“A woman should be past her sexuality when she runs,”

I agree with this and I would add, so should men.

I also agree with the idea of nominating liberal republicans, like Hillary, is long past. It worked with Bill but has led to the Democrats being beaten twice by a candidate who is the weakest I have seen in my life time and, believe me, I am old.

The Democrats will continue to lose as long as they try to capture the center rather than be a party of ideas.

Neither Hillary nor Obama will be standing at the end of this campaign. Obama is just too young.

Being a bit of a moderate myself, when Bill Clinton first ran for office, I was all for him.  NAFTA soured me.  By the end of his term, I no longer had any use for two moderate Republicans (Hilliary and Bill) in Democrat clothing.  This country has swung so far to the RIGHT that the middle is now the right on many issues, voting against the economic health of this country in pursuit of single issues and self interest.  Understandably, there are many democrats who don’t believe somone who is not a moderate Republican, er, Democratic candidate can achieve the office of President.  The DLC needs to stop playing by the terms set by the Republican media machine.  The time is now to stop being so afraid of failure that we insure it.

I’ve slapped Hillary around for her support of the war, her advocacy for the FALN terrorist pardon, and her support of NAFTA

Now it appears that although she is excellent at getting things and money for herself, she has done little to advance the State of New York’s position.

I can appriciate Senators like Teds Stevens & Kennedy who are consistant in “bringing home the bacon” to their home states.  That’s what the people who elected them want… But for all her national recognition she hasn’t been able to stem the businesses leaving New York.  Since she took office there has been a 20% decline in the amount of Federal dollars to the Empire State. During the same period Harry Byrd, Richard Lugar, Olympia Snow, and Chris Dodd have either kept the money inflow even, or increased it.

We used to call men like Hillary an “empty suit” ...what do we call vacant, vapid, all mouth women?

When I read about Hillary, I’m really not looking at her backside, I’m more concerned to hear what she’s got to say about Iraq, government anti-fraud reforms, balancing the budget, stuff like that, things that’ll make a difference. If you want to get your jollies looking at older women, there’s plenty of adult websites for that.

She’s running for office, to become the next President of our United States. I think that’s awesome. Given what she’s said so far about the war, I hope she wins, because I think she’ll flip the switch on that entire criminal enterprise in a hot second. I wish her the best of luck, and I hope, that even if she doesn’t win, that a lot of people stop and listen to what she’s got to say.
There’s a lot of reforms needed, starting with fiscal reforms, that may end up being her overall weak spot, but then again the first budget surpluses in recent history took place under Bill Clinton, which is probably why there was all that pressure to impeach him. Blowjobs or no, he tried to ‘do right’, and that’s awesome, I also think it speaks to her good character that she saw fit to forgive him for that, other people would’ve been on the phone with divorce attorneys over less.

On the negative side, she does have a record of some weaker rhetoric, the whole ‘it takes a village’ stuff, I don’t know how strong she’d be on education, but chances are she’d work out to being a positive influence.

But, I’d ten times rather see her as our next president than any of the GOP clowns that’ve stood up for the nomination, with the possible exception of Sen. Hagel, who gave ‘waffles’ Lieberman a good ‘haircut’ during the Senate debate on the war, mainly because I just have this sick feeling that one or more of them just might do something Really Stupid and slide us ‘over the edge’ into a Big War, not that the republicans and their lackeys haven’t set us up for that very thing, or at least done their level best to pre-arrange that circumstance. Hillary, though, seems to have sufficient courage of her convictions to stand against that, and hopefully defuse this oil-fired chain of events, so again, best of luck, Hillary, hope you get the job.

Ms Clinton is a good senator for her state.  That is where she should stay.  The republican party is praying that she will win the primary.  She will not win the election.  People are tired of these clintons and bushs.  I pray we look at some of the other people running and give them a chance.  I have heard Biden, Dodd, and Richardson on talk shows and they make sense to.  It is to early to say who will be number one. But I can tell you I will not vote for clinton unless it was Bill.  She is not presidental material.  She is to up tight.

Sounds like a “vast right-wing conspiracy” is afoot.

But she deserves the flogging for failing to see that voting to trust the President with war powers was a very foolish thing to do.  He lied.  She bit. That’s good judgment?

Do we really want another president who takes years of convincing to admit a boneheaded move?

The fact is that Hillary is so much the sicon and the establishment candidate running on yesterday’s ideas that at every turn Obama has been in front.
He has been there, done that by the time Hillary catches up and ends up playing me too to Obama’s new ideas.
The country wants new ideas.  the standard, establishment ones are not working and in fact are harming us.  We need new thinking and a new approach.
In my book, Obama is the candidate to watch and support.

Is Hillary THE woman candidate or THE CANDIDATE ?
Yes, that is the question. Surely experience must be a prerequisite for the job of the Presidency with the U.S. becoming as massive as it is, and as intricately complicated.  Yet one of the essential characteristics of a Democracy is that it is “by the people” . . .  not by THE CLIQUE.  The new face and the new race as seen in “Barack” are a breath of fresh air.

Hillary IS coming across as the status quo. Justifiably or not, she seems to have ridden in on her “husband’s coat-tails” and he already GOT his chance at eight years in the White House.  The Founding Fathers DID put a limit on terms and it was a good idea.
It seems awkward to me that she views herself as a singularly qualified female leader by virtue of the fact that she was at her husband’s side in the White House. Do the math.  It would mean that together they would have at least 12 years as CO-Presidents.  Harvard just got its first woman President.  Is Hillary the exclusively qualified female leader or has she been allowed in . . . to the innner circle of politicians and the club of exclusivity?

The question of what would make a woman different from a man as a world leader has not been answered by Hillary.  The fact that she was as eager as most of her cohorts in Congress to GO TO WAR is * s i g n i f i c a n t * to me, a once-idealistic baby boomer.  We are from the same generation, chronologically, (baby boomers were supposed to be a DIFFERENT generation from the preceding WAR generations) and her response to the call of violence has frightened me, as a woman.

Tough women don’t interest me.  I’ve seen a zillion right-wing tough women and I think they suck just as much as the right-wing men. 

Hillary is not progressive.  She’s willing to bargain away reproductive freedom, war and zip for small people to suck up to the corporatocracy of this country.  She doesn’t have my vote and I don’t like her strident approach to speaking.  I turn her off as I turn off the worst president this country has ever had.

Thank for listening.

And to many of us, she’s also just another “Pro-War Candidate”, which seals the whole thing.

Crazy, one-issue voters that we are.

It is just endless makeovers for Hillary, except of course for her (and also her husband’s) overarching sense of self righteousness.

All the talk about a pardon for Libby and all the outrage it causes to well up just helps us remember the revolting pardon of criminal Mark Rich by Clinton--all because they gave him money.

And now we are talking about electing Hillary.

We are living in a very sick system!

Connecting the Dots: From human behaviors to Ecosystem Collapse
http://StudentsForTheEarth.org

When was the last Top Security Check done on Hillary? Is there a Top Security Check done on Past Presidents-like Bill Clinton after they leave office? Or do these so-called top Security Clearences only apply to the little guy.

Come on- money buys most politicians.

I for one have found some interesting hypotheses on the Clintons’ and wonder about our so-called media. What about this deal with Bush and Clinton hanging with each other?

What about these psychological examinations they give us little people for any type of public service professions? Do our elected officials get these same types of evaluations?

I suggest this article is another smoke screen to hide the real truth about Hillary. I suggest the people of this U.S. read Charlotte Iserbyt’s article ‘The Devil’s Seven Prong Fork.’

http://www.newswithviews.com/iserbyt/iserbyt35.htm

What of Hillary in the paper “ Manufactured shock” - How Teachers, NATO and the Mob staged an al-Qaeda 9/11, by David Hawkins, Forensic Economist. Not to mention Bill in the report.

http://www.valis.cjb.cc/HawksCAFE/070106.html

I know for myself if someone is to be in a position as high in government as the President, and there is reports-rumors I want an investigation. That also apply’s to anyone from New York, after 911 and B.S. they feed us about it.