Which would be worse?

[Beet]

Oh God, the last four presidents being Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton of course. Thankfully Hillary was rejected.

Nice to know the President's name matters more to you than their qualifications. You guys are disgustingly shallow.

I'm not happy with Kennedy becoming a senator because of her name but it isn't as bad as when Hillary took the seat. At least Caroline was born in New York and actually lived there unlike Hillary who just flat out carpetbagged. Both are/were undeserving of the seat though. Unlike Chuck Schumer. Now there's a guy who deserves a New York senate seat.

Hillary actually had a history of giving a sh*t about government and she earned the seat and didn't just get herself appointed. The majority of the voters choose you in a free and fair election the carpetbagging charge kind of loses its steam.

[Aizen]

Oh God, the last four presidents being Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton of course. Thankfully Hillary was rejected.

Nice to know the President's name matters more to you than their qualifications. You guys are disgustingly shallow.

I'm not happy with Kennedy becoming a senator because of her name but it isn't as bad as when Hillary took the seat. At least Caroline was born in New York and actually lived there unlike Hillary who just flat out carpetbagged. Both are/were undeserving of the seat though. Unlike Chuck Schumer. Now there's a guy who deserves a New York senate seat.

Hillary actually had a history of giving a sh*t about government and she earned the seat and didn't just get herself appointed. The majority of the voters choose you in a free and fair election the carpetbagging charge kind of loses its steam.

So if Caroline gets appointed and then gets reelected in 2010 (Which she probably would) does that mean the charges against Caroline "loses their steam"? Because in that case a majority of voters would have chosen her in a free and fair election you know. I don't understand your logic. But I don't really want to engage you because it's making me defend Caroline which I don't really want to do. I don't know why you continue to be gun-ho about Hillary and constantly find a way to bring her up all the time. It's over. It's been over. She lost and she'll never be president. It was close. It was heartbreaking for you. But at the end of the day she has nobody to blame for her loss except herself.

[Beet]

Oh God, the last four presidents being Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton of course. Thankfully Hillary was rejected.

Nice to know the President's name matters more to you than their qualifications. You guys are disgustingly shallow.

I'm not happy with Kennedy becoming a senator because of her name but it isn't as bad as when Hillary took the seat. At least Caroline was born in New York and actually lived there unlike Hillary who just flat out carpetbagged. Both are/were undeserving of the seat though. Unlike Chuck Schumer. Now there's a guy who deserves a New York senate seat.

Hillary actually had a history of giving a sh*t about government and she earned the seat and didn't just get herself appointed. The majority of the voters choose you in a free and fair election the carpetbagging charge kind of loses its steam.

So if Caroline gets appointed and then gets reelected in 2010 (Which she probably would) does that mean the charges against Caroline "loses their steam"? Because in that case a majority of voters would have chosen her in a free and fair election you know. I don't understand your logic. But I don't really want to engage you because it's making me defend Caroline which I don't really want to do. I don't know why you continue to be gun-ho about Hillary and constantly find a way to bring her up all the time. It's over. It's been over. She lost and she'll never be president. It was close. It was heartbreaking for you. But at the end of the day she has nobody to blame for her loss except herself.

I was just responding to BRTD starting this thread since I am one of the few forum members who supported Clinton and have been vocal in my opposition to the Kennedy appointment.

Number of threads started on this topic [Clinton] by me: 0
Number of threads started on this topic by BRTD: 2

[Purple State]

Oh God, the last four presidents being Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton of course. Thankfully Hillary was rejected.

Nice to know the President's name matters more to you than their qualifications. You guys are disgustingly shallow.

I'm not happy with Kennedy becoming a senator because of her name but it isn't as bad as when Hillary took the seat. At least Caroline was born in New York and actually lived there unlike Hillary who just flat out carpetbagged. Both are/were undeserving of the seat though. Unlike Chuck Schumer. Now there's a guy who deserves a New York senate seat.

Hillary actually had a history of giving a sh*t about government and she earned the seat and didn't just get herself appointed. The majority of the voters choose you in a free and fair election the carpetbagging charge kind of loses its steam.

So if Caroline gets appointed and then gets reelected in 2010 (Which she probably would) does that mean the charges against Caroline "loses their steam"? Because in that case a majority of voters would have chosen her in a free and fair election you know. I don't understand your logic. But I don't really want to engage you because it's making me defend Caroline which I don't really want to do. I don't know why you continue to be gun-ho about Hillary and constantly find a way to bring her up all the time. It's over. It's been over. She lost and she'll never be president. It was close. It was heartbreaking for you. But at the end of the day she has nobody to blame for her loss except herself.

We bring up Hillary because that is the point of the thread? Sounds like a reasonable enough excuse.

To appoint a Kennedy to office is to guarantee the seat for life. Once she is there she won't lose. Hillary was never appointed and won on her own by showing she cared about the people of NY. She toured all the counties, spoke to the people. And she ended up serving the state pretty damn well because she knew how to work the Senate and cares deeply about politics and government.

Contrast this with Caroline Kennedy who has never shown an interest in politics or representing the people of NY. She has only now decided to tour the state to see what people would want her to represent. She shows no passion for the position, the prestige, or the power. I wouldn't mind her were she to be elected in 2010 after a seat-warmer for 2 years.

[Ogre Mage]

She (Hillary) lost and she'll never be president.

Off topic, I am not convinced of this.  If Obama's Presidency and Hillary's term as Secretary of State are successful, it is entirely possible she could be a viable candidate in 2016.  She would be running at age 68, but she would also be carting a resume that no one else could match save Joe Biden, who probably will be too old.  Some have insisted that a so-called new generation will take over but I'm not convinced of that.  I wouldn't count on someone else being able to duplicate the Obama phenomenon, which is what it took to beat her.  That type of thing is very rare and assuming a successful term as SoS, Hillary would be starting off from an even stronger position.  Given that she is in his cabinet, President Obama might endorse her, which would carry huge weight.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It wasn't obvious from day one how horrible Bush would be. He ran a centrist enough campaign. He didn't do anything crazy in 2001.

Appointing Ashcroft? PATRIOT Act? Then there's the whole issue of how he came to power in the first place.

The first sign of trouble didn't come until the State of the Union address in 2002. But by October 2002 most of the things that Bush is now unpopular for had not yet occurred. Anyone who says now that they could have predicted back then how unpopular Bush would be now or how many things would have gone wrong with the war is either inflexibly partisan or being unrealistic. In April 2003, most people thought he was a genius.

But I did. I was against the war from day one and have never approved of Bush at any point in my life. If I can see this, why can't Hillary who is supposedly so much more intelligent?

Then there's also how most foreign leaders had good foresight on this. Was Schroeder an idiot? Or Chirac? (OK you could make a good case for Chirac but hardly because of that.)

The other thing you have to think about is that Clinton was the Senator from New York. The biggest events of the 9/11 attacks happened in New York City. It was her duty to do everything she could to make sure that another terrorist attack did not occur, as New York City would likely once again be the target.

How did Charlie Rangel vote on the war? Among other NYC Reps. You have to use common sense no matter where you represent. Besides by this logic are you saying Wellstone wasn't necessarily wrong, but anyone in New York who voted the right way was? 

Even the serious possibility that Iraq was giving WMD to terrorists had to be taken as a real threat. When you have the President of the United States telling you this you cannot ignore it and still be the responsible Senator from New York.

The "President" who New York did not vote for. And who didn't even really win anyway. He was a joke and an illegitimate piece of sh!t. He should've never been afforded any respect whatsoever.

Edwards was obvious because he was a DLC Democrat while in the Senate and to some extent during his 2004 campaign, and in 2007 suddenly reinvented himself as a fire-breathing populist. But even if you thought he was genuine his apology was just a symbolic gesture that didn't really do anything.

People change. Who would've thought Ronald Reagan would become a conservative icon the day he signed the most liberal abortion law in the country ever? And then there's so much that could be said about Goldwater.

Yeah his apology may have been symbolic, but at least showed he was willing to admit it when he made a mistake. Hillary can't because she's an ego-filled bitch.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This part just shows how completely out of touch and paranoid some of the fears were. The only way Clinton would even consider attacking Iran is if they were on the verge of testing a nuke, and if that were to come about then Obama would be considering it as well. Given that Clinton and Obama
1) gave pretty much the same answers in debates as to what they would do going forward,
2) voted the same way on virtually all Iraq/Iran related bills
the supposed chasm of difference between them was manufactured and absurd.

I do think it's ironic that Obama campaigned in the primary on the war but in the general election had to campaign and win on the economy-- largely due to the march of events. Obama was forced to admit that the surge "succeeded beyond our wildest expectations." The economy was Clinton's primary area of focus from the beginning and she was proven prescient.

And he did win, so why complain?

In any case, the primary over. What's the point of going through all this again? As for your sarcasm about my "queen and heroine", look at how many pro-Clinton comments I made here in 2007... very, very few. It was her strong performance in the actual debates and the insanity of the anti-Clintonism in the primary that drove me firmly into her camp. Never in the history of Clinton's political career have her detractors been proven right on anything regarding her personal motives.

You do realize this is a logical fallacy right?

You also fail to realize there are plenty of people who just don't like her. Her triangulation and whatnot. Hell read Gabu's posts on her. You know what I think of her, but I'll assume you think he was rational and intelligent for whatever bizarre reason. His statements about her are some of the few right things he's said. Everything she says sounds so fake and focus group-tested, and she's the ultimate triangulator.

There's something else too. Since 2004, and to some extent even before that, we were told Hillary would be our nominee, the end. She was inevitable, give up. From both sides. Don't you think that does irritate some Democrats? Even those open to supporting her but who want a real primary? It's tough to act so arrogant and then expect support.

[Beet]

Ashcroft I would not have supported for AG, but then there are lots of Cabinet members I wouldn't necessarily like. Not a huge deal. The Patriot Act is an absurd example because everyone from both parties voted for it. Most of the provisions are perfectly reasonable. The roving wiretap provision was the only one that needed to be changed.

So you are one of the 10% who never approved of Bush even after 9/11. We get it. That doesn't necessarily make you smart.

First of all, Rangel is a nutcase. He wanted to reinstate the draft and he compared the Iraq war to the holocaust, and now we're finding out he is majorly ethically challenged. Using him as your paragon of principle is a fail. Second of all Rangel represents an overwhelmingly Dem district. He is under a lot of pressure to vote straight liberal line, simply to reflect the 'will of his constituents'. That should never be the sole factor but it always is at least one factor. I am simply saying there are many factors that you have to take into account. Clinton's status as a New York Senator was one. As a New York Senator part of her job is to look out especially for New York and New York's interests. That is one factor that any person who represents NYC has, that Wellstone did not have.

If Clinton had voted against AUMF, and it had failed, and another terrorist attack had occurred 6 months later, and it could be even possibly connected to Iraq, that could be the blood of her own civilian constituents on her hands, the people she was elected to serve. Who wants that on their conscience?

Reagan was never that serious about overturning abortion. The religious right was 1/2 useful tool and 1/2 annoying pain in the ass for him, just as it was for Herbert Walker.

The President should have some ego. It's healthy... I mean, the President is the leader of the free world. Of course if a policy is failing, the President should be willing to change course. But I'd rather have an ego filled bitch as President than a wishy washy tool of the extreme left.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No I don't remember what Gabu posted on her, but I don't remember him being all crazy for anyone during the last election either.

I think she had a problem with her message. I will admit that was a huge mistake on her part, IMO her biggest mistake.

You were being told Hillary was inevitable from both sides because she seemed inevitable. It wasn't just some desire to make it so or shut down competition or get her opponents to all give in. She simply was the overwhelming favorite. It was simply a fact. Her supporters, her detractors, Democrats and Republicans, all felt the same way. I never had any problem with a healthy competition. As it turns out there was a healthy competition and Clinton did pretty well... if she had had a better message she would have won. But even if someone wanted a competitive primary they had to admit that Clinton was in the best position by a large margin. You can't have possibly expected people to put lipstick on that pig.

[Purple State]

It wasn't obvious from day one how horrible Bush would be. He ran a centrist enough campaign. He didn't do anything crazy in 2001.

Appointing Ashcroft? PATRIOT Act? Then there's the whole issue of how he came to power in the first place.

The first sign of trouble didn't come until the State of the Union address in 2002. But by October 2002 most of the things that Bush is now unpopular for had not yet occurred. Anyone who says now that they could have predicted back then how unpopular Bush would be now or how many things would have gone wrong with the war is either inflexibly partisan or being unrealistic. In April 2003, most people thought he was a genius.

But I did. I was against the war from day one and have never approved of Bush at any point in my life. If I can see this, why can't Hillary who is supposedly so much more intelligent?

Then there's also how most foreign leaders had good foresight on this. Was Schroeder an idiot? Or Chirac? (OK you could make a good case for Chirac but hardly because of that.)

The other thing you have to think about is that Clinton was the Senator from New York. The biggest events of the 9/11 attacks happened in New York City. It was her duty to do everything she could to make sure that another terrorist attack did not occur, as New York City would likely once again be the target.

How did Charlie Rangel vote on the war? Among other NYC Reps. You have to use common sense no matter where you represent. Besides by this logic are you saying Wellstone wasn't necessarily wrong, but anyone in New York who voted the right way was? 

Even the serious possibility that Iraq was giving WMD to terrorists had to be taken as a real threat. When you have the President of the United States telling you this you cannot ignore it and still be the responsible Senator from New York.

The "President" who New York did not vote for. And who didn't even really win anyway. He was a joke and an illegitimate piece of sh!t. He should've never been afforded any respect whatsoever.

Edwards was obvious because he was a DLC Democrat while in the Senate and to some extent during his 2004 campaign, and in 2007 suddenly reinvented himself as a fire-breathing populist. But even if you thought he was genuine his apology was just a symbolic gesture that didn't really do anything.

People change. Who would've thought Ronald Reagan would become a conservative icon the day he signed the most liberal abortion law in the country ever? And then there's so much that could be said about Goldwater.

Yeah his apology may have been symbolic, but at least showed he was willing to admit it when he made a mistake. Hillary can't because she's an ego-filled bitch.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This part just shows how completely out of touch and paranoid some of the fears were. The only way Clinton would even consider attacking Iran is if they were on the verge of testing a nuke, and if that were to come about then Obama would be considering it as well. Given that Clinton and Obama
1) gave pretty much the same answers in debates as to what they would do going forward,
2) voted the same way on virtually all Iraq/Iran related bills
the supposed chasm of difference between them was manufactured and absurd.

I do think it's ironic that Obama campaigned in the primary on the war but in the general election had to campaign and win on the economy-- largely due to the march of events. Obama was forced to admit that the surge "succeeded beyond our wildest expectations." The economy was Clinton's primary area of focus from the beginning and she was proven prescient.

And he did win, so why complain?

In any case, the primary over. What's the point of going through all this again? As for your sarcasm about my "queen and heroine", look at how many pro-Clinton comments I made here in 2007... very, very few. It was her strong performance in the actual debates and the insanity of the anti-Clintonism in the primary that drove me firmly into her camp. Never in the history of Clinton's political career have her detractors been proven right on anything regarding her personal motives.

You do realize this is a logical fallacy right?

You also fail to realize there are plenty of people who just don't like her. Her triangulation and whatnot. Hell read Gabu's posts on her. You know what I think of her, but I'll assume you think he was rational and intelligent for whatever bizarre reason. His statements about her are some of the few right things he's said. Everything she says sounds so fake and focus group-tested, and she's the ultimate triangulator.

There's something else too. Since 2004, and to some extent even before that, we were told Hillary would be our nominee, the end. She was inevitable, give up. From both sides. Don't you think that does irritate some Democrats? Even those open to supporting her but who want a real primary? It's tough to act so arrogant and then expect support.

Oh bothersome you...

You seem to be very supportive of anarchy as far as I can tell in all your recent incoherent rants, so let's do this one at a time.

Ashcroft/PATRIOT Act/war authorization/etc. = Welcome to democracy! When politicians are focused on a) representing the people and b) being reelected so that they can continue to represent the people. This is one of the many reasons politicians voted for authorization in Iraq. It isn't about seeing through the Bush administration or being more intelligent. You're not in their position, don't have to worry about campaign contributions or reelection.

Foreign leaders opposing Iraq = When is the last time Europe has really supported an agenda in the US. While we definitely must be aware of and responsive to foreign input and agendas, we cannot be expected to serve their every whim.

NY didn't vote for the President, therefore why take him credibly? = What kind of garbage comment is this? Did you think before writing it? Should the South secede because it didn't vote for Obama? This country is based around respect for your Commander in Chief, regardless of if he or she is a member of your party, regardless of if you voted for them, etc. Such ideas are against the very fabric of this nation.

Hillary and not apologizing = Would an apology change anything for you? Her decision was how she saw the situation at the time. She was new in the Senate and represented the state that was the target of the largest terrorist attack on American civilians. The war-mongerering administration was shoving a great deal of fear down the throats of the American people. A vote by Hillary, a new senator from a complex and damaged state, should not be used as the be-all-end-all of her career. You judge her this severely based on one act? She has done far more good for this nation and her state. Were you to extend your harshness to any other politician you would find not a single worthy one in the entire lot.

Hillary as the predetermined candidate = Ok, it annoyed you. That warrants ultimate hatred? There is always an early favorite in any race/competition. Should we hate the horse with the best odds of winning because the bookies chose a favorite? Sure, those who aren't a fan of horse #1 won't be happy, but that just inspires others to throw their lot into the race and compete. Where does this hatred stem from? Triangulation? What do you think any politician in a campaign does?

[Eraserhead]

weak poll