As poster mawrm said:
"When you remove Mrs. Clinton's time as First Lady, she has LESS legislative/public leadership experience than ALL the Dem candidates. In the last debate she stated she had 35 years of working for the American people and that they knew where she stood. The truth of the matter is we the American people have little to no record, outside her attempt at overhauling health, of her said experience up until she became a Senator. I would even challenge you to tell me what positions she's held and noteworthy legislations she's proposed and other major political accomplishments she's had in her 35 years - WITHOUT the aid of Google or her campaign website."

Apparently any criticism of HRC is per se chauvinist or anti-feminist. She just uses the mudslinging accusation as an indirect way of playing the gender card.

I'm afraid I have to agree with Edwards. This is not mud-slinging; he's pointing out the inconsistent actions Hilary takes and that is important when evaluating a candidate. Hilary is not my ideal candidate in this election, so, some can take my views with a grain of salt if they wish. The simple fact is that Hilary is a shill for corporate special interests and represents the same political corruption that Bush does!
Welcome to the newest and biggest banana republic in the Americas!

In about 3 weeks they are going to start running some tough negative ads on Guiliani.

Diamonds or pearls. My seven year old son wanted to know if she preferred the White House furniture or silverware. We figured, she wants it all.

I am ashamed of the way CNN moderated the recent Democratic Debate last week. It was obvious that Hillary Clinton's team made sure to have a huge group of people sneak into the University of Nevada Las Vegas auditoriums. It was very disrespectful of that group to boo and hiss at Senator Obama and Edwards for responding to questions that the group felt was unkind to Mrs. Clinton.

Hillary's comment on "mudslinging" is a joke that shows she is oriented toward the soundbite of politics. Any American who has common sense realizes that the substance of Sentator Edwards comments were respectful and on target when he illustrated the differences between Senator Clinton and himself.

John Edwards will make a great President if the democrats have the backbone, spine and intelligence to go with someone that has the capability of changing the corrupt and greedy beltway - Washington D.C.

If no one wants change - a Republican will win because if Senator Clinton is the best the democrats put forth or the best the Corporate Media puts forth in 2008 - it's already over!

If someone wants a Democrat who has integrity, capacity to recognize when he/she is wrong and admits it - is very compassionate about the main issues: poverty, education, universal health, redeployment from Iraq and rebuilding America's moral compass in the world - John Edwards is the person.

Joe Biden would make a good choice for vice-president because he is solid on foreign policy.

Senator Obama could also be a good choice for Vice-President.

Senator Clinton should remain in the senate where she can do a good job.

I am and FDR, New Dealer Democrat. Does that clear the air?

Your afraid of Huckelberry the Bibleman?

He is a joke.

Who would trust a guy from Hope, Arkansas?

Did anyone ever notice that there are never any trolls on the Hillary threads just disgruntled democrats? Odd isn't it?

Dems need to wake up to reality. STOP this childish infighting. Once OPEC, China, and other countries go to the euro instead of the dollar, it's GAME OVER for the U.S. economy.

OPEC Interested in Non-Dollar Currency

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Sunday that OPEC's members have expressed interest in converting their cash reserves into a currency other than the depreciating U.S. dollar, which he called a "worthless piece of paper." His comments at the end of a rare summit of OPEC heads of state exposed fissures within the 13-member cartel especially after U.S. ally Saudi Arabia was reluctant to mention concerns about the falling dollar in the summit's final declaration.

My father run a polling company in Venezuela and other latino-american countries for many years (my brother took care of the business after his dead) and he, my father, told me many times: "high negatives win elections" and now I see how right he was, when looking at the polarizing effect the high negatives of HRC have induced into the race.

Some Democrats, myself included, are worried, with respect to HRC, that there is 'no there, there'.

Hillary stating that people earning in the top 6% will come back to haunt her in Iowa. She has to know that. Laughing off questions about NAFTA aren't going to help either.

The view here is that there are Democratic candidates that we would feel comfortable with. We do not include Obama and Hillary as presidential candidates we would find ourselves comfortable with.

If it ends up being a Hillary-Rudy ticket(BTW, I am a Democrat), I might end up having to either vote for Rudy or just stay home and watch the country run itself into the ground. It might not even be worth the gas money to go and vote. Its such a shame that Biden, Richardson, or Edwards doesn't seem to stand a chance.

I am just a worthless liar. I am just an imbecile.
I will only complicate you. Trust in me and fall as well.
I will find a center in you. I will chew it up and leave.
I will work to elevate you, just enough to bring you down.

-Tool, "Sober"

Is NONE OF THE ABOVE a choice in 2008?