Who else here likes Hillary? : ).

I like her. I just do, i've liked her since 92, i was 18 i think when she came on the national political scene and I really identified with her in a way. I don't think she's perfect. I don't like all her decisions. I don't think she's a super uber powerhouse senator (i'm in NY), but I really like her, always have. I like her as a candidate, and I'm personally just drawn to her :).

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

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

There were no less than SEVEN investigations (all of which, I believe, were run by the GOP) and they ALL concluded he committed suicide! As far as them going through his office, hmmmm, now why would they do that?? He just fricking killed himself! Do you think, say, they just MIGHT HAVE BEEN LOOKING FOR CLUES AS TO WHY??????

Sheesh. Please. Spare us the RW crap

Sheesh.... Its FUNNY!!! And if you think Hillary is as pure as the driven snow, you are pretty naive! It never ceases to amaze me how people who feel that if someone is a Republican, they are automatically to be COMPLETELY distrusted. But if they are Democrats, well then, give them the key to your house!! Come ON!!! POWER corrupts, not PARTY.

Its just a "one-liner" remark. From everything I have read, I believe Vince Foster committed suicide also. But I can tell you that I think the guy was stressed out by everything he knew. AGAIN - POWER CORRUPTS. NOT PARTY!!! Dont get fooled by the personality, understand what it takes to get into the position of power in the first place. It isnt just kissing babies, and shaking hands. Its POLI"TICKS" - and its the money that is the blood thats being sucked - Our money -.

or you wouldn't say or imply such stupid things.

what I read and heard. He was a close business associate and described as a friend by the Clinton's. As an attorney - and a very close associate - he was certainly privy to ALOT of information. Information that I am sure would keep most of us up at night!! And that was why he was on antidepressants. And altering chemicals in the brain (which is what those little pills do) can sometimes cause unfortunate results. I am not saying - never have said - that there was a conspiracy in his death - just that I feel that the cause of his stress was the intimate knowledge of the inner workings of the Clinton political machine.

Foster was bothered by Washington gotcha' politics and especially about lies told about him by the right wing Wall Street Journal editorial staff.

Wingnuts drove him to it.

what the public spotlight would be like. But I still cant help but think that what the man knew about what went on on the inside stressed him to the point of a breakdown. Am I right? Are you right? We will never know for sure. But to say that there is no fire when all one can smell is smoke is a little more than I am willing to swallow...

"just that I FEEL that the cause of his stress was the intimate knowledge of the inner workings of the Clinton political machine."

Did it ever occur to you that the man was just plain depressed and the pills caused his suicide? Haven't you read the statics on this fact? Didn't you know it happens so often there is a warning label on the pill bottle and TV ads? Where have you been...under a rock to be so ignorant and ill informed?
You sound like a stupid Rethug on this Dem site. Be gone with you! Take a powder

Why are you on this site saying despicable things about any of our candidates because you personally FEEL it's true? People like you really, really make me angry...just like Rethugs do.

when Mr. Foster decided to end his life. We will NEVER know why. So we have to QUESTION why. Your answer to that question (if you ever asked it) may be different than mine. No problem. But I am not attacking you personally calling you "ignorant" or "stupid" just because we disagree. I dont care for Hillary - in fact, I dont like her at ALL! But that doesnt mean that I dont like other Democratic candidates such as Joe Biden. One of my problems with Hillary is that there is no such thing as "free healthcare" - there is ONLY "Expensive Healthcare"!! The questions we need to ask are "How do we pay for it? How do we make it more available? And How do we make it affordable - either to the Nation as a whole, or to individuals."

But you are WRONG to make such accusations about someone you admittedly know NOTHING about...and a fellow Democrat to boot. I love Joe Biden too and he's my second choice. I wouldn't mind if Hillary lost to him in a fair fight. But, it isn't fair if she is deprived of the presidency...just because of people like you...and there are many...who believe and spout off Rethug lies on this Dem board where we're suppose to splain what we like about our candidate...not disparage them with lies or even ugly facts. Go to a Rethug board to post viscous gossip about Hillary. I'M SICK AND TIRED OF ALL THE ANTI-HILLARY POSTS ON THIS BOARD...so I rarely come here anymore.
It's because of comments such as yours and you certainly aren't the only one...so I'm really speaking to lots of other people. Sorry, but you were the unfortunate one to get my collective condemnation. I really try not to attack other candidates and I honestly can't remember attacking anyone...and I have plenty of unkind thoughts about them that I keep to myself. We'd have a better chance of winning the General Election if people wouldn't post tin foil hat comments for Rethugs to read and repeat.

response to another emotion. In your case, frustration. Have a great New Years!

any administration?

president has had "skeletons in the closet". Some worse than others. Power Corrupts.... and it is addictive. It also isolates one from reality and breeds an arrogance that often leads to corruption which leads protecting one's power which leads to "dirty little secrets". And Power is no respecter of race, sex, religion, or party affiliation.

Other wise seeing pictures of Vince Foster , you would have recognized the face of a man on something for depression.

disputes that. No one disputes that he was taking anti-depressants. But the question is ultimately WHY was he so disturbed? Was it the article in the Journal or was it an intimate knowledge of things that disturbed him deeply? Its kinda like how many licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop.....we will probably never know!!

If those brain dead motherfuckers could have kept from killing, stealing or eating every thing is sight, they would have remained in power for another 40 years, just like the time after Abraham Lincoln. But, no, they could not control themselves, and they will be wondering in the wilderness for years and years. Just as the Republican Party is dead here in California, so it appears to me that the National Party is just as dead, except maybe for the old Confederacy.

All the Democrats have to say is "We're not Republicans," and they can get elected. The pukes have no one to blame but themselves.

in so many of these posts, though. As I said before, POWER Corrupts - not PARTY. The same could be said for the Democratic party after Clinton. Power begets Arrogance, Arrogance begets Irresponsibility and Irresponsibility begets Corruption which eventually leads to Replacement!

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

Im from Delaware - lived here all my life - & I think he would do a good job.

phosphorous bombs in the name of greed. We weep for our soldiers that return home injured only to find that the republicans block increases in needed vet benefits. We weep for the children of the poor that can not see a doctor while republican pharmaceutical companies get richer and richer. The CEO's in American companies make 400 times the average American worker, while in the rest of the industrial world it is closer to 15 times. The rich republicans are killing this country. Violating the constitution and rule of law for greed. And while the rich republican leaders rob the country blind, their gullible base is worried about gays or a flag burning or some shiny object.

Since when is suicide 'funny'?

someone referring to "the man on the grassy knoll" when referring to something strange happening even though JFK's death was not funny. OK? Sheesh! The rules advise you to have "thick skin"!

"Democrats" for elected office.

There are some Democrats that I support. HRC is obviously not one of them, but, I am from Delaware & I would seriously consider Biden. Obama is a little to scary for me - his personal beliefs are a little too ambiguos for me. Again - its not the party - its the power that corrupts a person.

to get into power. At this point it appears that all republicans in power are corrupt by our standards. By their standards they are just seeking their principle goal, money at any cost.

has a monopoly on corruption!!

Don't kid yourself into equating Democrats with Republicans when it comes to corruption.

much farther ahead in the corruption department. But a republican won't agree because they see corruption thru different eyes. To them stealing from the poor, raping the environment and sending other's children to die, is just good business. They have no conscience.

parties that are about making money off the blood of humanity.

Even the ones that still imply that the Clintons somehow pushed him to it.

Be gone troll

I like when we calls em' as we seez em'. :hi:

will do to a brain.

rational thinking. We all have our own "world view" which causes the information we receive to be processed according to our world view. I watch Fox, I watch CNN, and then I process the information I receive. If you only expose yourself to one side of a debate or one slant of a story you will most often miss the truth. Think for YOURSELF in a rational & reasonable manner and you then you can see much more of the entire truth and not just one side.

often has opposing views on his shows and has reasonable debates about issues. I very much appreciate this. I have watched Fox News before and find it to be propaganda. When they have individuals from the progressive side on, they lambaste them and over shout them. Have you noticed that talking heads on Fox say things like, "I believe and surveys show ......". They never say what surveys they are referring to. Never once do they even attempt to present the progressive side of anything. All republican candidates are good and all democratic candidates are horrible. Where is the balance. Fox is owned by someone that paid Newt Gingrich millions to change a law allowing foreign ownership. Where is the balance. And pleeeese don't say CNN. They too are owned by the greedy rich republicans.

Please tell me where you get the progressive side?

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

idea what free republic is. I assume it is a Republican website - I dont know - I found this one yesterday while looking for more info on google.

place to raise kids! Thanks for asking!

I have been blessed more than I deserve. Monetarily some, but much more with my family and friends. Im not gullible. Nor do I blindly support one side. That is why things must be "reasonable". Like the thought that 9/11 was orchestrated by our government. That makes great conspiracy talk, but it isnt Reasonable. Has 9/11 been exploited by certain people for personal gain?? SURE!! No doubt! But those who take the next step & believe that we did it to ourselves and that terrorists are just "misunderstood" individuals struggling to carve out their own niche and really are good people have stepped over the edge of the abyss!

terrorism. I believe any government that uses torture is a terrorist government. Bet you rationalize that if "the good guys" torture it is ok.

Do you consider that the American revolutionaries were "terrorists". I think they were free men fighting British corporatism. But now our government has been taken over by corporations just like Britain in the 18 century. Corporatism equals fascism, look it up.

the United States is committing terrorism in Iraq or in Afghanistan because we are attempting to impose our will on them. And who, after all, is to say that one way of government is better than another anyway? Right? Not exactly. That is where absolute truths - and "self evident truths" come into play. Our Declaration of Independence states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

When a government becomes destructive to the unalienable rights of men...and is becomes an "absolute Despotism" "then it is our right, it is our DUTY to throw off such government."
I think it is safe to say that the radical ideals of the current terrorists are "absolute Despotism". Of course it isnt politically correct to say that our system is better than their system, but that is what our Declaration of Independence said!! So why cant we support it now?

when you say, "I think it is safe to say that the radical ideals of the current terrorists are "absolute Despotism"" you must be referring to the Bush Administration.

Do you not wonder why the Bush Administration hasn't captured bin Ladin? Could be incompetence but also could be that bin Ladin has been very useful to the power grab by the Admin. The rich republicans have only gotten richer since the "war on terror" was initiated. They love this "war". And the poor gullible repubican sheep can't even see that while the profiteers are reaping billions, no hundreds of billions off the war, it will have to be paid back to communist China by their children and grandchildren.

Did you realize that one of the first things BushCorp did after Katrina in NO was to confiscate private owned guns? Bet Hannity forgot to tell you that. The Army used force in some cases and confiscated personal weapons.

But we disagree on who was responsible for that unconstitutional act. It was my understanding that this was an order issued to the LOCALLY controlled National Guard - an order issued by the Democratic Mayor not the Federal Govt. Not true?

Bush change a law that previously outlawed the use of the Army in the US for policing. There is footage on the YouTubes of interviews of redneck gun owners telling their stories of how the US Army took their guns at gun point. One grandmother was roughed up, drug out of her house by her feet while the US Army searched her house for guns.

I believe in the Constitution. Wake up please and notice that the Bush Admin doesn't.

story straight my friend - or does your screen name fully describe your knowledge base - rhetoric! I watched the video www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4 - I googled everything I could. It was the NEW ORLEANS Police Department that tackled the grandmother - not a US Army troop - it was a group of NOPD officers! Oh, and tell me again who THEY answered to? Who's orders where THEY following?? They were following their Boss's orders. And who is their boss? The Deputy Police Chief, Warren Riley, who said, "No one will be able to be armed. We are going to take all the weapons." And who does HE answer to?? The Mayor of the City of New Orleans, C. Ray Nagin, thats who! (BTW, he was elected in 2002, taking the reigns from another Democrat who had been in charge since 1994 - Marc Morial, a Democrat who was preceeded by Sidney Barthelemy - you guessed it - a Democrat who had been in charge since 1986 and was preceeded by Ernest Nathan Morial (known as Dutch), a Democrat who was in office since 1978 (Interestingly he was the Father of Marc Morial)and was preceeded by Moon Landrieu, a Democrat who took office in 1970 from Victor H. Schiro, a Democrat who took office in 1961 from De Lesseps Story Morrison, a - you guessed it! Democrat who took office in 1946!! So.... New Orleans was Democratically controlled for 56 straight years and somehow it was George Bush's fault that the levys were not made stronger...... BTW - the National Guard is controlled by the Governor of the State which was Kathleen Blanco, a Democrat. "The National Guard has always had to take an oath to support and defend two constitutions, one of the United States, which takes priority over any other in our country; and then, at the same time, they swear allegiance to follow the orders of the governor of a state and the constitution of the state when it does not conflict or contradict the allegiance that is sworn to the national Constitution.
So the governors maintain command-and-control and utilization of the National Guard at all times, unless the President requires the National Guard or orders the National Guard into federal service, and when that occurs there's never a contest, it's automatic that the priority goes to the national mission or to the federal mission." (From the Dept. of State's site)
Come on man!!!! Did FEMA screw up -YES! Is there blame on the Federal Government? YES!! But it is an a FACT - not rhetoric - that a Democratic Mayor was in charge of the NOPD, and a Democratic Governor was in charge of the National Guard at the time of these atrocites. And the city was in Democratic hands for 56 straight years!!I challenge you to LOOK IT UP!!!!! I challenge you to THINK!!

Apparently when the people interviewed said Army they were referring to the Army NG which in the most part is commanded by the governor although i believe that president bush has given himself the power to command the NG also.

I agree that the governor does not have the right to violate the Constitution even during a crisis. Will you agree this applies to republicans as well as Democrats? Like the President of the US? Do you think for example that the republicans should be allowed to spy on Americans with out any oversight? If so would you also allow a Democratic president the same power?

The Constitution and its amendments are there to protect the people from themselves and from tyranny. No, it should not be suspended. It sounds like you and the NRA have a little bit in common! Thats a scary thought!! "Spying" on Americans is a very delicate issue. I do believe that as long as it can be proven that it was based on solid evidence of potential terroristic activity that it is an unfortunate byproduct of the world we currently live in. "..Without any oversight.." is a little strong! I believe that there is currently accountability and there must always be accountability. It shouldn't be to a full senate, but someone needs to be ensuring that conversations that are intercepted are being done so because of a credible threat. That goes for ANY party that is in office at the time.

Second, "Spying on Americans is a very delicate issue". BS. It is very simple issue. We do not want the government spying on us. The FISA, in violation of the Constitution, did provide some oversight. The Bush Admin on it's own without Congressional approval violated and is violating the FISA law. You, of course, believe there is accountability. But why would you think that? I believe that the republicans are using the spying to gain political advantage. The Democrats have no access to what is being spied on.

fought very hard to establish a "Republic" not a "Democracy" in the pure sense of the word Democracy. That is why we pledge alliegence to the "flag of the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands..." In a Republic, there are certain unalterable truths. Truths that cannot be "voted out". In a pure democracy it is just a majority rule without regard to unalterable truths.

"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves --"generous gifts"--from the public treasury."
"From that moment on,-- the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the" most benefits" from the public treasury.

We commonly use the term democracy in the US to refer to our republic. But like to point out that our forefathers warned us about letting corporations take control from "we the people". We now live in a pretend republic (fascism).

is alot like living in a family. I am a father of 3 under the age of 15. My home is a Republic. It is NOT majority rule! You cannot vote on certain standards. While the opinion of all is heard, the final decision falls on me. Many people - especially young people - feel that there should NOT be any absolutes. Vote away any restraints. And when this becomes the mindset, the fabric of the society begins to unravel....

am on the East Coast & it is now Friday morning so I better get some sleep! Certainly your thoughts have been the most logical of all of the replies that were sent! Thanks!

by trying to make the difference between a democracy and a republic an either/or choice, which is a hallmark tactic of RW GOP types. There isn't a "pure democracy" anywhere in the world and for good reason, not the least of which is how in the world you could administer everyone voting on every issue. Instead, we have what is variously referred to as a representative democracy, a constitutional republic or a democratic republic. And they are ALL forms of democracy, despite what this poster is trying to foist upon us.

The argument is made that there is only one type of democracy, a "pure" or "direct" democracy, which is a specious argument. What we have in this country is a democracy, it just isn't a direct democracy. And the beauty of implementing an indirect democracy lies in what I referenced before, that is, a direct democracy would be cumbersome, requiring citizens to vote on all variety of arcane matters. Further, a pure democracy, without constitutional safeguards, could easily be prone to the "tyranny of the majority" (which is what ticks the RWers off when their attempts to impose their religion on the rest of us is thwarted by the 1st amendment). But to argue that an indirect democracy is not a type of democracy is like arguing that indirect lighting is not a type of lighting.

is that in a Republic, there are these "constitutional safeguards" or "absolutes" as I referred to them. And these are Necessary for the preservation of a Democracy. You're comments were very articulate. Much more so than mine. Thanks.

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

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I think you took a wrong turn. Freeperville is over there ------------>>>

And you joined the day after Christmas... What a gift for us.:sarcasm:

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

:puke:

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

:eyes:

go puke somewhere else, like on your shoes or something.

She is a tough, experienced candidate who has worked tirelessly for progressive causes.

did with them. :)

and the person in the crowd wanted to know the recipe, and hill and bill gave the recipe to her in great detail? it was so funny. :D

In the early 90's as Clinton was running for president, she was a know it all. But over the years, she grew on me. Now she is okay.

I just don't want her to be my President.

zalinda

It would be fun to sit and talk with her ~ I'm sure she'd be very engaging.

and also think she would make a very decent president.

Agree that she doesn't fit all (my) points for the 'perfect' candidate.

DemEx

I've always felt repelled. But I respect your instincts nonetheless. cheers. :toast:

since Oct, 2002 when she first started obeying the bushites and voted for the "whatever" War Machine Resolution or Bill that came down the pike.

It's real warm and fuzzy that people are drawn to her with their blinders on or maybe they don't really give a shit that her complicity in the War Machine Kills and Maims Americans, not to mention other innocents who perish in their political of game life and death..mostly death.

to tell me the answer?

she's not my choice in the primaries but just like any of the other Dem candidates Id support her if she wins the primaries.

that people like her, i know she can come off sort of different at times, :D, so it's cool to hear people say they like her.

You asked, I responded.

I'd like to see Edwards in the Oval Office and Hillary doing something else.

Peace,

A.V.

And it's unfortunate that you find yourself unable to give a straight answer. Some people might see that as a failing of your candidate (and mine) rather than just you.

But, I don't like Barrack either.

Biden would be a better candidate, and a better President. He has the experience, the respect of foreign leaders, the speaking skills, he has an interesting back story (youngest senator ever elected, overcoming tragedy, spending months in Walter Reed, 2nd lowest net worth in the senate, takes public transport to be with his family most days, etc).

With all of his experience, he can pick anyone he wants as VP. Obama, Richardson, or any of the governors like Kathleen Sebelius of KS or Brian Schweitzer of MT).

I can't think of a single thing that I like better about Hillary.

and help in some way. it's going to be a battle.

Not my first (or second!) choice for Democratic nominee, but I'll happily vote for her if she wins the primary.

Then again, I'm not a pathetic weirdo like the "my-candidate-or-nobody!!111!" screamers around here.

If Sen Clinton wins the nomination, I won't even post anything about "holding my nose" like a lot of others are certainly going to do. I'll vote for the Democratic nominee because it's the best, smartest thing to do. The whiners can suck it.

I'm not backing her for the primary, but there it is - all out in the open. We have an amazing, talented group of Democrats running for the presidency, and if MY guy doesn't make it then I'll vote for the next-best-thing gladly.

is it because shes the only candidate taking money from the insurance lobbyists?

EDIT:

Bonus questions!

Did she actually say the words that you quoted? Do you know how to properly use quotation marks?

StinkerDink will descend upon you like sack of iron douchebags. Oh, how I'll laugh and laugh.

voted for iraq war once.... check

voted for iraq war twice.... check

voted to give bush power to go to war with iran... check

taking money from insurance industry.... check

Is that true, or did you tell a fib? (Nice try at changing the subject however. +1)

And, she didn't say those words the poster has, oh so cleverly, in quotes.

who came of age in the same time range. :thumbsup:

I like her stands on most things. Most of all I like her husband's Presidency and hope that hers could approach that in greatness.

I equate the two.

:eyes:

Even the most brilliant of people can make a poor decision.

eom

that kind of narrows your field, no? so no voting for biden, edwards, clinton.

Since the candidates don't have any it is up to the voters to stand firm on principles!

I live in NY State and did not vote for her for the Senate.

My opposition is long and consistent!

That's what a write-in vote is. I'm not sure, if you're on the right site, in that case.

From the DU rules:
"Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office."

I vote on principle not fads!

dupe

we have to chose from this pool.

Hillary is clearly the superior candidate and will make the country a fine president.

Hillary is not a progressive candidate.

Yes, she is. And, THAT is why she has my vote.

without that resolution?

Maybe she'll run again after her term ends and can retire hopefully with some legislation that is better than her record so far.

Now...not so much.

If I saw her sittin' on a bar stool alone, I might stroll over to say "hi" ... or maybe not.

Being as apolitical as I possibly can.


That's just funny.

of you standing in front of her husband's portrait...including the negatives if you have any.

Thanks.

That one's a keeper, regardless of my distaste for his wife.

Please drink responsibly.

Besides, having her and Bill back in the White House would make repugs heads explode and that would be an added bonus.

:kick: and recommend

However, she's DLC which translates to repuke lite for me. Not planning on voting for her in the primary.

My daughter LOVES her.

I am voting for Biden, but if she gets the nod we will campaign for her.

And I respect her.

:)

I give her a lot of credit for her attempt at a health care plan. That's when she first caught my attention. I remember how the industry went after her. Then I remember how the conservatives went after her. I wish she would have handled some of their attacks differently but I will always respect the way she withstood and overcame everything they threw at her.

She reminds me of many women that I went to grad school with - driven, ambitious, and very idealistic. She's gotten more pragmatic since coming to DC, but I still think she has that idealism at her core.

I don't think she's the best choice to get the Democratic nomination, though, and won't be voting for her in our primary.

Not getting into reasons, but I have supported this run since she first announced.

If she wins the nomination I'll likely be volunteering for her.

Is that enough or do I have to come all the way from Australia to campaign for her? :D

Where've you been?

I was in Puerto Rico with my family; no internet access, just raw CNN. :(

In Oz, we only have Fox for our American news. Drives me batty. That's why I come here.

Puerto Rico is beautiful but welcome back.

Disarming to those hunting for bear to promote their deity to be.

but if I were comparing this race, oh say to a horse race....Obama would be War Admiral....and War Admiral's speed from the gate was the stuff of legend. HRC, I would call, Seabiscuit. Seabiscuit, was a pace stalker. Skilled at holding with the pack before destroying the field with late acceleration.

Just like what is going on today. Obama fast out of the gate, and HRC pacing, and in the early polls HRC maintains her lead or increases it...

So I will take the pace stalker HRC. Remember, HRC will hear Obama coming up on the outside and HRC might look over (just like in the Race of the Century Seabiscuit looked over and saw War Admiral) and see her rival Obama is neck and neck. Then all you Obama faithful will believe he will take the lead.HRC will demand of herself more effort and will pull away.
The competition will prove too much for Obama, as HRC extends her lead in the closing stretch, winning soundly.

Thus you have Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton the Democratic nominee for President of the United States.....Oh and the same will hold true in the general election whomever the Repugs throw against her.....

Go Hillary!

They have to be expecting something from backing her ahead of any Republican.

I have no problem with her, I mean, I don't admire her the way you do annie, but basically I got no gripe with her. I couldn't say that a couple months ago. I've made my peace with Hillary, and in the GE could definitely support her without wanting to stab myself. A lot of my "issues" with her, really were misconceptions, and once I gave her a good honest listen, I warmed to her considerably. I'm still caucusing for Biden, but Hillary is ok with me in the GE.

I can NEVER forgive him for the Bankruptcy vote, EVER. However, he's probably my second choice after HRC. I think he would make a decent President.

once I actually gave her an honest and open look, I realized how close-minded I had been. She is a solid candidate, and I think she would be a fine president...even if she does eat babies;)
But I have to say, part of what made me more open to her was the constant bashing she got right here on DU.

She only nibbles on them when she watches "Grey's Anatomy."

GOD. You Hillary bashers are too much!!!

Hehehehehhehe

Biden's vote disappointed me so much, even if I understand the political reason of why he did it -- ugh. However, he would make a solid Prez, or a very good cabinet member in an HRC Presidency.

I don't think anyone was thrilled with that vote of Biden's, but it's a good example of "rock/hard place" voting, and he recognizes that. FWIW, I do believe, given the chance, he would fix that awful bankruptcy bill..but there just isn't much that can be done until dems are veto proof, by majority, or by holding the oval office (preferably BOTH!)

And, sometimes salsa verde.

But, unlike some people (not you!), Biden's vote wouldn't stop me from voting for him. God, I do NOT like Obama, but I'd still vote for him over a Repub or doing a write-in.

That's really what it boils down to. My LEAST favorite candidate is probably Kucinich, and I like him well enough, and I would crawl through broken glass to get him elected if he got the nomination.
People can bemoan a lack of choices all they want, but when push comes to shove, I want a Dem in that oval office.

That was a joke!!!!!!!

Looking forward to her crushing Bill O'Reilly's windpipe with an iron boot!

And, good post.

Period.

Ooh la la

You'd almost have to be a Republican not to like Hillary :smoke:

That, and she's always been for peace and diplomacy. She only "supports war" in the minds of people who use rightwing talking points against her like what happens on DU so often.

You don't like to admit that's she's for peace, diplomacy, AND national defense, so you try to paint her as more hawkish than she really is just because she's got the right mindset to protect her country as well as offer peaceful solutions.

How is voting for the IWR and Kyl-Lieberman not supportive of War, exactly?

She has the right mindset to take the Military-Industrial Complex into the 21st Century.

She's smart, she's a thinker and a problem solver, she's knowledgeable. She tries to see both sides before making up her mind...that's a plus in the world today. She's smart enough to realize we are citizens of the world.
Yeah, I'd vote for Hillary if she were the nominee, and I'd fight against the right wing crazy talk that will come against any of our candidates..

she was not my first choice. But all the Hillary bashing, has made me into a Hillary voter.

:rofl:

and even more since all the attacks around this place.

But I don't.
Go figure.

I know, I know, I've considered her a carpet bagger and an opportunist, but what politician isn't an opportunist. Call it a sixth sense or something. I'm a woman politician and I should like her...but I don't.

And sing a litle Tammy Wynette.

:hide:

She's a terrific woman and smarter than most people in any room at any given time. I think that she'll make a great president!!!

As for the shits whose messages were deleted and appeared to imply that she had anything to do with Foster's death, why don't you all get the hell out of DU and go to the Freeper board where you belong with the other nut cases!!!!! :mad: