@ #114588 by Unapologetic Liberal

The Clintons are the “MacMillan and Wife” of corruption. LBJ was clumsy in comparison, and he had quite a body count. Jocelyn Elders, the defender of masturbation, and Surgeon General was part of some Arkansas medical board that approved the acumen and ethics of some very dubious medical examiners.

I wish Hillary was more into masturbation. I know that Plato would not approve of such earthly indulgences for people of power. He had written that governors and directors of society could not play at earthly pleasures as their judgments would be clouded by desire. If you would read H.G Wells. he expounded on the idea that only gifted professionals, experts should grasp the scepter and orb, while maintaining ascetic lifetstyles. Then there was pamphlet by Charles Galton Darwin, who said that by necessity the few who would rule were the only ones who could be undomesticated and wild as these qualities would be needed to plan their terrains and their futures. I mention this because I believe HR Clinton to be a part of this controlling elite. I forgot to mention that C. Galton predicted a time where humanity would be bifurcated into eugenic and dysgenic strains that would be so different from each other that miscegenation would be like the mating of a horse and a donkey.

I have observed the machinations of such companies as Monsanto patenting all sorts of genetic material. Being that these defense contractors have given so much money to the Clinton campaign, I suspect there will be many black budget projects to rework humanity in the images and predilections of the elite.

Normally, if I thought well of my government, I would think that government paid medical care is a wonderful thing. But this is the same government that conducted medical experiments on soldiers, foster children, and prisoners. Given the subjects named, they were forced or fraudulently induced into these experiments. Also this is the same bipartisan government that thinks DU is harmless.

I am frightened that Edwards thinks that citizens should be forced into care for their own good as well as the good of the government. While most of the population has been focused on the latest scandal, the government has removed the citizens’ common law right to sue for injury in the case of faulty vaccines. I do not favor one political party over the other. These factions are delivering an agenda that remains the same regardless of affiliation. This forced, unconstitutional agenda is the very definition of tyranny, because voting does no good in trying to kill the agenda.

Paracelsus:

Even if I were inclined to play GrammarCop, the fact that you can name a verb tense would be the cleavage that unwrote the ticket.

I would also like to point out that, as stated earlier, I am not a Clinton supporter.  Hillary Clinton neither represents nor even resembles liberal idealism, so she tempts my vote not in the least. 

Quite honestly, the single image that comes to mind when I think of her is Al Pacino as Corleone, reassuring himself (to his wife), “In five years, the Corleone family will be completely legitimate, Kay.”

Just like Corleone, Hillary believes if she just plays the game long enough and well enough, she can get to the top and build her “true” legacy.  The truth is, though, that she’s already sold out whatever ideals she had in exchange for the power to enact them.  In other words, she’s a politician. 

Worse, she is a politician so convinced of her rightness that she would do anything and make any trade she had to, for the chance to “win.”  Which begs the question…what back-room deals will Hillary make to get re-elected, or to secure her “legacy” when the time comes?  George may be a fanatical idiot, but Hillary’s sense of self-righteous ambition is not so far removed from his zealotry.

@ #114574 by Unapologetic Liberal

Thanks for overlooking my passé composé error. I can’t go too far wrong with 30 mg. of oxycodone. Don’t worry; I came by them honestly.

I should warn you that Hillary Clinton is getting contributions from military contractors by 2:1 over the Republican brand of soap. GW Bush has cleared the way by appointing former Clinton apparachniks to vacant posts no Republican would dare to take as their families need them too much.

I don’t know why so many mainstream liberals ignore my rants pointing out the connections of establishment Democrats to the CFR, Bilderberger, and Trilateral Commissions. Even Saint Jimmy Carter was a Rockefeller man.

If you keep supporting pre-selected politicians expecting change then you are just acting insane.

Paracelsus:

Half of me agrees, but the other half says “(Not) Voting for Bush twice sure changed things a bit.”

@ #114569 by Unapologetic Liberal

If voting really change things, it would be made illegal.

And a word to cAPS Lock On:

I share your misgivings about President Clinton Redux.  I don’t trust her either (and by that I mean, my trust in her runs BELOW the baseline setting of “oh, bullsh*t” I apply to most candidates).

But I beg you not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.  A “protest” vote plays right into neo-con hands.  It’s what they’re COUNTING on (and the reason they’re salivating at the prospect of a Clinton nomination).

Use your energy now and help us get a viable, truly worthy nominee.  And if we fail, and Hil gets it, then please, look around and “throw your vote away” on the BEST candidate you can find, not the worst.

I heard Walken is running….

I wonder what disastrous legislation Congress is about to pass while Turd-dig is talking about the bitch eruption.

Here we go…this is another juvenile NON-issue that the love-to-hear-ourselves-talk media will spin into a full-blown “controversy.”

I wouldn’t vote for McCain anyway, but this fake-event would not even make my back-up list of reasons.  That woman didn’t embarrass or even reflect on McCain, she just made herself look like a bit of an a—(how ironic).

Besides…when “b*tch” comes from this section of the bleachers, what it usually means is “tough broad with a brain who makes us nervous.”  So, the only response Senator Clinton need give is “You’re correct, and thank you.”

That epithet by the female Republican supporter in South Carolina not only was obnoxious, it certainly was not in character with genteel southern womanhood if it even ever existed. As other columnnists have stated McCain would have been offended if that woman called Obama that n—ger, or Liebermann that hebe. But it is still ok to call a woman a “bi—ch”, and have a Republican candidate running for president of the United States think it is funny. We still don’t like our woman acting like men in order to be successful. And the Republican’s absolutely can’t stand Hillary but for what reason I can’t yet fanthem. She is the closest to Republican thinking, outside of Lieberman, that you could expect from a Democrat. She is certainly not favored by Democratic activists who are extremely upset by her recents votes in line with the Republican’s. If she does get the nomination, she will automatically lose about 90% of the Republican vote right out of the box, which means no landslide for Democrat’s and difficulty in getting a mandate for change in 2009. We will be right back to governing on the margins ala’ Karl Rove. At this point I wish Al Gore would get in the race and join forces with Obama as his VP candidate.  Then we would have experience coupled with a fresh vision.

soprosyne—there is indeed diversity.  There is Dennis Kucinich and then there is everyone else.

Ref. #114158 by Inherit the Wind:
“As for the poster who claims to be “liberal” but won’t vote for Clinton: You gonna vote for Rudy? Mitt Romney? Huckabee?  You might as well have voted for George W. Bush because these guys will finish the job President Mussolini started.  2008 may well be the last real presidential election this nation ever sees if a Re-thug “wins” again (we all know the difference between win and “win”).”

You’re right:  for a liberal, voting for a Republican to indicate your objections to the Democratic candidate is really stupid.  That would deliver the wrong message, as well as endanger all of us.

There will be a better option:  The Green Party will run someone you can actually vote FOR.  It may well be Cynthia McKinney, the former congresswoman from Georgia.  She may not have officially announced, but she’s running.

Both major parties are making themselves deeply unpopular, and it’s only going to get worse.  It’s going to be a wild electoral year.  The only way a Republican could win is if the Democrats throw the election - like the last two. 

Nominating Hillary Clinton, as they obviously intend, would be the best thing the Dems could do for the Green Party.  On her RECORD, and Bill’s (they’re a team), she’s a Republican in disguise.

#114030 by Paracelsus on 11/16 at 2:35 pm
(121 comments total)

@ #113953 by Verne Arnold

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F05E3D A103BF932A25754C0A9629C8B63&sec;=&spon;=&pagewanted=all

Thanks for the link…very interesting article.

Bill and Hillary in the White House again?  Doesn’t that bother anybody?  Sixteen years total ruled by Clintons? 

Then in 2016 Laura will run and she and George will be back on the royal throne for sixteen more years.

It’s really time to break these would-be royal lines.  No American family deserves that much power for that long. This is America, isn’t it?

ITW, I think it best to describe Ann Coulter as America’s Eva Braun.

Well, pretty much no one is allowed to say “uppity” anymore. But you can be sure that many would like to and are saying exactly that under their breath.

Hillary and Barbara are not so far apart. Either one would reach down your throat and tear your liver out. But they’d do it with a sweet smile.

And further on…

Unlikely, because no other minority in American history has ever hijacked so much money from the American taxpayers in order to invest in a ‘homeland’. It is as if the American taxpayer had been obliged to support the Pope in his reconquest of the Papal States simply because one third of our people are Roman Catholic. Had this been attempted, there would have been a great uproar and Congress would have said no. But a religious minority of less than two per cent has bought or intimidated seventy senators (the necessary two thirds to overcome an unlikely presidential veto) while enjoying support of the media.

  In a sense, I rather admire the way that the Israel lobby has gone about its business of seeing that billions of dollars, year after year, go to make Israel a ‘bulwark against communism’. Actually, neither the USSR nor communism was ever much of a presence in the region. What America did manage to do was to turn the once friendly Arab world against us. Meanwhile, the misinformation about what is going on in the Middle East has got even greater and the principal victim of these gaudy lies - the American taxpayer to one side - is American Jewry, as it is constantly bullied by such professional terrorists as Begin and Shamir. Worse, with a few honorable exceptions, Jewish-American intellectuals abandoned liberalism for a series of demented alliances with the Christian (antisemtic) right and with the Pentagon-industrial complex. In 1985 one of them blithely wrote that when Jews arrived on the American scene they ‘found liberal opinion and liberal politicians more congenial in their attitudes, more sensitive to Jewish concerns’ but now it is in the Jewish interest to ally with the Protestant fundamentalists because, after all, “is there any point in Jews hanging on dogmatically, hypocritically, to their opinions of yesteryear?’ At this point the American left split and those of us who criticised our onetime Jewish allies for misguided opportunism, were promptly rewarded with the ritual epithet ‘antisemite’ or ‘self-hating Jew’.”

http://www.codoh.com/zionweb/zionhist.html

I can’t recall saying HR Clinton was a bitch. I have called her a Gorgon Medusa. I think that label has an all pervading ring of cosmological evil to it. Barbara Bush is evil in the same sense as is the Queen of the United Kingdom and HRC. I wish this discussion could be more tied in within the Anglo-American push for eugenics and dysgenics. The bitch issue distracts from the Clinton-Bush push for immiserating ‘free’ trade regimes. So little time has been devoted to the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, which was sponsored by the Medusean, Rep. Jane Harmon (D). I suspect, that I, Paracelsus, will be hunted down for anti-Semitism, an abstract idea, not a nation or political group. Some at Truthdig will accuse me of anti-Semitism, and yet nary a word is mentioned about Gore Vidal writing of the famous bag of money handed over to Harry Truman in ‘48 by Israeli interests. To be clear Gore Vidal was quoting JFK about the campaign contribution. I don’t hear Lee or any of the other Israel Firsters complain about Robert Scheer consorting with that “anti-Semite” Gore Vidal. Anyway I don’t want to be too tangential from the topic about the ‘B word’.

“Sometime in the late 1950s, that world-class gossip and occasional historian, John F. Kennedy, told me how, in 1948, Harry S. Truman had been pretty much abandoned by everyone when he came to run for president. Then an American Zionist brought him two million dollars in cash, in a suitcase, aboard his whistle-stop campaign train. ‘That’s why our recognition of Israel was rushed through so fast.’ As neither Jack nor I was an antisemite (unlike his father and my grandfather) we took this to be just another funny story about Truman and the serene corruption of American politics.

  Unfortunately, the hurried recognition of Israel as a state has resulted in forty-five years of murderous confusion, and the destruction of what Zionist fellow travellers thought would be a pluralistic state - home to its native population of Muslims, Christians and Jews, as well as a future home to peaceful European and American Jewish immigrants, even the ones who affected to believe that the great realtor in the sky had given them, in perpetuity, the lands of Judea and Sameria. Since many of the immigrants were good socialists in Europe, we assumed that they would not allow the new state to become a theocracy, and that the native Palestinians could live with them as equals. This was not meant to be. I shall not rehearse the wars and alarms of that unhappy region. But I will say that the hasty invention of Israel has poisoned the political and intellectual life of the USA, Israel’s unlikely patron.

...

“nice Republican lady” has become an oxymoron.

There hasn’t been a “nice Republican lady” since Betty Ford, the last one, and a woman worthy of EVERY American’s respect.

No, the new female Re-thuglican model is Ann Coultergeist. “Bitch” is far too complementary a word for her and her ilk. “Harpy” springs to mind, although it doesn’t go far enough…

As for the poster who claims to be “liberal” but won’t vote for Clinton: You gonna vote for Rudy? Mitt Romney? Huckabee?  You might as well have voted for George W. Bush because these guys will finish the job President Mussolini started.  2008 may well be the last real presidential election this nation ever sees if a Re-thug “wins” again (we all know the difference between win and “win”).

Misogynistic slurs are sadly confused with common foul language so I doubt most people will be upset at such widely accepted bigotry (Yes, it is a slur.  Racist slurs tried the very same tactic of justification: tie bad behavior to the definition—laziness, stupidity, or ignorance—to distract from its aim of demonizing blackness itself).  However, I do hope that people will go full throttle after McCain for his audacious attack on the media, blaming it for the woman’s (self) hate and his clear enjoyment of it.

Great article.

“But there’s another side to the rhymes-with-rich episode. What would possess that nice Republican lady in South Carolina to phrase her question in such a vulgar way?”

***

Because she was a republican maybe? And financially well off possibly? And the real giveaway ... from the South?

***

“I think some of the Hillary-hatred arises simply because she’s a woman—and because that vulgar word, the one that rhymes with rich, is always available to describe a woman who gets a little too powerful, or acts like too much of a smarty-pants, or exudes a bit too much authority. That word isn’t just a put-down, it’s also a pointed question: Just who the hell does she think she is?”

***

Not a matter of who she thinks she is. More a matter of she knows exactly who she is. That alone would be a threat to the typical nice republican woman from the South. Especially if she’s into religiosity. Because they don’t know who they are. They just know what the men around them tell them they are.

#114071 by jackpine savage

“I don’t believe the kindler, gentler world if it were run by women argument, but i would really like to.  I would at least expect an improvement over how rich, white men have been doing it.  Hillary feels about as far from that as it gets.”

***

Some people are kinder and gentler. But it’s not because of their gender. That’s just how they are. For some reason (?) Richardson strikes me as being kinder, gentler.

#113990 by RdV

“Don’t expect women to have such a low threshold of judgment that gender would be a significant factor. It is offensive exploitation to base allegiance on such shallow considerations.”

***

Bingo!

#113980 by cAPS lOCK oN

“If Hillary is nominated, for the first time in my life (I have voted in every election since 1972) I will vote for a Republican presidential candidate.

As a lifelong liberal, I am convinced that no one would be worse for this country than Hillary.”

***

Well there ya go. Apparently not all liberals are as liberal as others. A true life-long liberal would never vote for any of the current repub candidates. Not never, not no how, no matter what!

They’d stay home first!

#113957 by Neese

“A number of years ago, I was working for the NYPD, a friend of one of the police officers I worked with came in and not liking my attitude told his friend I was a b…. At first I was upset, but then I went to one of the other officers and asked him what his definition of the “b” word was and he told me that it was a woman with an attitude, who thought she was smart and knew more that anyone and acted that way. I realized that the Police officer was right ... “

***

Or to rephrase slightly. The name-caller believes that “Neese” is smart and knows more than him and he can see that, which is why he is so threatened by her that the only thing he can do is call her a name.

When someone calls me a bitch, [and in the business world, it happens from time to time, particularly if you work in a field men want to believe is exclusively theirs] I say you bet I am, and proud of it!

Personally I hope Hillary is not the candidate. For only one reason. She has been ordained by the media. And a lot of repubs talk her up. [guess that’s two] That tells me they want her to be the candidate. And that tells me it’s because, of all the candidates, she is the one that offers the most vulnerabilities. And they already have their attack dogs trained and ready to rip her to shreds.

In a kinder, gentler world, politics would be about the issues. But in the republican world it’s not. It’s about slash and burn, and any other kind of destruction of their fellow human’s required to maintain power. The people be hanged!

And of course the repub loyal, especially the women, carry the rope for them. And that’s not gender bias, that’s just the way it is. Go figure ...

RE:#113957 by Neese on 11/16

“This happened 28 years ago and since then when a man calls me or any other woman the “b” word or allows it to be used a pejorative I realized that the is not my problem and I lay it at their door.”

Neese:
Maybe you shouldn’t “lay it at the door”.  Maybe I’m wrong but shouldn’t you “call them on it”.  I sense you feel that it means you’re “smart and not to be taken advantage of”.  However, acceptance can be as good as compliance. You need to remember that it isn’t as important how YOU view it, but more how THEY internalize it.

@ #114034 by Ernest Canning

“Why is it that Robinson can devote so much time to a non-issue?”

He also thinks Hillary has sex appeal.

http://steelturman.typepad.com/thesteeldeal/images/hillary_clinton_boobs_bill_cleavage.jpg

Come and get it, Eugene.

Why is it that Robinson can devote so much time to a non-issue?  I think most Americans should have been far more concerned when Mad Dog McCain, borrowing from an old Beach Boys tune, belched out “bomb, bomb, bomb…bomb, bomb Iran” to which Code Pink responded with another Beach Boys refrain:

Oh John McCain,
You are insane.
Don’t bomb, bomb,
bomb, bomb Iran.

Americans should also be more concerned about the fact that Hillary, when pandering for votes and money from AIPAC, said that “no options are off the table” with respect to Iran—words nearly identical to the threats made by Dick Cheney which are the subject of Article III of Kucinich’s impeachment resolution.

I am really more concerned about the mindset of candidates running for the world’s most powerful office, people whose fingers will have access to the nuclear trigger, than I am with whether some Republi-crook Stepford wife uses the word “bitch” to refer to Hillary Clinton.  I am more concerned that, when it comes to the global class war, Hillary is on the wrong side; that where Mr. Kucinich offers a single payer health care system that eliminates the unnecessary middle-man (for-profit healthcare insurers and HMOs), Hillary offers a sham “universal coverage” plan that amounts to a subsidy scheme for healthcare insurers; that Hillary still supports NAFTA & the WTO, which are a bane to middle class aspirations of workers everywhere and through which a tiny wealthy elite has betrayed this nation by outsourcing our manufacturing base in an endless search for the $2/day laborer.  I am more concerned when, in comparison to HR 1234 (Kucinich) which would end the war in Iraq in a matter of months, Hillary tells us we will still have our combat forces inside that country in 2013.  I am more concerned about getting articles into Truthdig that deal with the important issues of the day, as opposed to meaningless tripe that passes for journalism.

#113952 by Verne Arnold

It gets more interesting still. The BATF has been its meanest under GW Booosh. We argue over trifling matters while both political parties vote away our liberties.

@ #113953 by Verne Arnold

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F05E3DA103BF932A25754C0A9629C8B63&sec;=&spon;=&pagewanted=all

“Mr. Edwards, several said, joined Ralph Reed, the Republican strategist, in giving a presentation on the American election. After Mr. Reed spoke about how Mr. Kerry was vulnerable on ‘‘values,’’ Mr. Edwards presented a characteristically positive case for Mr. Kerry’s election, focusing on the insecurity of American workers that persists even when economic statistics turn north.

Two Democrats in the room said Mr. Edwards sparked a rule-breaking round of applause when he finished, though a nonpartisan witness did not recall such an ovation.

‘‘He spoke with great passion, in a meeting that is usually rather dry,’’ said the nonpartisan veteran attendee. ‘‘He was able to make it a cross between his stump speech and an intimate conversation in a small room.’‘

The group’s meetings, Ms. Banck-Polderman said, are financed by corporate sponsors in the host countries and are regularly attended by tycoons, politicians and diplomats in Europe and the United States, including Henry A. Kissinger, the former secretary of state, and Richard N. Perle, the former head of the Defense Policy Board. This year’s list also included Richard C. Holbrooke, the former United States ambassador to the United Nations, and, of course, Senator Edwards.

The guest list and membership would more or less overlap with the ‘‘Wanted’’ posters of anti-globalization protesters. Indeed, one former participant, Will Hutton, a British journalist and economist, has been widely quoted calling the Bilderberg set the ‘‘high priests of globalization.’’”

http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/091107_hillary_denies.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bilderberg_attendees

What I find amusing about the first article was that Ralph Reed and John Edwards were both invited to the 2006 meeting, and there was nary a word about abortion.

It was Hillary who instructed the campaign to put the ruthless private investigator Jack Palladino on the case. In her memo to Palladino, she ordered him to “impeach Flowers’ character and veracity until she is destroyed beyond all recognition.” Thus primed, Palladino went into action, seeking to portray Flowers as a prostitute, a shakedown artist and career scamster…

  Yeah, there’s a woman waging the commonbonds of sisterhood…

amazing…all these men championing Clinton in terms of gender when so many women don’t like her.

  Perhaps women see her for the corporate whore she is—gender has nothing to do with the whoring.

  Tell me, Mr Robinson, do you automatically fall in line to support Clarence Thomas because he is African American?
Don’t expect women to have such a low threshold of judgement that gender would be a significant factor. It is offensive exploitation to base allegiance on such shallow considerations.

A number of years ago, I was working for the NYPD, a friend of one of the police officers I worked with came in and not liking my attitude told his friend I was a b…. At first I was upset, but then I went to one of the other officers and asked him what his definition of the “b” word was and he told me that it was a woman with an attitude, who thought she was smart and knew more that anyone and acted that way. I realized that the Police officer was right and that word hasn’t bother me since.

This happened 28 years ago and since then when a man calls me or any other woman the “b” word or allows it to be used a perjorative I realized that the is not my problem and I lay it at their door.

I am not a great fan of Hilary but being called a b… is really the least of her problems and she always should consider the source.

#113923 by Paracelsus on 11/16 at 5:20 am
(108 comments total)

@ #113921 by Verne Arnold

Edwards, Bill Clinton, and Hillary have all gone to Bilderberg meetings. Honest injun.

How do you know this?  I consider myself fairly well informed (self delusion maybe?)so, I was just wondering where you found this information?  Care to share?

#113922 by Paracelsus on 11/16 at 5:18 am
(108 comments total)

“Kucinich wants to disarm the American public of their handguns”.

As a life long shooter; metallic silhouettes, bulls eye, and just general plinking: I do have issues with anybody wanting to take this 2nd amendment right away from me. I didn’t know Kucinich was anti-gun.  It’s interesting to see the left so savagely anti-gun.  As someone who has been labeled a “liberal” (I hate that classification, I’m a humanist) I have always rejected the emotion surrounding firearms.  I have always considered technology neutral…it’s what we do with it that counts. 
A further issue is the denial of the poor and disenfranchised to have the cheap option to protect themselves, aka, a legal firearm to protect them from the violence of being poor.  They don’t enjoy the “protection of the police” of the middle and upper classes, and because they are poor, they suffer from the systemic violence of their poverty.
This isn’t as off topic as may be imagined…it’s about liberty; spoken, written, imagined and real. 
We have fallen far from where we should be headed.  The “B” word (Bitch/Bastard) is a petty distraction from the many real issues confronting us today.  PC (politically Correct) is a bullshit cause!  Get real!

@ #113921 by Verne Arnold

Edwards, Bill Clinton, and Hillary have all gone to Bilderberg meetings. Honest injun.

Kucinich wants to disarm the American public of their handguns. Given that GW Bush has been “elected” to two terms, do we really trust government to have a monopoly on violent force? What if we get George the 3rd in there after tyranny “lite” with the Dems holding executive office? I think if we are going to live with a government that can declare a citizen an enemy combatant w/o due process, it might be a good idea to discourage the confiscation of handguns. I know if the men in black are coming for me to do an extraordinary rendition, I’ll feel a lot better if I can take a couple of the criminals down before I get rendered.

#113906 by Paracelsus on 11/16 at 3:36 am
(103 comments total)

“B” word… Bildeberger?

Interesting, I have seen this word but didn’t know anything about it.  I looked it up in “Wiki”, which I don’t trust much, but this is what it said:

The “Bilderberg” name comes from the Hotel de Bilderberg in Oosterbeek near Arnhem in the Netherlands where the first meeting in 1954 took place. Although the conference is not officially regarded as a club of any sort, many members are regular attendees, and guests are often seen as belonging to a secretive Bilderberg Group.

Sounds like the infamous “Tri-Lateral Commision”.

Thanks

Oh boy, here we go again.  As a recovering feminist, I say, cut the chauvinist crap from both sides and get to the issues.  Gender isn’t/shouldn’t be an issue…competency is the issue.  The person who can do the best job is the one who should get that job.  Bitch/bastard are words and used freely by both men and women…so what?  Smart and intelligent men and women don’t engage in racist behavior or dialogue…chauvinism whether male or female is racism.  That it will always be with us has got to be faced and dealt with appropriately case by case…if and when it’s appropriate.  Hillary is not my favorite by a long shot…but…she seems to understand the game and gives as good as she gets.  Get off this gender crap; think for yourself and do the right thing.  Vote for Kucinich!

I agree with you 100% Eugene which is why I know that the Hillary Haters will be out in force to attack like the rabidly, irrational folks that they are. Don’t you know that you cannot, must not, ever say anything that can even be construed as positive about “She Who Must Be Hated”?

As for the canine female that asked the question she just proved that looks can be deceiving. She may look like she had some class but her mouth proved she does not.

And John McCain? What do you expect from a man that wasn’t at all upset about the slurs targeting his own family? Upset at a slur aimed at an opponent? Not Pandering John McCain the man that wants to be president so bad he will do or say anything in his quest. Sad really.

“B” word… Bildeberger?