Hillary's to Lose?

[Danny White]

Analysis: It's Clinton's Race to Lose...
Oct 25 06:38 PM US/Eastern
By NEDRA PICKLER
Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON (AP) - Memo to the Democratic presidential candidates: You can still beat Hillary Rodham Clinton, but you better act fast.

The former first lady looks more likely to win the nomination every day, showing strength in polling, fundraising and setting the campaign agenda.

She's so strong, in fact, that the race has become about her. And Democratic operatives from presidential campaigns past and present say the only way for any other candidate to win the nomination is to make an even stronger case against her.

"If this were a wedding, we'd be at the 'speak now or forever hold your peace' part," said Steve McMahon, who advised Howard Dean in "If you're a candidate hoping to get past her, the time for nuance and veiled references has passed."

There is always the chance that Clinton could make an error in the next couple of months that would hurt her chances. Some argue that her vote against Iran at a time when anti-war Democrats are concerned about war there has the potential to damage her standing.

But Democratic insiders, including some working on various 2008 campaigns who spoke on condition of anonymity, agree that barring a major stumble, Clinton is all but sure to win the nomination if she wins the opening contest in Iowa. She is polling well in the states that follow, and no one else would be able to challenge her unless an Iowa loss made her look vulnerable.

"If Hillary wins Iowa, she can practically start shopping for a running mate," said California-based Democratic strategist Dan Newman.

But that's a big if. Clinton has called Iowa her "hardest state," and it's the best—some say only—chance her opponents have to get past her.

"At this point the trailing candidates need to not only catch a huge wave, they also need one to crash on top of Hillary," Newman said. "They need to upend the conventional wisdom that is gelling among donors and others that she can't be stopped, and they need to prove it in Iowa."

The most recent polls in the state show a close race among Clinton and fellow Sens. John Edwards and Barack Obama.

Edwards has been making a more vigorous case recently against Clinton's ability to win a general election. He's also led criticisms of her that have been picked up by other candidates—that she's too connected to lobbyists and that her vote to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization could be a repeat of her mistake in voting for the Iraq war.

Those criticisms haven't hurt her yet, but they could as more people begin to pay closer attention in the closing days of the race. Some advise that the Clinton campaign should consider fighting back against Edwards or anyone else who takes her on so directly.

"While Edwards is attacking her as being unelectable, the GOP is also saying she is polarizing and out of the mainstream," said Donna Brazile, who ran Al Gore's campaign in 2000. "Time to deck them or push back."

Joe Biden and Chris Dodd have been more aggressively criticizing her on foreign policy. Obama says there needs to be a change away from Washington insiders while generally avoiding mention of her name.

And at a time when Obama needs to be winning voters away from Clinton, instead he's been playing defense. Just this week he's been under fire from gay activists who objected to a participant in his gospel concert series, and his campaign agreed to return some donations after The Washington Post reported that they came from children.

Most of those interviewed say Obama needs to get tougher on Clinton.

"I don't buy this `Politics of Hope' means you can't engage the next candidate," said strategist Jamal Simmons. "People want to be hopeful, but people want to know you are tough enough to win and you are tough enough to lead the country."

In comparison to Obama, Simmons said, "people are very clear what John Edwards is running for. He's there fighting for the working man and woman, and he's taking his shots. Even at some times he may seem to the outside world to be too strident and hitting it too hard. But he's hitting, and people respect that."

But some inside the Clinton and Obama camps think it would be a mistake for Obama to go on the attack in a multi-candidate race. They ask: Why not sit back and let Edwards and others try to take her down, while he tries to rise above?

"I think with name ID as high as Senator Clinton's, there is little new information about her that would change voter's minds," said Erik Smith, who worked for Dick Gephardt in 2004. "A candidate can move late in Iowa if making a strong case for themselves as the best candidate to win the general."

That happened in the last Iowa presidential primary. In 2004, Dean was the front-runner, and Gephardt went after him hard. Dean and Gephardt fell into third and fourth place respectively in the caucus, behind John Kerry and Edwards.

"Her opponents will have opportunities to slow her down, but the risks of doing what that will take come at a considerable risk," said Democratic consultant Michael Feldman, who works for Gore. He is not aligned with any campaign this election cycle, but has donated to Clinton. "Take Senator Obama, for example. It's hard to slash and burn when you have said that you want to move beyond negative campaigning. He runs a serious risk of undermining his brand."

And there's no indication it would work since she's done well with what's come at her so far. "There is no doubt that she will be tested, but she is running the kind of campaign that indicates her ability to roll through those inevitable challenges," Feldman said.

[jterrell]

Hillary has been part of political campaigns since she worked for Goldwater for goodness sakes. Any apparent stumbles will be calculated moves such as the Iran vote.

Hillary has been building up her war credentials. Something no one thought possible not long ago. She positions Bill as the diplomat and herself as the hammer.

Obama is staying above the fray intentionally because he knows a VP run is very likely and for a guy with his experience and age that is a key to the presidency down the road.

It will be awful hard for other countries to deride us as bigoted power-mongers when we have a female President and minority VP. And Bill can traipse all over the world building relationships with other countries while handing out cigars to their interns. :)

It is a beautiful thing.

[Danny White]

I'm not sure what would benefit Obama more... a VP position or staying in the Senate.

He should be able to win re-election easily in the Senate and then be able to position himself wherever he likes 4 or 8 years ago for the White House.

If he's part of a Clinton Adminstration, he would both benefit and suffer from that depending on how her term in office would go (a la Al Gore) as he would pretty much be handcuffed to whatever she would do.

But if he's in the Senate then he can pick and choose -- align himself with her when he sees fit, and oppose her when it is prudent as well.

It's hard to say that it would ever be beneficial to turn down a VP offer. But in his case, given his age (relative youth) and the potential he has going for him, he may be better off staying a step removed until he's ready to go for it himself.

[jterrell]

I'm not sure what would benefit Obama more... a VP position or staying in the Senate.

He should be able to win re-election easily in the Senate and then be able to position himself wherever he likes 4 or 8 years ago for the White House.

If he's part of a Clinton Adminstration, he would both benefit and suffer from that depending on how her term in office would go (a la Al Gore) as he would pretty much be handcuffed to whatever she would do.

But if he's in the Senate then he can pick and choose -- align himself with her when he sees fit, and oppose her when it is prudent as well.

It's hard to say that it would ever be beneficial to turn down a VP offer. But in his case, given his age (relative youth) and the potential he has going for him, he may be better off staying a step removed until he's ready to go for it himself.

VP is a lofty position in and of itself and would get him past any questions of experience.

Bush and Clinton and Kennedy, Roosevelt and Adams ... name-recognition is big time.

Right now amongst African-Americans there is a huge school of thought that says think they know Hillary more than Obama.

Plain truth is most folks do not pay a lick of attention to congress. While we have never had an African-American VP, we obviously have had a ton of them in Congress.

So, I'd have to say taking a VP slot is much wiser and a much more sure path to remain relevant in the political landscape. Else he could become the next Howard Dean.

[zrinkill]

Senators have a hard time winning presidential elections ... when it comes down to the wire no one wants to vote for them.

I do not think the country will vote in a woman who's only real political claim to fame is being the wife of a popular ex President .... that won her a seat on the senate .... but this is the Presidency we are talking about.

Hilary's best chance would be to become a Vice President first.

[ConcordCowboy]

Hillary would have to make a major mistake now for her to not be the nominee...no question.

[AbeBeta]

I do not think the country will vote in a woman who's only real political claim to fame is being the wife of a popular ex President .... that won her a seat on the senate .... but this is the Presidency we are talking about.


I wouldn't be so sure of that.

They said that about voting in a Catholic, and JFK won.

They said that about voting in an actor, and Reagan won.

They said that about voting in someone who cheated on his wife, and Bill Clinton won.

They said that about voting in a mentally retarded person, and GW won.

[iceberg]

I wouldn't be so sure of that.

They said that about voting in a Catholic, and JFK won.

They said that about voting in an actor, and Reagan won.

They said that about voting in someone who cheated on his wife, and Bill Clinton won.

They said that about voting in a mentally retarded person, and GW won.

twice. so what does that say about those who can't beat him out?

it's the ones who make it personal i got no use for.

[Aikbach]

I wouldn't be so sure of that.

They said that about voting in a Catholic, and JFK won.

They said that about voting in an actor, and Reagan won.

They said that about voting in someone who cheated on his wife, and Bill Clinton won.

They said that about voting in a mentally retarded person, and GW won.Now now, Jimmy Carter was in office long before W.

[trickblue]

My problem with Hillary is the same big problem I had with Bill. They govern by polls...

If you don't like Hillary's position on an issue, wait until she sees the polls on the subject; she'll change her view to reflect the majority. She is all over the place...

[mr.jameswoods]

If he's part of a Clinton Adminstration, he would both benefit and suffer from that depending on how her term in office would go (a la Al Gore) as he would pretty much be handcuffed to whatever she would do.

That doesn't make any sense. Clinton's term in office was a huge success so by your logic Gore should have won the presidency. Al Gore lost because Al Gore ran a terrible campaign. He distanced himself from Clinton to appeal to moderates due to Clinton's affair with Lewinsky. Gore appealed to people in the past because he was essentially a nice and easy going persona that didn't show much emotion but did convey maturity. Gore tried to become something he wasn't by becoming aggressive and vocally criticizing Bush which didn't resonate with people. Also, through that excessive focus on Bush, moderates felt that Gore wasn't focusig on the issues or have a platform of his own. Had Gore simply tried to be Al Gore, he may have won.

[mr.jameswoods]

My problem with Hillary is the same big problem I had with Bill. They govern by polls...

If you don't like Hillary's position on an issue, wait until she sees the polls on the subject; she'll change her view to reflect the majority. She is all over the place...


Yes,that's true but it's also what made Bill incredibly successful because he was essentially politically neutral at all times which led to a politiccally stable environment both locally and internationally. A big part of the problems we face today concerns Iraq. It has not only caused us to waste billions but it has led to political instability internationally. Bush's policies have made less safe as moderate muslims in the Middle East are now supporting terrorist organizations as they see the United States as truly trying to occupy another country which they didn't always believe in the past. Remember that a lot of these moderate Muslims may not directly be involved with terrorism but they can support their causes through donations. Now, some of the moderates and funding these organizations which they would have never entertained in the past. They truly see us as trying to occupy and take over a sovereign country for the purposes of taking their oil. We don't see it that way but put yourself in their situation, can you blame them for thinking that? I agree with Clinton's critics in that Clinton didn't really do anything to stir the economy in the 90's because the IT boom was a self perpetuating phenomenon. That's true but Clinton also didn't get us into a war in the Middle East and he had every opportunity to do so. He also prevented us from getting involved with the war in the Balkans. After 911, everyone criticized Clinton for being passive toward Bin Laden but now you can see that there was a reason he was passive toward him. Unlike Bush, Clinton realized we live in a society or our world ecosystem. You can't just disregard the rest of the world and do what you want to do.

[junk]

twice. so what does that say about those who can't beat him out?

it's the ones who make it personal i got no use for.

What does it say about those people that voted for him....twice? :eek:

[trickblue]

Yes,that's true but it's also what made Bill incredibly successful because he was essentially politically neutral at all times which led to a politiccally stable environment both locally and internationally. A big part of the problems we face today concerns Iraq. It has not only caused us to waste billions but it has led to political instability internationally.

Yes, you are right... that IS part of the problem... Bill Clinton wanted a smooth-sailing presidency to suffice his ego...

Bush's policies have made less safe as moderate muslims in the Middle East are now supporting terrorist organizations as they see the United States as truly trying to occupy another country which they didn't always believe in the past. Remember that a lot of these moderate Muslims may not directly be involved with terrorism but they can support their causes through donations. Now, some of the moderates and funding these organizations which they would have never entertained in the past. They truly see us as trying to occupy and take over a sovereign country for the purposes of taking their oil. We don't see it that way but put yourself in their situation, can you blame them for thinking that?

Interesting. Many moderate Muslims are now taking our side as they see no value in the loss of human life.

I agree with Clinton's critics in that Clinton didn't really do anything to stir the economy in the 90's because the IT boom was a self perpetuating phenomenon.

I actually think Clinton would be a good guy to hang out with, but the economic recovery started in the GB41 presidency according to the Office of Budget. Clinton was too worried what people thought of him. He did some really good work in Ireland and deserves credit for it. Outside of that he governed by polls.

That's true but Clinton also didn't get us into a war in the Middle East and he had every opportunity to do so. He also prevented us from getting involved with the war in the Balkans. After 911, everyone criticized Clinton for being passive toward Bin Laden but now you can see that there was a reason he was passive toward him. Unlike Bush, Clinton realized we live in a society or our world ecosystem. You can't just disregard the rest of the world and do what you want to do.

He just ignored terrorist attacks on his watch. That's all. He shoved it to the next President. There were plenty on his watch that he totally ignored.

I ask you. Why is Clinton held not responsible for bin Laden when he was offered to us on a silver plate. He decided that it wasn't warranted as it would piss people off.

Before you start your attack I reiterate that I did NOT vote for Bush. I don't like his policies. I don't like his immigration stance. I am not a Republican. I am not a Democrat. I am a Conservatarian. Part Conservative, part Libertarian...

[iceberg]

What does it say about those people that voted for him....twice? :eek:

that they were in the majority?

[Sasquatch]

He just ignored terrorist attacks on his watch.

Are there any circumstances where "ignoring" the problem would be preferable to a response that makes the problem much worse?

[Aikbach]

Are there any circumstances where "ignoring" the problem would be preferable to a response that makes the problem much worse?Wow, what an insane logic you continue to possess.

[Big Dakota]

Hillary has been part of political campaigns since she worked for Goldwater for goodness sakes. Any apparent stumbles will be calculated moves such as the Iran vote.

Hillary has been building up her war credentials. Something no one thought possible not long ago. She positions Bill as the diplomat and herself as the hammer.

Obama is staying above the fray intentionally because he knows a VP run is very likely and for a guy with his experience and age that is a key to the presidency down the road.

It will be awful hard for other countries to deride us as bigoted power-mongers when we have a female President and minority VP. And Bill can traipse all over the world building relationships with other countries while handing out cigars to their interns. :)

It is a beautiful thing.


Well, when you put it like that.........:)

[trickblue]

Are there any circumstances where "ignoring" the problem would be preferable to a response that makes the problem much worse?

Wow... just wow Sass...

We could have nipped this in the bud under the Clinton admin, but you want to hang it all on Bush...

I want to reiterate that I don't like Bush, but let's hang it on the responsible party...

[iceberg]

Are there any circumstances where "ignoring" the problem would be preferable to a response that makes the problem much worse?

if you vomit blood, do you ignore the problem so you don't have to identify it and admit there's a problem?

sometimes you got to take a step back to move ahead. but sticking your head in the sand has never been soething real men ever did.

[Big Dakota]

I wouldn't be so sure of that.

They said that about voting in a Catholic, and JFK won.

They said that about voting in an actor, and Reagan won.

They said that about voting in someone who cheated on his wife, and Bill Clinton won.

They said that about voting in a mentally retarded person, and GW won.



Hey now, mentally challenged:laugh2:

[iceberg]

Wow... just wow Sass...

We could have nipped this in the bud under the Clinton admin, but you want to hang it all on Bush...

I want to reiterate that I don't like Bush, but let's hang it on the responsible party...

keep pushing him on his monorail and he'll ignore you. call him on his stupidity, he'll ignore you.

do it anyway.

[trickblue]

keep pushing him on his monorail and he'll ignore you. call him on his stupidity, he'll ignore you.

do it anyway.

Sass is very intelligent... I just want him to be intellectually honest... that's all...

The fact that this whole thing is hung on Bush is laughable... and a joke...

Clinton (Bill) has lapses of good judgment... His "How Dare You" speech is good stuff. It actually hurt Hillary, but I really appreciated his candor in that respect. He put aside partisan politics and reacted as an American. Kudos to him...

[iceberg]

Sass is very intelligent... I just want him to be intellectually honest... that's all...

The fact that this whole thing is hung on Bush is laughable... and a joke...

Clinton (Bill) has lapses of good judgment... His "How Dare You" speech is good stuff. It actually hurt Hillary, but I really appreciated his candor in that respect. He put aside partisan politics and reacted as an American. Kudos to him...

won't ever happen. push him to get there and he'll ingore you. this is all i ever wanted long ago and when he said something of dire stupidity rife with contradiction, he's the smart one and *we* don't get it.

maybe i'm wrong - but i saw this so long ago. don't let him blow this off.

[Sasquatch]

Wow... just wow Sass...

We could have nipped this in the bud under the Clinton admin, but you want to hang it all on Bush...

I want to reiterate that I don't like Bush, but let's hang it on the responsible party...

I put ignore in scare quotes for a reason, since I do not consider the all-out military assault as the only conceivable response to terrorism as many here do. As I've stated repeatedly in the past, I think terrorism is predominantly a law enforcement issue, with the military playing a vital role through small-scale operations.

The failures of the Clinton administration on this issue are well-documented and undeniable. However, I believe that this administration's invasion of Iraq has made the situation infinitely worse than had we (theoretically) done nothing in response to 9/11. That's not the same as endorsing doing nothing, of course, as some would like to suggest.

A terrorists most potent weapon is provoking the target nation to react in a way that does greater harm to itself than the actual terrorist attack. The assassination of Austria's Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914 is a prime example.

As for Hillary, she has been complicit in the war and bears the responsibility for its consequences, although as CnC I believe that she will be a little more gun shy and not nearly as bellicose as the currant occupant.

[BrAinPaiNt]

I put ignore in scare quotes for a reason, since I do not consider the all-out military assault as the only conceivable response to terrorism as many here do. As I've stated repeatedly in the past, I think terrorism is predominantly a law enforcement issue, with the military playing a vital role through small-scale operations.

The failures of the Clinton administration on this issue are well-documented and undeniable. However, I believe that this administration's invasion of Iraq has made the situation infinitely worse than had we (theoretically) done nothing in response to 9/11. That's not the same as endorsing doing nothing, of course, as some would like to suggest.

A terrorists most potent weapon is provoking the target nation to react in a way that does greater harm to itself than the actual terrorist attack. The assassination of Austria's Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914 is a prime example.

As for Hillary, she has been complicit in the war and bears the responsibility for its consequences, although as CnC I believe that she will be a little more gun shy and not nearly as bellicose as the currant occupant.

Really...a little more gun shy? Can of hard not to be, don't know of too many candidates on the stage that could be more gung ho than the current administration.

However one must also look at She has already done.

She voted to officially label the Iranian army as terrorists.

Now on the surface that does not seem like much but she has also been on record as wanting to keep bases in Iraq and it is just another step that this government is using to ratchet up a possible attack on Iran.

I think she could be very close to the type of President that would be likely to push for more war if she felt it would make her look like a tough president.

I would imagine that those in the Muslim world would think she is weak since she is a woman and would press issues. In turn I think she would try to make statements and take actions to prove otherwise.

The neocons of the world would like to blabber on about how she is a left leaning communistic liberal but the truth is she is possibly the furtherest leaning right candidate on the democratic nomination ticket.

I think she would try to flex her proverbial muscles in order to show the muslim world and the US that she is no push over just because she is a woman. I think she would do a little more than is needed to show that she will not be lumped in with what people see as a lack of action like they portray her husband.

I think overall she is a recipe for disaster.

[peplaw06]

The failures of the Clinton administration on this issue are well-documented and undeniable. However, I believe that this administration's invasion of Iraq has made the situation infinitely worse than had we (theoretically) done nothing in response to 9/11. That's not the same as endorsing doing nothing, of course, as some would like to suggest.
Had GW done nothing -- theoretically speaking of course -- after 9/11, his approval rating would be around absolute zero.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Had GW done nothing -- theoretically speaking of course -- after 9/11, his approval rating would be around absolute zero.

They are not that far from there now.:D

[CowboyJeff]

Yes, you are right... that IS part of the problem... Bill Clinton wanted a smooth-sailing presidency to suffice his ego...



Interesting. Many moderate Muslims are now taking our side as they see no value in the loss of human life.



I actually think Clinton would be a good guy to hang out with, but the economic recovery started in the GB41 presidency according to the Office of Budget. Clinton was too worried what people thought of him. He did some really good work in Ireland and deserves credit for it. Outside of that he governed by polls.



He just ignored terrorist attacks on his watch. That's all. He shoved it to the next President. There were plenty on his watch that he totally ignored.

I ask you. Why is Clinton held not responsible for bin Laden when he was offered to us on a silver plate. He decided that it wasn't warranted as it would piss people off.

Before you start your attack I reiterate that I did NOT vote for Bush. I don't like his policies. I don't like his immigration stance. I am not a Republican. I am not a Democrat. I am a Conservatarian. Part Conservative, part Libertarian...

define "many" and define "moderate"

[CowboyJeff]

Really...a little more gun shy? Can of hard not to be, don't know of too many candidates on the stage that could be more gung ho than the current administration.

However one must also look at She has already done.

She voted to officially label the Iranian army as terrorists.

Now on the surface that does not seem like much but she has also been on record as wanting to keep bases in Iraq and it is just another step that this government is using to ratchet up a possible attack on Iran.

I think she could be very close to the type of President that would be likely to push for more war if she felt it would make her look like a tough president.

I would imagine that those in the Muslim world would think she is weak since she is a woman and would press issues. In turn I think she would try to make statements and take actions to prove otherwise.

The neocons of the world would like to blabber on about how she is a left leaning communistic liberal but the truth is she is possibly the furtherest leaning right candidate on the democratic nomination ticket.

I think she would try to flex her proverbial muscles in order to show the muslim world and the US that she is no push over just because she is a woman. I think she would do a little more than is needed to show that she will not be lumped in with what people see as a lack of action like they portray her husband.

I think overall she is a recipe for disaster.

that's not saying much about the socialist Democratic candidates. :laugh2:

[peplaw06]

They are not that far from there now.:DYeah I know... but to break it down in a simplistic sense, he had two options: act or do nothing.

He pretty much had to act.

His approval rating was pretty high IIRC before Iraq.... at least it was higher than it is now.

[Sasquatch]

Really...a little more gun shy? Can of hard not to be, don't know of too many candidates on the stage that could be more gung ho than the current administration.

However one must also look at She has already done.

She voted to officially label the Iranian army as terrorists.

Now on the surface that does not seem like much but she has also been on record as wanting to keep bases in Iraq and it is just another step that this government is using to ratchet up a possible attack on Iran.

I think she could be very close to the type of President that would be likely to push for more war if she felt it would make her look like a tough president.

I would imagine that those in the Muslim world would think she is weak since she is a woman and would press issues. In turn I think she would try to make statements and take actions to prove otherwise.

The neocons of the world would like to blabber on about how she is a left leaning communistic liberal but the truth is she is possibly the furtherest leaning right candidate on the democratic nomination ticket.

I think she would try to flex her proverbial muscles in order to show the muslim world and the US that she is no push over just because she is a woman. I think she would do a little more than is needed to show that she will not be lumped in with what people see as a lack of action like they portray her husband.

I think overall she is a recipe for disaster.

I'm not a supporter. I think she's a militarist. But I don't think she would engage in as much saber rattling as this administration even though I do think she would not hesitate to use force in certain situations. Having said that, I don't think she would attack Muslim nations just to prove that she is strong as a woman. I'm hoping that her "toughness" is mere posturing to secure votes from those who place a premium on security issues but I'm not counting on it. We shall see.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Yeah I know... but to break it down in a simplistic sense, he had two options: act or do nothing.

He pretty much had to act.

His approval rating was pretty high IIRC before Iraq.... at least it was higher than it is now.

He had the world in the palm of his hands with 9/11 and going after those that did it in Afghanistan. Then he went nutballs crazy and went in the wrong direction which took away from the hunt for the ones that attacked us...hence his ratings started to drop.

People forget that OBL was the number one target. The guy he made the big statement of being wanted dead or alive to only about six months to a year later totally diminishing OBL and the threat he was and is.

Asked later about the importance of OBL he said he was not a priority and he was not worried about him. Must have been a slap in the face to those that lost loved ones on 9/11.

[BrAinPaiNt]

I'm not a supporter. I think she's a militarist. But I don't think she would engage in as much saber rattling as this administration even though I do think she would not hesitate to use force in certain situations. Having said that, I don't think she would attack Muslim nations just to prove that she is strong as a woman. I'm hoping that her "toughness" is mere posturing to secure votes from those who place a premium on security issues but I'm not counting on it. We shall see.

I think she is as, if not more, vindictive as Bush and his cronies.

[AbeBeta]

Had GW done nothing -- theoretically speaking of course -- after 9/11, his approval rating would be around absolute zero.

It was not at zero afterward.

However, it did hit all time lows when people wised up and realized that he wasn't actually addressing the terrorism problem so much as using the terrorism problem as leverage to take on Iraq, who clearly was not, despite claims early on, linked to the initial issue.

[trickblue]

I think she is as, if not more, vindictive as Bush and his cronies.

I listened to a quote from George Stephanopoulos the other day and he basically said people have not even begun to see her vindictive nature yet. He said she is scary when pissed...

[yennor24]

This is a good thread for a bye week...Like one of the posters said Bush should have acted against the right group...But he went after Iraq and justified it (lied) by saying they had WMD....My thinking is Hilliary is a stronger candidate to defeat a republican candidate, I think Obama would not receive enough of the caucasian vote needed to defeat a republican candidate..just being real......

[CowboyJeff]

He had the world in the palm of his hands with 9/11 and going after those that did it in Afghanistan. Then he went nutballs crazy and went in the wrong direction which took away from the hunt for the ones that attacked us...hence his ratings started to drop.

People forget that OBL was the number one target. The guy he made the big statement of being wanted dead or alive to only about six months to a year later totally diminishing OBL and the threat he was and is.

Asked later about the importance of OBL he said he was not a priority and he was not worried about him. Must have been a slap in the face to those that lost loved ones on 9/11.

I lost a loved one on 9-11 and worked in midtown Manhattan during the attack. Bin Laden is just one very small piece of the puzzle. He is not the be-all and end-all of the war on jihad. The left wing media loves to twist things and take them out of context. It's nothing new.

[CowboyJeff]

I listened to a quote from George Stephanopoulos the other day and he basically said people have not even begun to see her vindictive nature yet. He said she is scary when pissed...

:laugh2: no comment!!!!

[Sasquatch]

I think she is as, if not more, vindictive as Bush and his cronies.

I wonder what Valerie Plame would have to say about that? I don't deny that the Clintons play hardball when it comes to politics and relish destroying their enemies as much as Karl Rove. But I trust, perhaps wrongly, the Mrs. Clinton possesses enough intelligence to resist launching a foolhardy war just to prove a personal point about the toughness of women. I think she's at a point in her career where she feels that she doesn't need to prove anything in that regard, especially if she is the first woman in history to ascendancy to the POTUS.

[BrAinPaiNt]

I listened to a quote from George Stephanopoulos the other day and he basically said people have not even begun to see her vindictive nature yet. He said she is scary when pissed...

I have heard that little weasel Dick Morris basically says the same thing. But who knows what to trust with that little weasel.:laugh2:

[BrAinPaiNt]

I lost a loved one on 9-11 and worked in midtown Manhattan during the attack. Bin Laden is just one very small piece of the puzzle. He is not the be-all and end-all of the war on jihad. The left wing media loves to twist things and take them out of context. It's nothing new.

Can't twist the mans own words.

[junk]

that they were in the majority?

Depressing, isn't it?

[iceberg]

Depressing, isn't it?

it's often frustrating to be in the minority. even moreso when the one "in power" does exhibit extreme natures of his own that cause questions of morality.

but that doesn't make what you don't agree with 'retarded'.

[AbeBeta]

Depressing, isn't it?

Especially when it wasn't a majority the first time

[Sasquatch]

Sass is very intelligent... I just want him to be intellectually honest... that's all...

We share the same longing for intellectual honesty, trickblue.

Whenever people apply extremely stringent standards of proof to argue against AGW, citing the work of scientists who themselves acknowledge it as the consensus position, only to turn around and defend the war in Iraq whose premises (WMD, actively working with Al Qaeda to attack the US, etc.), whose promised outcomes (reduce global terrorism, stabilize the middle east, spread democracy, etc.), and whose estimated costs (will be mitigated by Iraqi oil production) have all been demonstrated to be utterly and irrefutably false, I long for intellectual honesty.

Whenever people deny the ability of government to effect meaningful social change at home, only to turn around and support what is essentially a government venture to impose a radically new political, social, and economic culture on a foreign people and to accelerate on their behalf complex historical processes that in some cases have taken centuries to reach fruition, I long for intellectual honesty.

And whenever people rail against the heavy-handed, ineffectual, and fiscally wasteful intervention of the federal government in education and health care, only to turn around and support pouring far greater sums into what is by all accounts the most inefficient and wasteful area of government (Defense) in pursuit of objectives and benefits that after five years aren't becoming any clearer, I long for intellectual honesty.

Alas, despite our mutual longing for intellectual honesty, I don't think we're going to get it any time soon.

;)

[AbeBeta]

We share the same longing for intellectual honesty, trickblue.

Whenever people apply extremely stringent standards of proof to argue against AGW, citing the work of scientists who themselves acknowledge it as the consensus position, only to turn around and defend the war in Iraq whose premises (WMD, actively working with Al Qaeda to attack the US, etc.), whose promised objectives (reduce global terrorism, stabilize the middle east, spread democracy, etc.), and whose purported costs (will be mitigated by Iraqi oil production) have all been demonstrated to be utterly and irrefutably false, I long for intellectual honesty.

Whenever people deny the ability of government to effect meaningful social change at home, only to turn around and support what is essentially a government venture to impose a radically new political, social, and economic culture on a foreign people and to accelerate on their behalf complex historical processes that in some cases have taken centuries to reach fruition, I long for intellectual honesty.

And whenever people rail against the heavy-handed, ineffectual, and fiscally wasteful intervention of the federal government in education and health care, only to turn around and support pouring far greater sums into what is by all accounts the most inefficient and wasteful area of government (Defense) in pursuit of objectives and benefits that after five years aren't becoming any clearer, I long for intellectual honesty.

Alas, despite our mutual longing for intellectual honesty, I don't think we're going to get it any time soon.

;)

That sir, is one hell of a post.

[iceberg]

Especially when it wasn't a majority the first time

yea, right. conspiracy lives!!

[iceberg]

We share the same longing for intellectual honesty, trickblue.

Whenever people apply extremely stringent standards of proof to argue against AGW, citing the work of scientists who themselves acknowledge it as the consensus position, only to turn around and defend the war in Iraq whose premises (WMD, actively working with Al Qaeda to attack the US, etc.), whose promised objectives (reduce global terrorism, stabilize the middle east, spread democracy, etc.), and whose purported costs (will be mitigated by Iraqi oil production) have all been demonstrated to be utterly and irrefutably false, I long for intellectual honesty.

Whenever people deny the ability of government to effect meaningful social change at home, only to turn around and support what is essentially a government venture to impose a radically new political, social, and economic culture on a foreign people and to accelerate on their behalf complex historical processes that in some cases have taken centuries to reach fruition, I long for intellectual honesty.

And whenever people rail against the heavy-handed, ineffectual, and fiscally wasteful intervention of the federal government in education and health care, only to turn around and support pouring far greater sums into what is by all accounts the most inefficient and wasteful area of government (Defense) in pursuit of objectives and benefits that after five years aren't becoming any clearer, I long for intellectual honesty.

Alas, despite our mutual longing for intellectual honesty, I don't think we're going to get it any time soon.

;)

and when someone can't back up their views in the midst of many contradictions, i long for intellectual honesty.

when someone brags on having their parents give him a car yet turns around and blasts bush for being given his wealth, i long for intellectual honesty.

[zrinkill]

and when someone can't back up their views in the midst of many contradictions, i long for intellectual honesty.

when someone brags on having their parents give him a car yet turns around and blasts bush for being given his wealth, i long for intellectual honesty.

:bow:

[AbeBeta]

yea, right. conspiracy lives!!

That isn't a conspiracy theory. Gore won the popular vote, so to say a majority of Americans picked bush in 2000 is incorrect.

The popular vote #s were:

Gore 50,999,897
Bush 50,456,002

[iceberg]

That isn't a conspiracy theory. Gore won the popular vote, so to say a majority of Americans picked bush in 2000 is incorrect.

The popular vote #s were:

Gore 50,999,897
Bush 50,456,002

gotcha. wild quirks in the system, huh? (not being sarcastic here :)

[junk]

it's often frustrating to be in the minority. even moreso when the one "in power" does exhibit extreme natures of his own that cause questions of morality.

but that doesn't make what you don't agree with 'retarded'.

I'd vote either party depending upon the candidate.

I just find it depressing that anyone would listen to W. for more than 2 minutes and actually consider him any sort of presidential candidate.

It's even more depressing that people voted for him twice and continue to defend him after 6 years of ineptitude.

[trickblue]

We share the same longing for intellectual honesty, trickblue.

Whenever people apply extremely stringent standards of proof to argue against AGW, citing the work of scientists who themselves acknowledge it as the consensus position, only to turn around and defend the war in Iraq whose premises (WMD, actively working with Al Qaeda to attack the US, etc.), whose promised outcomes (reduce global terrorism, stabilize the middle east, spread democracy, etc.), and whose estimated costs (will be mitigated by Iraqi oil production) have all been demonstrated to be utterly and irrefutably false, I long for intellectual honesty.

Whenever people deny the ability of government to effect meaningful social change at home, only to turn around and support what is essentially a government venture to impose a radically new political, social, and economic culture on a foreign people and to accelerate on their behalf complex historical processes that in some cases have taken centuries to reach fruition, I long for intellectual honesty.

And whenever people rail against the heavy-handed, ineffectual, and fiscally wasteful intervention of the federal government in education and health care, only to turn around and support pouring far greater sums into what is by all accounts the most inefficient and wasteful area of government (Defense) in pursuit of objectives and benefits that after five years aren't becoming any clearer, I long for intellectual honesty.

Alas, despite our mutual longing for intellectual honesty, I don't think we're going to get it any time soon.

;)

No... we aren't...

As long as any American tows the party line and can't think for themselves, we are going to have issues...

Many of your arguments are rooted in information attributed to your own party. You can't see the forest for the trees. I choose to think outside of the box and form my own opinion rather than believe any of the two main political machines and their crapola...

From your posts I see around here, you could never see yourself voting for anyone that doesn't tow the party line. The same info that Clinton had is the same info that Bush had. From that same info you derive he lied. I have gone on record saying I don't like Bush nor his policy. Were you calling the Clinton Administration liars when they espoused the same info? He bombed an aspirin factory the same DAY that the Lewinsky info came forward...

I choose to think for myself, but maybe that is just me. I will be glad when the Bush Administration is gone, but I am not foolish enough to believe we should cut and run in Iraq.

That sir, is one hell of a post.

:rolleyes:

[Sasquatch]

No... we aren't...

As long as any American tows the party line and can't think for themselves, we are going to have issues...

Many of your arguments are rooted in information attributed to your own party. You can't see the forest for the trees. I choose to think outside of the box and form my own opinion rather than believe any of the two main political machines and their crapola...

From your posts I see around here, you could never see yourself voting for anyone that doesn't tow the party line. The same info that Clinton had is the same info that Bush had. From that same info you derive he lied. I have gone on record saying I don't like Bush nor his policy. Were you calling the Clinton Administration liars when they espoused the same info? He bombed an aspirin factory the same DAY that the Lewinsky info came forward...

I choose to think for myself, but maybe that is just me. I will be glad when the Bush Administration is gone, but I am not foolish enough to believe we should cut and run in Iraq.

:rolleyes:

What party are you referring to? I'm a registered independent and always have been. I've never contributed to either of the two major political parties nor have I participated in any of their events. It might also surprise you to learn that I have never cast a vote for a democratic candidate in a presidential election.

Aside from that, this is an interesting and very revealing post. Is it possible that sometimes what we see in others is a reflection of ourselves? ;)

[zrinkill]

It might also surprise you to learn that I have never cast a vote for a democratic candidate in a presidential election.

Wow ...... seems to me that you were pimping Kerry back in 2004, actually guaranteed a Kerry victory ...... so much so, that when he lost you left the renegade forum.

But I am sure you did not vote for him ...... ;)

[Sasquatch]

Wow ...... seems to me that you were pimping Kerry back in 2004, actually guaranteed a Kerry victory ...... so much so, that when he lost you left the renegade forum.

But I am sure you did not vote for him ...... ;)

Difficult as it may be to imagine, just because I think one candidate might be better suited for the office than another, doesn't mean that I cast my vote for them. Think what you will.

[iceberg]

Difficult as it may be to imagine, just because I think one candidate might be better suited for the office than another, doesn't mean that I cast my vote for them. Think what you will.

so you don't vote for who you think may be better, you tow the party line, like trick said?

then again this is gonna wind up being another sas-tradiction. "don't listen to what i say listen to what i mean". i'm one that just can't let go of a stupid statement from such a "pretty" mouth (meaning educated in this sense) and yes i do consider sas *very* educated.

just not very smart.

good to see i'm not the only one who see's through his hoops and dances. just be careful, pushing for a straight answer will only get you ignord.

[iceberg]

No... we aren't...

As long as any American tows the party line and can't think for themselves, we are going to have issues...

Many of your arguments are rooted in information attributed to your own party. You can't see the forest for the trees. I choose to think outside of the box and form my own opinion rather than believe any of the two main political machines and their crapola...

From your posts I see around here, you could never see yourself voting for anyone that doesn't tow the party line. The same info that Clinton had is the same info that Bush had. From that same info you derive he lied. I have gone on record saying I don't like Bush nor his policy. Were you calling the Clinton Administration liars when they espoused the same info? He bombed an aspirin factory the same DAY that the Lewinsky info came forward...

I choose to think for myself, but maybe that is just me. I will be glad when the Bush Administration is gone, but I am not foolish enough to believe we should cut and run in Iraq.

:rolleyes:

you tagged him pretty good, trick. i don't mean that in a bad sense but you state how i view sas also very well. he sees what he sees and he will not falter from that path despite the holes in the ground, the buildings in the way and so forth.

but i'm sure he'll come back with an excuse or some other statement that contradicts something he was adamant about before. rules apply to all but sas, it would seem.

[iceberg]

I'd vote either party depending upon the candidate.

I just find it depressing that anyone would listen to W. for more than 2 minutes and actually consider him any sort of presidential candidate.

It's even more depressing that people voted for him twice and continue to defend him after 6 years of ineptitude.

i'd find it depressing someone could see gore in the debate go rushing up to bush like a kid with a secret and view him as anything more than a whiner.

i'd find it depressing kerry looks to his people for "quotes" to say and can't even get things like baseball scores right when he spouts them out.

then again, i find it depressing no one truly qualified has the nutsack (or lack thereof) to run and all we have are power hungry lemmings on a sugar rush even trying to be president.

[junk]

then again, i find it depressing no one truly qualified has the nutsack (or lack thereof) to run and all we have are power hungry lemmings on a sugar rush even trying to be president.

I agree with that. The candidates for 2008 aren't very appealing either.