if she's the candidate she'll get my vote. My primary vote will most likely be for Edwards or Obama.

I'll write in Al Gore and Gov. Brian Schweitzer of Montana.

with Duncan Hunter and Sam Brownback for 4 years. Voting for a minority candidate makes sense if you live in a country with a parliamentary form of government where they will actually have a voice. That's not what we have. It boils down to Democratic and Republican. If you vote for Cousin Charlie, you're giving the Republicans an advantage.

IMO most of us "no corporate rule nor dynasty" democrats will write-in Dennis Kucinich. ;)

regardless if Hillary or a Repuke becomes President.

And since I live in CT, if Hillary can't win CT, which went for Gore and Kerry, she's in real trouble across the nation. It won't be my vote that screws her. She would have screwed herself.

SHE'S FROM TEXAS and therefore was allowed to vote her conscience instead of the DLC candidate DON'T YOU FREEKIN UNDERSTAND?????

if Republicans hold onto the White House we WILL NOT END THIS WAR and we WILL NOT HAVE A PRAYER OF HAVING UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE. It astonishes me the willingness of some to help hand a victory to someone who might be as bad as or worse than George W. Bush. I'm more thankful than ever my husband is a Canadian as well as an American. Go ahead and vote your conscience, but say a prayer a whole lot of others don't.

Molly (and my) vote for Nader in 2000 were HARMLESS and somewhat cleansing and liberating.

Neither of us contributed .00000000000000001% to that f*cker bush stealing the election that Gore won!

un-backing is a plus for Hillary.

are prouder than hell that we backed Dean.

And oh yeah...that 50 state strategy thing was such a failure. :eyes:

it comes to candidates is still bad. I am not for Hillary, but after this article, I feel she will get it.

The "Republican-lite" are afraid of the majority of people who want America run FOR the people.

Ellen Goodman (who is very pro-HClinton) on his program.

I think it would make for an interesting evening on tv.

I read about her here on DU and research it, the more I'm inclined to shut up and vote for the biggest liberal that's willing to wear the big liberal hat.

less than 10% of the posters on DU have more than 50% of the posts on this thread, all on-point with "the Nader meme".

Six years since 2000, and a few vociferous people still think that when the Democratic party had ignored liberals for over 20 years that the votes are still owed to them. Not one mention of the over 100,000 Democrats out of Florida that voted for Bush that year (could have been more).

Nope...it is all Nader-suporter's fault that Bush stole the election. Not the Republicans...not the Democrats (who put together a poor legal strategy and couldn't convince enough of their registered voters to vote for Gore)...not the media.....but Nader....all by his lonesome. Only a great fool would look at a multivariate problem like Florida 2000 and pick out only one variable on which to place all of the blame. Wwll, a great fool or a loyalist.

Sure...I do not like Nader that much, now, but I do agree with what he says about both parties being too corporate. "Not a dime's worth of difference" is hyperbole, but the essential fact is still clear....with nearly half of the Democrats leaning corporate, we essentially have one party on corporate issues.

Well, we certainly did back then. Many Democrats have embraced the new reality within the party and realize that corporate power has gone way too far. Hillary, judging from her voting record, is not one of them.


Shutting out Nader suporters six years after the fact = Democratic McCarthyism

how there are so many bots who can't quit the Nader meme. They are like brownshirted storm troops and do nothing to help the dems embrace a more progressive message. Everytime Nader comes up they become intolerant thought police. Truly amazing.

go to Hillary.com and watch it. She is against the Iraq war and wants us out. She wants universal health care...worth watching and I'm not a Hillary supporter (yet)

IWR. That was a deal killer for, I would venture to say, most of us. There's more, of course, but that was one of those do-or-die moments in history and she failed. Miserably. For nothing but political reasons.

Feel free to use direct quotes from this post if you need filler.

Bush administration's lies, or the refusal to take the right, albeit politically unpopular, position.

...unsettling, yes.

Someone refusing to apologize for their lack of judgement, or spinelessness is unforgivable.

with corporate elitists. Who does HRC really represent. She has mega money backing her. It don't come from the common folk. We desperately need to get money out of politics. HRC won't do that.

I'm sure Hillary is a great person, but where was the backbone when it was needed? How we could we trust her?

You have just convinced me to vote for HILLARY!

Now that I know you're against her that tells me she has a good chance of being the next Democratic nominee.

Actually, Molly's opposition to HRC seems well-grounded in the facts.

Furthermore, HRC has managed to piss off as many people as possible from every political stripe. Republicans think she's going to take their guns away, divorce Bill and marry a woman right after her inauguration. Democrats are as sharply divided on her as on any candidate I've ever seen, and for good reason -- her supporters seem intent on impugning her opponents, and her opponents are angry and annoyed at her "triangulation." Independents see her as unelectable. When has all of this ever been the basis of a successful campaign for ANYTHING?

Molly says what I mean when I can only mutter "fuck Hillary"!

and I agree with all of them.

.. the HRC supporters don't address the allegations made, they just go after the messenger.

Clue for those on the caboose of the clue train: for every mistake of Ms. Ivins' you can find, I can find ten home runs.

If you want to make it about what Molly has said in the past, you are leaning on the weakest of arguments, just like your candidate will be forced to if she gets the nomination.

It kept Ms. Ivins in a job.

If "Gore-the-same-as-Bush" was in the White House right now, we wouldn't necessarily find her crap interesting and maybe she'd be out of work.

I can't wait for Clinton-the-same-as-McCain in 2008.

I'm not a Clinton supporter, but she's a fuck load smarter and a fuck load more ethical that Ms. Ivins is.

Ms. Ivens was on the level of Charlie Krauthammer or one of those not cases. She did a huge disservice to her country.

By the way, Ralph Nader was not then or was never before a moral ethical man. He was a deluded self-important psychopath with serious delusions, much like the man he helped put in the White House with Ms. Ivens full co-operation.

political strategists and handlers. They made it hard for many voters to tell there was any difference between the parties. This is what the DLC has done to our party, and it's time to kick them to the curb.

stranglehold "prestigious" top Democrats use to strangle the necessary, critical action NOW to save lives and stop Bush are perhaps a reason to pre-empt the doomed Clinton candidacy in the bud.

Perhaps we have been too politely quiet in the efforts to make this primary season fair and positive, yet there are compelling reasons now to quash this heretofore sterile cuckoo of a Clinton Restoration and centrist power consolidation now. The same reasons we have failed to avoid the death and financial and civil rape of America and the loss of votes to a fraud and propaganda machine. A Clinton candidacy, an irrational hope or a nightmare, keeps alive a lot more than her good points and values. It cripples the party even before it is moved to take its weakest candidate with the most concrete negatives and unfavorable ratings into the time of its greatest hope and need.

To all this one must come to the Joe Lieberman reality. She will not fly in the primaries unless everyone else sinks. She has opposition of conscience and prejudice all across the spectrum and more than Kerry sacrifices possibilities that likely cannot be won back. In the process progressivism and populism and reforms necessary for survival are at the very least dampened and repressed, daring the energetic and winning combatants for the survival of America to divide the party because old elites are heartened into aggrandizing false dreams of power.

As with Joe, one need not at all get personal, need not win all the policy disagreements or prove all the misgivings of judgment and political capability. As with Joe and sadly, Kucinich, she has not personal gifts to overcome preset negatives rarely confronted and never won. The sole hope this time as with her Senate wins is the GOP has not the capacity to mount effective competition and will likely blow both feet off blow. Maybe. that would be good for her insufficient candidacy and possibly a presidential win. But it would hurt the coattails, give aid and comfort both to the GOP and its crooks.
It would seal Hillary's faults as a leader into her Presidency and allow the bad guys room to comeback and not get the nation as far as it desperately needs to go. As with Carter or Clinton, MSM and the party itself would chip away at everything around her. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and the triumph of disastrous compromising dishonesty and fear- and the deadly ephemeral myths Americans have been given about reality are something perhaps to think about now.

In radio shows hosted by soft centrist or Foggy Bottom journalists they are shocked to hear the set wide spectrum of Hillary opponents and soft on her failings, wanting just to get feeling good about a wonderful frontrunner champion. That dangerous delusion will carry hillary much farther than Joe and with more press, money etc. Of course she will get little of the backing Joe received from the Financial Times or Wall Street that meant so little in the primaries. She has a soft base among gentle Dems and many surging women Democrats. She has the name and legacy with all the organization and experience that can possibly be imagined.

But she cannot win except by the collapse of the GOP and the ineffectiveness of the media. Remember this past election which was also a timely collapse of the GOP as much as any efforts of the Democrats.
Do we PLAN on that every year and forget the confrontations against war, fraud and corporate or corporate bought ideology? She very likely cannot win the primaries with her negatives, but only by the grace of the others splitting the rest of the base. Thanks to the way the primaries are rushed and bunch, this weak win might be possible and misgivings overwhelmed more than Kerry's march over Dean.
Given the superiority and the freshness of the rest of the candidates and the messages they bear, this would be a tragic outcome.

In politics there seems no such thing as an unfair advantage and the need to get others to play unilaterally "fair" to disadvantage is the oldest, noblest con game. This is most evident in the GOP, though the entire process for them is a mild charade in comparison to the minimal half honesty of ours.

Hillary should be instructed that she cannot win. The "winning' past the real will of the people should be thwarted. Her incapacities and disqualifications- which will continue if not increase because candidacy and past actions affirm each other(or she wouldn't be running)- must reduce her ASAP and no benefits given out of special consideration or awe of her status and material backing. The time wasted is detrimental to the process of getting better candidates and a better party direction.

When Musky deflated, the establishment at that time had gone with him under the unready McGovern progressive revolution. No one was ready or able to win. This time we have several better candidates and a party that can. It is better to have a hundred Vilsacks or Liebermans or any other small candidate than the bloated hopes of the Third Way in even more bloated media and sacks of money around the mere name recognition and family name connection. No one could embarrass or confuse the party more
and dishearten voters(even Hillary supporters) all across the nation with so little hope that reforms crying to heaven will be furthered by her tempered, reticent and bland cause.

There was never a need to "get Joe" or his ideas. All he had was the GOP MSM and name recognition and the anger of Dems over his actions. Negative charisma. There is a need now that transcends candidate favorite lines and ideologies. I would never urge "getting" a candidate, but letting time and reality do its job now entails more collateral damage than no none can or needs to endure. She is BETTER than Joe as a person and legislator, she is less of a sure loser in the primaries or general election, but i believe the end results of all scenarios are a step down from what is needed, desired and more possible
even if she attains the presidency. It is no mark of earned frontrunner status to have as aprt of the acquired baggage immense Clinton administration resources and financial support. That is palplaly, though not totally in all fairness, more dynastic than the result of personal merit. So now is the time to speak against the illusion and elect someone who will be more favorable to the entire nation and a better leader(two facts that most people believe and are in jeopardy of being thrown aside).

Go Barack!

She's never liked the Clintons. I'd like to see her voting record; as I'd guess that even though she
talks like a Democrat, she doesn't vote that way too often. It's still a free country, so I'm going to be supporting Hillary.