The Clintons are so yesterday.
And today and tomorrow.
Not according to the prediction markets now showing Obama beating Clinton.
those are more reactive than anything.
on the day of that primary....those same markets had the odds of Hillary winning NH at about 5% or less.
how'd that work out?
So the solution is to put a minimally qualified person in the White House? Kewl.
Cheney had experience. And so did Hillary when she went along with the worst of his agenda.
I'm afraid these days "experience" is a damning charge rather than high praise.
"And so did Hillary when she went along with the worst of his agenda."
Not even valid. Your guy wasn't in any position of real federal responsibility at the time and has said he didn't know how he would have voted then. Since then in the US Senate and he's been too chicken to stand up for a tough vote.
I wouldn't mind a straight up debate about voting records, but this is BS.
"Not even valid."
That's also what Edwards'supporters used to say whenever his Senate record was brought up.
And look where he's at now.
Funny how it was perfectly fine for Hillary to support Obama when he was running for US Senate, but now she's the anti-Christ. More Obaman situational ethics.
I wouldn't know about that since I preferred Nancy Skinner over Obama and have frequently criticized him on a variety of topics (even got voted off of KOS for it last year.)
But this entry is about the Clintons, so that's who I was talking about on it.
I have to admit I am kinda touchy about this generational BS that's becoming more and more popular. I have (rather unhappily) now reached the age where I too am considered obsolete. :)
Since they've been in the Senate together I see little difference in the records of Hillary and Obama. And the differences in their current promises amount to hair-splitting. But I must admit that having either a Bush or a Clinton in the WH for the past 20 years has made me sick of both royal dynasties.
20 years of Clinton-Bush, followed by 8 more of Hillary, and then 8 more of Jeb, followed possibly by 8 of Chelsea, is a rather nauseating prospect.
I say kill the beast right now while we can.
You really might want to wait until Rezko's trial starts before you pledge the store to Obama, if you are a democrat.
Out of curiosity, if Obama does receive the nomination, and Fitzgerald shows Obama to more criminally involved with Rezko than we know now, what is your contingency plan?
McCain is old?
Do you know?
i tried to bring up how both of hillary's brothers had recieved hundreds of thousands of dollars for asking for clemency for various criminals (which was granted)
but these dipshits claim that it's "too old" and "old news"
bullshit.
the 527 ads will be pouring out the moment she gets the nom, and what's she gonna say? i didn't know my brothers were getting paids thousand of dollars to ask me to give felons clemency?
people are supposed to be smarter than just repeating campaign talking points.
You dont think Cheney was effective in his role?
Cheney was quite effective -- and had Hillary's support.
What that shows is that experience without wisdom and compassion is perhaps not just pointless, but even dangerous.
ahhh yes, Naive and inexperienced, just like Obama, way to take the bait a la Obama/Novak.
You confuse good american policy with effectiveness and experience.
you dont think cheney was effective???
2 Scotus jusices who will have a say in american policy much longer than the next 4 presidential elections combined.
The big business group that supported Bushco. have screwed over the average american, lined their pockets with more surplus that was imaginable, and will continue to do so for quite some time.
Haliburton execs are swimming with glee, even with all the bad press they have gotten because of cheney.
Have been allowed to run around international law and found holes where holes dont exist when it concerns "enemy combatants." Litigation has continued and thousands upon thousands of hours have been put into that work without even reaching the merits of any case.
The repugs have dominated national security for 6 years, securing the 2004 nomination, and only now are the tables turning on Bush/Cheney.
Cheney and co have made immigration into a bad topic for dems by demonizing Mexicans and South American immigrants, solely to screw over dems because they knew the democrats had and have a better position.
The administration have ruined the American economy, but lined the pockets of the wealthy, the same people that will offer jobs to Bush and Cheney when they are done in Jan of 09.
They knew they were going down in 08, so they just did what they wanted for the people they wanted, so when a dem comes in in 08 (if a dem is elected) things will be so fucked up and will take so long to fix, that in 4 years, the party can fix itself and retake the whitehouse.
And even when things looked sour in 2004, they were effective in getting gay marriage amendments in key states to be on the ballot in order to keep power.
Cheney is despicable. He is scum to me. He's a load that should have been swallowed because he's been able to ruin so many things, but ineffective he is not. Shrewd, heartless, a coward, yes, ineffective? No.
"Cheney is despicable. He is scum to me."
And hillary voted in favor of the worst he put forward -- Bankruptcy, NCLB, Patriot, Iraq.
If that's "the benefit of experience," we could do with less of it.
keep on with those talking points.
she didnt vote for the bankruptcy bill in 2005.
NCLB - she wants to repeal it, if it was properly funded, it might have been worth it, but Bush decided against actually funding it.
Iraq - we've hashed out thousands of time on this thread.
As for the Patriot act - its a shame that Bush/Cheney abused it. But Obama voted for it as well.
Guess you are voting uncommitted?
She voted FOR the 2001 bankruptcy bill. She voted FOR NCLB. She voted FOR the Patriot Act. She voted FOR Iraq.
She was FOR the worst of Bush/Cheney before she was against it.
Live with it. She certainly has to.
