It takes a village.

There is lots I don’t like concerning Senator Clinton. But this simple sentiment could go a long way toward healing our very ailing nation.

And you should know about hate. Liberals seem to have the it down pat. See any George Bush comment.

So far, in the time that I have had my question out as to why Mrs. Clinton is the leading Dem candidate, there has been nothing but total avoidance. Nothing positive to say for her? All I get is that she is no one’s first choice but she is better than a Republican. Damning praise.

General Patton was not a very likeable person – but he helped win WW2. That made him popular.

Your hatred of Senator Clinton knows no reason, and has none.

You don’t like her. Fine. That’s your right. But don’t attempt to be rational about it. It’s out of your skill set.

“John Hawkins” rails about the “scandals” that have surrounded the former First Lady. He doesn’t list them because the list attacks the credibility of Hillary-haters. Remember “Vince Foster-gate?” That was good for a couple of months of talk radio fantasies as Cons imagined Hillary killed Foster “in their secret love nest,” then “wrapped up his body in an oriental rug” and dumped it in the park where it was found. “File-gate?” The Special Prosecutor (a Republican) spent millions trying to find some evidence of malfeasance and ended up admitting there was no evidence anyone in a position of power in the Clinton White House was involved. “Travel-gate?” A pretty routine changing of patronage jobs after a new party took over from 12 years of Republic Party rule. How ’bout “Arlington-gate,” when Rev. Moon’s Insight magazine claimed the Clintons were selling burial plots in the National Cemetary for for campaign contributions… until they had to admit they’d made up the story out of whole cloth.

There was scullduggery involving Whitewater… Jim Guy Tucker and other Arkansans went to the pokey. But $70 Million worth of Special Prosecutors’ investigations determined the Clintons were far on the periphery and, indeed, lost their seventy thousand dollar investment; were *victims* of the actual perpetrators, and not guilty.

The only-est “scandal” you can tag on Senator Clinton is that she forgave her husband for getting a blow job.

Hillary is not my first pick for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination. She has proven in eight years (and even her Republican colleagues in the Senate are on record with respect for her service there) that she is a skilled legislator, a conciencious representative of her state, runs a highly-professional staff, and an effective advocate. Frankly, I think she best serves America as a Senator.

Anyone, “outlander,” who voted for the incompetent presidency of George WMD Bush has no standing when questioning the qualifications of Senator Clinton for the Oval Office.

You tell me, is Hillary winning because she is popular, or popular because she is winning?

Posted by: outlander | November 16, 2007 at 07:49 AM

————–

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnHawkins/2007/11/16/does_marrying_bill_clinton_qualify_someone_to_be_president

Here is a newly posted article that attempts to address the Hillary phenomenon that baffles me. The article is a little more negative than I like to see, but when all is said and done, the question remains.

Mrs. Clinton is popular because she is winning.

I can’t put my finger on it. I may be entirely wrong. But Edwards strikes me as fakey. Too? He needs to be reminded that the Republicans are the opposition NOT Senator Clinton.

I think Edwards missed his chance. I’d have liked to have seen him against bush. Edwards couldn’t out nasty cheney. But I think he could have turned bush into a puddle of sniveling goo in debate. Much as Gore did.

Maria Luisa, the UNLV student who asked Hillary Clinton whether she preferred “diamonds or pearls” at last night’s debate wrote on her MySpace page this morning that CNN forced her to ask the frilly question instead of a pre-approved query about the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.

“Every single question asked during the debate by the audience had to be approved by CNN,” Luisa writes. “I was asked to submit questions including “lighthearted/fun” questions. I submitted more than five questions on issues important to me. I did a policy memo on Yucca Mountain a year ago and was the finalist for the Truman Scholarship. For sure, I thought I would get to ask the Yucca question that was APPROVED by CNN days in advance.”

Like the carpenter with only a hammer, you come off as someone who thinks every issue is a nail.

You might have something to offer to this discussion, but your anti-Israeli (and I’m way far from being pro-Israeli) track record simply makes you a less-than-credible opponent.

And it’s not as if I think I am not without sin. Even as I recognize the value of coporations to the economy, I think the structure of corporate governance is all too able to be manipulated into anti-American, anti-people, anti-good policies.

Maybe in the post-war 1940s, it might have been wiser to establish a Jewish State in, say, Swizterland instead of the Middle East. The Swiss are generally adaptable and it might have been a perfect match.

But the horrific consequences of anti-semitism led the world community to help get Jews out of a generally unfriendly Europe and into their historically native land.

It seemed like a good thing at the time.

In 1948, the nascient Israeli State proposed a peace policy that would have made Jerusalem an International City. The Arabs rejected that compromise because, at the time, the Arabs thought they would win.

What you decry as “Zionism,” “Ed Friedemann,” is better described as reactionary. Israelis are surrounded by people who, for whatever reason, want to get all medieval on their asses.

For all I care, the United States should make Wyoming the new Jewish State. Let the Muslims have Jerusalem and make Casper the new Bethlehem.

But I suspect current Wyoming residents might object.

Bottom Line: If oil were not the issue, there would be no issue.

Sounds like a prescription to alternate fuels to me.

Once they’re elected they forget what they said, as they’re already bought-off.

Listen to their AIPAC Speech, if you really want to know what you’re going to get from them.

I respect Senator Clinton’s competence and I respond to Obama’s vision for what America *should* be.

But Edwards seems to crystalize what America *can* be.

Without Clinton’s or Obama’s money, Edwards has been forced to focus his campaign in Iowa. And in Iowa, where people get to really sit down and discuss issues with candidates, Edwards is transcending the “rock star” aura of Hillary or Barak.

We’ll hear all sorts of crap about how *evil* “trial lawyers” are, but if I’ve been wronged by a powerful corporation I would want a strong advocate… and that’s what John Edwards has proven himselve to be.

There are plenty of people who contribute to this forum who can twist “conservatism” into being pro-torture, pro-war, pro-wiretaps, anti-habeas corpus, anti-privacy, pro-aggressive-non-provoked-war, pro-oil, pro-Halliburton, pro-for-profit healthcare… who abjectly fear John Edwards as an advocate who is, basically, pro-people.

If there’s anything at all that makes America great it is its people. We don’t need “pro-government” leaders, we don’t need “pro-party” leaders, we don’t need “pro-ideology” leaders… we need a pro-*PEOPLE* person in the Oval Office.

John Edwards is the guy.

Besides Ron Paul, that is.

Boring.

I think I’ll wait until the ‘real debates’. . .between Huckabee and Obama!

Right now, they favor Giuliani slightly, but Hillary is neck and neck, so to speak.

This is what happens when you don’t mind the store, or let a religious freak like Bush run loose.

Right now, they favor Guiliani slighty, but Hillary is neck and neck, so to speak.

This is what happens when you don’t mind the store, or let a religious freak like Bush run loose.