“You are dead on.
My uncle served on the Presidential Personal Detail (in the White House) for Carter, Reagan, H.w . Bush and the First Clinton administration.
I never heard the man say a negative word about anyone in his life, but he held Hillary in the lowest of esteems. She used to throw temper-tantrums, scream and yell, and treat all of the "underlings" as below her.
This is consistent with the characterizations that George Stephanopoulos, Dee Dee Myers and David Gergen.”
If you talk to many scientists, if we actually used the nuclear plant technology as the French do, it would be a very viable alternative while we develop renewable resources. IT is efficient and they have refined system to help with the waste products.
And another thing. They did find that Hillary gave untrue statements during Travelgate, and she was a big player in the scandals of all the pardons at the end of Bill's term; including her brother that was pardons for tax evasion and money laundering.”
democraticjack on Feb 7, 2008 at 21:16:12
“Sources on "travelgate" and a definition of "big player" in the scandals of the pardons.
If she is the nominee, you will see an energized Republican base an unhappy Democratic party and losses in key congressional seats.
She will have a hard time doing anything with a Republican Senate and possible narrowing of the House.
Far or not, her candidacy will set the Dems back a decade.”
trailrunner9 on Feb 7, 2008 at 20:21:30
“The point is IF for whatever reason she is our candidate she absolutely should have the backing of this party over John McCain and I think it is treasonous to this party to say otherwise. Either nominee should be backed because either will certainly restore a better direction to this country. And I do believe she will get health care done, because it is a huge issue now to many Americans who can't afford and are demanding something done and I know she would like that to be her legacy. Again, either one will be better than a Republican and to say otherwise is ludacris.”
“Hillary will do nothing but assure a Republican take over of the senate and possible loss of the House. The Republican party is demoralized and divided; but the possible chance to defeat Bill Clinton (by the way this is a co-presidency)will even dwarf the great turnout we have seen by the Dems.
Plus you will lose a majority of the young, enthusiastic supporters of Obama.
Anyone who tries to assert that Hillary will do better with independents than McCain is a fool.
You want a Republican control Senate and House... and possible White House again. Put Hillary as the nominee.”
“THere may be more total Dems in the population, but let us take a quick civics lesson.
Hillary will have a very difficult time winning any of the 'purple" states to receive enough electoral college votes to win. If McCain ends up being the nominee and the Clinton's continue be "The Clintons", the Dems are in serious trouble.
She will energize a completely demoralized Republican base.They will turn out in large numbers and the Dems could very well lose key Senate and house races.
The Clintons can get all the Dems to turn out in mass quantities in CA and NY, but those votes do no good in Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Missouri.”
tcbwriter on Jan 22, 2008 at 20:29:52
“Oh do give us a civics lesson. Since apparently anybody who doesn't agree with you is too stupid to understand how our government works. Especially what you just described is political hatred from a group of people with issues. That has nothing to do with "civics".
Sounds like you need to go back to school . . oh, wait - they don't teach Civics anymore.”
“THsi post is so ridiculous it almost does not deserve response.
Obama was simply talking about how different Presidents brought about change in a reaction to the present political climate. THe fact is Regan did fundamentally change the political system in ways that say... Clinton did not.
He did not say Regan's policies were great, nor make any kind of endorsement of any of the Republican policies of the ilk.
The MSM has totally embellished this crap, and Ms. Jong does not seem to posses the intellect. nor the insight to see this as well.”
Vishous on Jan 18, 2008 at 14:22:21
“Thank you for injecting some sanity to this post and discussion. I don't think he ever implied that Reagan made a "positive" change, simply that he was able to change the trajectory of America. That's an undeniable fact. I'm certain, that he doesn't agree with 99.9% of Reagan's policies, but you can not negate the fact that he was very popular as president. So much so that GHWB was elected after him. Also, don't for a second think that a lot of the people who came out against W in 2006 won't easily go back to the Repug realm for 2008. Not all of these people were completely converted to the Democratic side, but wanted to vote for change because Congress was so abysmal. As sad as it is, the country is more or less evenly divided between the two parties, and the national picture is completely reliant on the Independents. You have to have crossover appeal, and I think that is the most important to building on majorities in Congress and putting a Democrat in the White House. Don't fall for this post's frame on his Reagan quote.”
Bill is up on the stump as much as she is.
You talk about a cake walk, I wan the media to start actually going investigating her "35 year" of experience as much as the vet Mr. Obama and Edwards
I find it so interesting that the Hillary supporters run to her aid when she implies Rovian tactics.
They say they want equality and that she is tough, but, "the men double-teamed on her" at the debate, although she is a candidate and she was on the offensive.
Democrats that scream about the corruption and dishonesty of the Bush Administration, defend the Clinton's with all there failings blindly.
I just don't get it.”
Babaganoush on Jan 9, 2008 at 17:59:54
TXRed on Jan 9, 2008 at 17:00:13
“You have hit one of the Hillary problems right on the head: what exactly is her 35 years of experience? Hillary continuously evades answering with any details. I want a resume-type list of what exactly comprises this experience. What has she herself (not in role of Mrs. Clinton) achieved? I know she failed the DC Bar, and I know she was put in charge of developing a medical care plan for Americans, but she failed. And then there was her role as counsel in the Whitewater matter -- advising her clients to pursue a path of illegal acts. Being First Lady/President's Wife is not, in my mind, real experience for the office of President of the United States.”
“Her own staff admitted she did not read the NIE before the vote that was produced that said the intelligence was shaky at best.
Anyone with half a brain realizes that all Dems voted so that they would look soft on terror. They made a political (calculated) gamble and lost. Now people like Mrs Clinton want to revise history to seam like the were fooled.
In my mind I have yet to rectify in my mind, whether I am angry at all the Dems for the vote, or the spinelessness that caused it.
The is the triangulation I am tired of with this generation.”
joselopez on Jan 6, 2008 at 18:55:29
“Actually she hersel also admitted she did not read the NIE report, stating she had gahterd information from many sources to make her decision. For the record, some of those who voted against it, stated the voted against it after reading the NIE report. MS. Experience, failed to do so, but even if she read it she would have cast the same vote, for the reason you mentioned.”
“The point he made regarding the reform was not his best moment, but really rather irrelevant to your point. Two seats to his left sits one of the greatest abusers of PAC money in the history of politics. Travel gate… yes that was Hillary (In 2000, The Independent counsel (not Star) Robert Ray made a final report on Travelgate, stating HRC had made factually false statements )
For the Clintons or any of her supporters to ever speak a word about lobbyist and the ilk is pure unadulterated hypocrisy. It amazes me how people forget that the Clintons were always found to have lied (perjury) and made false statements, but the issues often were not ever prosecuted ( very similar to Bush). Remember her “vast right-wing conspiracy” in defense of Bill on the Lewinsky matter. The guy did lie under oath, period.
I hope none of her supports have posted against Scooter Libby getting a pardon after Bill’s record (see, Roger Clinton, his half brother or Hugh Rodam, her brother). They were nailed for drugs ( his brother and money laundering and tax evasion (her brother)
For Democrats that scream for Bush to be impeached for all of his transgressions (and I agree with them) to turn the cheek after all that the Clinton’s were involved in is ludicrous. I have never seen a group of more power hungry people willing to twist and manipulate to get there way and have people just blindly forgive them. Oh wait, that is exactly what the right wing does for Bush/Cheney.
Are they complete villains? Of course not, but they are a page the certainly needs to be turned.”
An Obama/Webb ticket would carry nearly every "purple" state. OH VA, and PA would go to the Dems. Party over for Republicans
Can you imagine any vice President candidate trying to take on Webb on foreign policy?
Obama creates the vision and leadership for a new America, Webb provides additional pragmatic strategies to get us right with the world.”
Querent on Jan 6, 2008 at 19:03:48
“Jim Webb may be an excellent debater, I don't know. It's well known that he's very pugnacious. Unfortunately, he doesn't perform. He ran on a platform that said he was going to take the fight to the Repigs, that he was not going to accept their excuses anymore, that he was going to make change happen with respect to the occupation, which he keeps calling "the war". Well, he didn't. It was all a bunch of cheap talk, and he didn't do jack shit that had any effectiveness of any kind. In fact he has consistently voted with the Repigs against sensible attempts to limit Bush's authority.
I donated to his campaign because I believed his rhetoric. I feel like I would be justified in suing him for fraud. To me, Jim Webb would be a liability to any Presidential campaign, not an asset.
Oh, and by the way, even if you contributed to Jim Webb's campaign, if you don't live in Virginia, he can't be bothered to respond to attempts to communicate with him. Not even a form letter. Except for the continuing requests for campaign donations, of course.”