The death of the Democratic Party as we know it?

Will this be the kiss of death for the once great, sensible, traditional, and powerful Democratic Party?

 

The Democrats seem to think that Hillary Clinton will be their savior in 2008.

Whoever the Republicans put up against her is going to win in a landslide. The red states of 2004 are simply not going to vote for a feminist socialist to be President.

 

Red states? More than that....

Hell, I won't even vote for Hillary. The Republicans would have to practically run the exhumed corpse of Attilla the Hun in order to dissuade me from voting for their candidate in a race against Ms. Clinton.

 

I also wouldn't support Senator Clinton's bid for the White House, but only because she probably couldn't win.

I AM curious, though: Why do you all hate her so much? No First Lady since Eleanor Roosevelt has inspired such vicious, personal attacks yet I really can't see what all of the fuss is about. What has she done to inspire your hate?

It doesn't seem to me to ba a matter of political disagreement; Senator Clinton was being disparaged on the talk show circuit long before she was a politician in her own right.

 

Nosborne, I think "hate" is too strong a term for my own dislike of Hillary Clinton. I certainly don't hate her, or her hubby Bill. In fact, I kind of like them as a team that survived, despite huge marital issues.

But the roots of my dislike are also from this dynamic between her and Bill. In other words, here we have a woman who is so much of a careerist that she was willing to overlook or otherwise tolerate (to her own humiliation as a woman) her husband's indiscretions, just so she could stay latched to his rising star. That to me is kind of creepy, and I guess it is that surreal nature of the Clinton's marital relationship that casts a cloud over her ethical perspective in my own mind.

 

Fair enough, but she was hated almost ab initio, long before anyone knew anything about the Monica business.

Can you, can anyone, point to a single, verifiable misdeed by Senator Clinton (keeping in mind that Kenneth Starr and $40 million turned up essentially nothing)?

I admit that the billing records business was a bit disturbing but again nothing came of it despite vigorous investigation. and a very hostile Congress.

No. Hillary Clinton was hated and vilified before she even opened her mouth and I can't understand why.

 

Hillary

It's just the strong woman syndrome. Men are threatened by it. What we would see as strength in a man we see as "biatch" in a woman.
See: Martha Stewart

Can't change it though, so she is unelectable.

 

HRC

She just rubs me the wrong way. I think it's the arrogance that I detect in her. She trys to come off as caring and compassionate, but she can't do it. Bill is very good at it, but HRC just can't pull it off. The way she tells obvious whoppers with a straight face and expects her legions to believe her.

I'm probably guilty of a little nitpicking when it comes to her but there are numerous "little" things about her that get under my skin. Her selective amnesia on things like the Rose law firm and Scott Livingstone. The smartest woman in the world can't remember details like that?

Refusing to admit she used a ghost writer for her book. What's the big deal about a ghost writer? Lots of people use them. She expects us all to believe she wrote her book alone.

Also, did you ever notice that in interviews, when she would refer to Bill, she would always say "my husband". She never called him "The President". Even a wife should show the proper respect and refer to him as "The President". "Bill" on occasion would be be fine, but it was usually "my husband" as if it was all about her.

Like I said, I'm nitpicking.

 

Not before, but immediately following.

It started with her "baking cookies" and "stand by your man" statements. I think she lost at least half the women and alot of the men at that moment.

 

At least there seems to be some consensus that folks just don't LIKE her, for whatever reason.

In politics, that's perfectly legitimate.

I do admit that I didn't much care for the "stand by your man" stuff but some of her greatest critics are also opposed to divorce as being un Christian, so what was she supposed to do?

Well, New York will probably continue to elect her to the Senate and maybe that's the best place for her.

 

I don't "hate" anyone. I don't like Ms. Clinton's politics nor her behaviors.

She accused a "vast right wing conspiracy" and denied Clinton's infidelity saying she "believes" him. Can a woman so blatantly blind be trusted to run our country?

Remember Whitewater. Susan McDougal went to prison for the Clintons.

Ms. Clinton supports everything wrong with America insofar as morals and ethics are concerned.

Ms. Clinton believes "it takes a village" to rear children. Baloney! It takes a mother and a father.

Ms. Clinton, along with her "buddy," Janet Reno, supports the rights of children to divorce their parents.

Ms. Clinton....................

She will begin moving towards the center in order to garner support in the red states.

Unlike Carl, I could vote for Ms. Clinton (holding my nose) if the GOP nominates someone too far to the right.

A number of political experts think Ms. Clinton could actually win.

I really don't see her winning the nomination.

 

Re: Hillary

No, no, no! Don't say "Men..." say "Some men..."

I don't mind strong leaders of any sex.

I have voted for a number of women in my life for many top political jobs including Geraldine Ferraro for Veep in '84.

I think Dr. Rice would be an excellent President and she is no weakling.

I have always believed a woman would make a better President than a man because of the compassion factor.

 

Re: Re: Hillary

[sarcasm]Maybe that's why Jimmy Carter was such a great president.[/sarcasm]

 

Re: Re: Re: Hillary

I have always like Jimmy Carter but have lost some respect for him over the years.

Carter talked a good game of human rights and compassion but he coddled up to numerous violators of human rights and many who were not compassionate.

 

Carl, this is a HUGE assumption on your part. Is it possible that she stayed married to her husband because, well, because she loves him, and has been with him since their college days?

Lots of women tolerate their husband’s indiscretions. Lots of couples try and salvage their marriage by going to counseling (which they did).

I think you have assumed the worst based on mere observations of their public life.

I think she has a real shot in 2008. After another 4 years of Bush and the 100 year war, Americans will elect almost any Dem. The war is far worse than most people can imagine. This is revealed by the troops recent "assaulting" of Rumsfeld over the lack of proper equipment. It's funny, or sad really, that the GOP criticized Kerry during the campaign for pointing out that the Admin. wasn’t supplying troops with the proper equipment. How un-American. How negative. He's a traitor. He's not supporting our troops.

No, he was speaking the truth. This hypocritical Admin. speaks about honoring the troops and their efforts. It speaks about their bravery. And then it sends them into battle with spare parts. Truly shameful. The country will be ready for a change. Trust me. Don't count Hillary out.

 

I guess you are not aware an embedded reporter planted this question into the mind of the soldier. This has been more than verified and validated.

Even if the soldier thought of this on his own, it's nothing new.

If you engage in some research about America and war, you will see that in every war going back at least to the Civil War, troops have complained about improper equipment and lack of support both from within and without the ranks.

 

Re: Re: Hillary

OK. Some men.
I would argue though that Dr. Rice can't really be deemed as "strong". She hasn't opposed the president on anything that I know of. Saying yes doesn't make you strong. If she suddenly starts to act as if she has a backbone let's see if the enthusiasm for her remains.

 

Re: Re: Re: Hillary

Why is it that if someone agrees with someone they are not strong but a "yes person"? I agree with my church Board most of the time and they agree with me. Yet, I wouldn't characterize either the Board of me as "Yes men."

I agree with Bush. I have strong opinions and beliefs that just happen to be in sync with his. Does this make me weak and a "Yes man."?

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Hillary

The point is that Hillary does disagree and speaks publicly about what she thinks. She's taken chances. Dr. Rice is coasting and we have no idea what she thinks.

Why is it that if someone agrees with someone they are not strong but a "yes person"?
Because it's harder to disagree than to agree. These days, disagreeing means you are open to ad hominem attacks. It's easier just to go with the flow.

 

Time to pull your head out of the sand. The soldier who raised the issue was met with CHEERS from the ranks. Moreover, it wasn't just equipment. There was also great frustration expressed over the stop-loss fiasco for the reserves, as well as compensation problems (the only issue that Rumsfeld seemed to take interest in).

Jimmy, your answer doesn't wash. On the one hand, you seem to imply that this was not a real issue, and was "planted" as part of some conspiracy by the liberal media. On the other hand, you're saying that these "problems" have always been problems. Which is it?

Our troops are rummaging through trash heaps trying to find armor they can bolt to their vehicles. Of course, if Bush & Co. had correctly evaluated this war effort, perhaps all would have been better prepared. Their total miscalculation of the size and intensity of the insurgency is grounds for booting them all out of office. In fact, it doesn't even qualify as a miscalculation. They didn't even consider it, and were in fact "surprised." Now everyone is struggling to cope with the after effects.

It's amazing to me that many Americans are willing to cut Bush slack on two huge issues. One, they give him the benefit of the doubt that the war on Iraq was a good idea. Two, and perhaps more incredible, they give him the benefit of the doubt that we are actually doing a good job of fighting the war. It's incredible. He declared an illegal war; he completely blew the planning and preparation; and now Bush Inc. is struggling to properly equip the troops he haphazardly sent to Iraq.

Bush has not been able to properly manage any job he has undertaken. Look at his employment history!! Why would people expect it to change? Not only that, but he has managed to squander the biggest and most uniform feeling of solidarity that has existed in this country for many many decades - that of post 9-11.

How else can he screw things up? It's hard to imagine worse screw-ups, but give him time. His second term is still young.