Hillary Clinton is lying through her teeth and she knows it.

[Ishmael]

It's customary for State Attorneys to leave their position when the President that appointed them leaves office. Those State Attorneys did not do so, and so forced President Clinton's hand, he fired them.

These State attorneys that were fired were pressured by Republican congresspersons to press cases against Democratic rivals and at least one was warned by the Justice Department to keep quiet or face retaliation.

While President Clinton did indeed replace all 93 state attorneys, he did not do so as a matter of pure political retribution.


As for a modicum of memory:
Mary Jo White, who was U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York from 1993-2002, also stated that the Bush administration’s prosecutor purge is unprecedented in “modern history”:

"You serve at the president’s pleasure, no question about that. … However, throughout modern history, my understanding is, you did not change the U.S. attorney during an administration, unless there was some evidence of misconduct or other really quite significant cause to do so. And the expectation was, so long as that was absent, that you would serve out your full four years or eight years as U.S. attorney."

State attorneys need to serve “without fear or favor and in an absolutely apolitical way.” By firing well-respected federal prosecutors (all that were fired for "performance reasons" received positive evaluations from the Justice Department) and replacing them with Republican loyalists, the Bush administration has politicized the judicial system. These firings are obviously a threat to the rest of the State Attorneys to "Toe the line or else."

You're full of shit. You are ignorant of history. Actually, you're just plain ignorant.

Ishmael

 

[Paendragon]

Who here in this thread really believes Clinton has a chance of winning? Republicans should be rooting for her, not againt her.

The woman puts her foot in her mouth bi-weekly. She should be happy with being a senator for the next 30 years, and quit while she's ahead.

 

[jhuson]

Who here in this thread really believes Clinton has a chance of winning? Republicans should be rooting for her, not againt her.

The woman puts her foot in her mouth bi-weekly. She should be happy with being a senator for the next 30 years, and quit while she's ahead.

I've been saying the same thing.

SHE CAN'T WIN.

If I was blindly allegiant Repub, I'd be more worried about Obama.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I'm kind of amazed that anybody thinks she won't win. I mean McCain seems pretty damn likely to beat Rudy in the primaries and then just get slaughtered by Hillary, god help the right if Obama does sign on as her VP cus then baring catasphrophic failure they won't be back in office fo 16 years.

 

[Paendragon]

I've been saying the same thing.

SHE CAN'T WIN.

If I was blindly allegiant Repub, I'd be more worried about Obama.

True. Mostly because he has a way of speaking that makes people forget his lack of experience. Let's face it, as country, we vote personality.

 

[Paendragon]

I'm kind of amazed that anybody thinks she won't win. I mean McCain seems pretty damn likely to beat Rudy in the primaries and then just get slaughtered by Hillary, god help the right if Obama does sign on as her VP cus then baring catasphrophic failure they won't be back in office fo 16 years.

She's not likeable enough to make up for her fuckups. People will be less likely to forgive and forget, because her personality is like nails on a chalkboard. Whereas Obama, as an example, can screw up and have people ignore it for the most part. George W. Bush was a master of that. People genuinely liked him, so they overlooked his faults and elected him President.

Cult of Personality.

 

[Sean Renaud]

She's not likeable enough to make up for her fuckups. People will be less likely to forgive and forget, because her personality is like nails on a chalkboard. Whereas Obama, as an example, can screw up and have people ignore it for the most part. George W. Bush was a master of that. People genuinely liked him, so they overlooked his faults and elected him President.

Cult of Personality.

She's not likable at all, but she's a woman and a Clinton. And for the first election I think Bush being "brand name" had a lot to do with it. The second time Kerry is just that big of a fuck up that he managed to lose a gimme election. (course the keep the president through a war probably didn't hurt.)

 

[MechaBlade]

The "Clintons". I'm not sure how Hillary Clinton inherited Bill's political record. That's awesome, does that mean if I fuck a politician, I can run with the same qualifications and drawbacks?

 

[Paendragon]

She's not likable at all, but she's a woman and a Clinton. And for the first election I think Bush being "brand name" had a lot to do with it. The second time Kerry is just that big of a fuck up that he managed to lose a gimme election. (course the keep the president through a war probably didn't hurt.)

Being a woman is a strike against her, not for her. In order for a woman to win the Presidency she's going to have to be more likeable than a man with the same record. It's a sad statement, but a true one, I think.

It's a lot easier to win a nomination. Your party tends to look at you with rose-colored glasses, and once you start rolling the rest of the votes fall in line . . . which explains the Kerry nomination. Momentum doesn't play that kind of roll in a national election. The spotlight is on you all the time.

I can tell you right now, the majority of the voting country isn't paying attention to the primaries. Not in any depth. They won't start paying attention until we're down to two candidates. Then all the flaws show. And you better be able to adjust to that.

 

[Saint Boner]

...They also weren't in the midst of investigations into members of the President's political party, nor were they singled out for firing as these eight were. Clinton also didn't want to replace those attorneys with appointees not approved by Congress using a new provision in the Patriot act.

You don't have a fucking leg to stand on and neither does Gonzalez.

Ed Zachery.

Even the most repubicans are sick of Bushs' crap.

 

[jhuson]

True. Mostly because he has a way of speaking that makes people forget his lack of experience. Let's face it, as country, we vote personality.

I think the experience thing is total BS.

JQ Adams was said to be the best prepared person for the presidency and he was mediocre at best.

Lincoln was a neophyte politcally and was left a mess by his predecessor and he did alright from what I hear.

What about Rudy? He was a mayor and a prosecutor at a municipal level.

I don't mind Rudy, Obama, Gore, Richardson or Hagel.

 

[busybody..]

Well, I guess she got a TALKING TO

This BITCH stands for NOTHING!


HRC: Homosexuality Is Not Immoral
Appearing on Bloomberg News, Sen. Hillary Clinton:

"Well I've heard from a number of my friends and I've certainly clarified with them any misunderstanding that anyone had, because I disagree with General Pace completely. I do not think homosexuality is immoral. But the point I was trying to make is that this policy of Don't Ask, Don't Tell is not working. I have been against it for many years because I think it does a grave injustice to patriotic Americans who want to serve their country. And so I have called for its repeal and I'd like to follow the lead of our allies like, Great Britain and Israel and let people who wish to serve their country be able to join and do so. And then let the uniform code of military justice determine if conduct is inappropriate or unbecoming. That's fine. That's what we do with everybody. But let's not be eliminating people because of who they are or who they love."

 

[Paendragon]

I think the experience thing is total BS.

JQ Adams was said to be the best prepared person for the presidency and he was mediocre at best.

Lincoln was a neophyte politcally and was left a mess by his predecessor and he did alright from what I hear.

What about Rudy? He was a mayor and a prosecutor at a municipal level.

I don't mind Rudy, Obama, Gore, Richardson or Hagel.

Experience is never bs. It can just be overshadowed by a person with charisma in the eyes of the people. Lincoln was also said to be one of the best speakers we've ever had in the white house. He made people see his point of view because he didn't just talk, he painted them a picture. This isn't about what they'll do when and if they win, it's about getting them elected.

Obama might turn out to be great. But even if that's the case, he's going to be a hard sell because of his lack of experience . . . unless he's facing off against Giuliani. But if it's McCain?

 

[busybody..]

Simply put

She is DANGEROUS and DUMB!


Clinton: I'll Ignore Genocide


Hillary Clinton made an astonishing statement on her policy for Iraq if elected President, in an interview with the New York Times yesterday. She refused to commit to total withdrawal from Iraq, saying that she would keep American troops in Anbar to fight terrorists, a stance that will not endear her to the anti-war Left in her party. At the same time, she said she would refuse to send troops back into Baghdad, even if a genocide took place:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced but significant military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.


In a half-hour interview on Tuesday in her Senate office, Mrs. Clinton said the scaled-down American military force that she would maintain in Iraq after taking office would stay off the streets in Baghdad and would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence — even if it descended into ethnic cleansing.

In outlining how she would handle Iraq as commander in chief, Mrs. Clinton articulated a more-nuanced position than the one she has provided at her campaign events, where she has backed the goal of “bringing the troops home.”


More nuanced? It's abysmal, cynical, and completely self-serving. To commit the US to inaction in the face of genocide is nothing short of breathtaking, especially with the Left agitating for action -- and rightly so -- in Darfur. It should also remind voters of Bill Clinton's record in Rwanda.

This statement shows a complete lack of strategic and tactical thinking on the part of someone who want to assume the role of Commander in Chief. The key to stabilizing Iraq and beating the terrorists who have nested in Anbar is restoring order to its capital. If the central government falls, the other goals she mentions -- deterring Iran, protecting the Kurds, and so on -- will go right out the window. If Baghdad falls into utter chaos and ethnic cleansing, the rest of the nation will follow suit in short order, and Anbar will be the least of our problems.

That really would put the US contingent in Iraq in an untenable position. If Baghdad collapses, the Shi'ite south will likely fall into the hands of the radicals -- cutting off our lines of communication. We won't be able to resupply through the Gulf any longer, and Turkey made it clear in 2003 that they had no interest in assisting our logistics. Saudi Arabia has no desire to see us return to their territory, and Syria is obviously not going to cooperate, either.

Hillary has revealed herself as a joke on military strategy, and more importantly, on moral grounding. Who can say in these days and times that the US should stand by and watch a genocide take place within a day's drive of American troops? As a member of the UN Security Council, we have enough shame for inaction in Rwanda to last us a generation. This strategy would embolden the radicals to conduct their genocide -- and stain us for generations to come.

 

[Lasher]

Who here in this thread really believes Clinton has a chance of winning? Republicans should be rooting for her, not againt her.

I think anyone with a (D) next to their name in 2008 has a better than 50/50 chance of winning.

However, I don't believe she'll be the nominee. It's shaping up as perfect opportunity for Al Gore to come in late in the year and steal the nomination.

The evolving creation of the Super Super Tuesday on Feb 5th makes this more and more likely.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

The right is "pretending to not understand" again:

"It's just like Clinton! It's just like Clinton!"

No it's not.

The right is lying through their teeth, and they know it.

 

[busybody..]

I think anyone with a (D) next to their name in 2008 has a better than 50/50 chance of winning.

However, I don't believe she'll be the nominee. It's shaping up as perfect opportunity for Al Gore to come in late in the year and steal the nomination.

The evolving creation of the Super Super Tuesday on Feb 5th makes this more and more likely.

Fucking LOSER FAT BASTARD

You are a MORON!


Winning the White House? History's Against Them (Samuel L. Popkin and Henry A. Kim, March 11, 2007, Washington Post)


The Democrats' road to the White House in 2008 runs through Congress, and it is uphill all the way. The last time either party captured the White House two years after wresting control of both House and Senate in midterm elections was in 1920. Democrats who think that it is their turn to expand their pet programs and please their core constituencies have forgotten how quickly congressional heavy-handedness can revive the president's party. [...]

Early in 1987, to pick a powerful recent example, the Republicans' prospects looked even bleaker than they do today. Democrats had just recaptured the Senate and retained the House, and polls showed that the public had more confidence in them than in the Reagan administration to reduce the federal deficit. The Iran-contra hearings investigating the secret sale of arms to Iran in exchange for the release of hostages and the funneling of the profits to the Nicaraguan contras were the big story, and looked ominous enough to derail Vice President George H.W. Bush's White House aspirations. Then in 1988, Bush handily dispatched Michael S. Dukakis, the Democratic nominee.

But this wasn't a new story. In 1946, President Harry S. Truman was lower in the polls after his midterm defeat than were George W. Bush, Clinton or Ronald Reagan after their midterm losses. Truman was reelected in 1948.

Presidential parties have also done well in the legislative battles that have followed every midterm takeover since World War II. Presidents and their parties recover after midterm wipeouts because, as Clinton had to remind people in 1995, "The Constitution makes me relevant."

The president's party begins to recover when he wields his veto pen -- especially if he can establish his relevance as a defender of the center against the other party's excesses.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Hi Busy,

Hitler! There was a painter! He could paint an entire apartment in one afternoon. TWO coats!

 

[jhuson]

Experience is never bs. It can just be overshadowed by a person with charisma in the eyes of the people. Lincoln was also said to be one of the best speakers we've ever had in the white house. He made people see his point of view because he didn't just talk, he painted them a picture. This isn't about what they'll do when and if they win, it's about getting them elected.

Obama might turn out to be great. But even if that's the case, he's going to be a hard sell because of his lack of experience . . . unless he's facing off against Giuliani. But if it's McCain?

I will concede the experience part. It is important but is not THE primary factor in whether or not a candidate will be successful or not.

Now if the Rep is McCain, the DEMS will talk about his age.....

And temperment.....

And stance on Iraq....(and try to tie him to Bush).

Funny, how we can already see the weaknesses each side will try to exploit.

 

[jhuson]

I think anyone with a (D) next to their name in 2008 has a better than 50/50 chance of winning.

However, I don't believe she'll be the nominee. It's shaping up as perfect opportunity for Al Gore to come in late in the year and steal the nomination.

The evolving creation of the Super Super Tuesday on Feb 5th makes this more and more likely.

I like that scenario and could definitely see it happening. Then Gore will choose Obama as his running mate.

If that happens, the Reps are in serious trouble.

 

[Paendragon]

I think anyone with a (D) next to their name in 2008 has a better than 50/50 chance of winning.

However, I don't believe she'll be the nominee. It's shaping up as perfect opportunity for Al Gore to come in late in the year and steal the nomination.

The evolving creation of the Super Super Tuesday on Feb 5th makes this more and more likely.

I wouldn't count on that. A lot of people like the deadlock we've got going on in government right now with a Republican President and a Democratic congress. They might not like this particular President, but that's not to say they won't vote to keep the status quo. I think it's a toss up, honestly. We won't get a better feel until the nominations are made, no matter what the current polls say.

 

[Paendragon]

I will concede the experience part. It is important but is not THE primary factor in whether or not a candidate will be successful or not.

Now if the Rep is McCain, the DEMS will talk about his age.....

And temperment.....

And stance on Iraq....(and try to tie him to Bush).

Funny, how we can already see the weaknesses each side will try to exploit.

You're not kidding. I can already see the negative campaign ads.

 

[Lasher]

I wouldn't count on that. A lot of people like the deadlock we've got going on in government right now with a Republican President and a Democratic congress.

Generally I would agree with that.

I just think there's too many people like me who do normally think that way that feel that the country has swung too far to the right.

 

[Paendragon]

Generally I would agree with that.

I just think there's too many people like me who do normally think that way that feel that the country has swung too far to the right.

I agree. I think that was the primary reason for the swing in the last election. The question is, will those same people believe that voting in a Democrat President swing the country to far to the left? This election is going to be interesting to say the least.

 

[busybody..]

I like that scenario and could definitely see it happening. Then Gore will choose Obama as his running mate.

If that happens, the Reps are in serious trouble.

Algore has as much chance as does a three legged elephant has to win

Dancing With The Stars!

In case you have not follwed his speeches in the past couple of years

(Its a BIG HIT with the hard core LIBZ)

He comes across as SHRILL and a SCREAMER a la Dean

He spits while he shreiks and looks real crazy

I PRAY HE IS THE NOMINEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!