sw, i agree that i wish hillary weren't a clinton. there's a lot of baggage there (much of it heaped on by the conservatives during bill's admin that has unfortunately stuck even amongst liberals), but i think she has a very complex world view that is necessary at this time. of all the candidates i have the most confidence in her that she could take us out of iraq in a responsible way and work in a diplomatic manner to move towards peace in the middle east. i like her expansionist, globalized understanding of the u.s. and world economy, and believe her to be the best candidate to guide us through an impending recession.
i do wish that she were less divisive, but in terms of the issues, i'm with her on most of them.
Like, I know! Putting in an uninspiring, stiff, poll-driven, flip-flopping-on-the-war, corporate-funded establishment crab worked SO well last time, lets try it again!
hillary has never flip-flopped on the war (that's just more conservative rhetoric). personally, i disagree with her for voting to go into iraq in the first place, but in recent years/months, she's advocated for a phased pull-out which given the recent successes in achieving a civilian peace is not a bad position.
and seriously, what candidate is not corporate funded? that may be a cynical response, but without financial backing a candidate is dead in the water, see john edwards. makes you wish mccain-feingold woulda passed, but this is the political reality of the day.
^ Of course you can. The American people were mislead into believing this war was for just reason. We were told by our government that we had proven intelligence that showed strong links and proof of terrorist groups with weapons of mass destructions. We have since learned otherwise. So it's absolutely understandable to say yes to something you were mislead into believing was correct. And it's absolutely understandable to feel otherwise when you are proven wrong.
i agree with your about her vote on kyl-leiberman... it is questionable to say the least. it seemed to be eerily parallel to her 2002 vote. her vote on that bill removed all doubt from my mind that i wouldn't be voting for her.
A lot of republicans actually want Hillary to win the nomination. They feel she is the weaker canidate because she is so polarizing. People either love her or hate her. She can't get the swing vote, thus would permit a weak republican canidate the win.
I've always said Hillary can't win a national election and stand by it.
The Clinton's aren't the political machine the media makes them out to be. Bill won in '92 with just over 40% of the vote. Had Perot not been a factor (18% of vote) most scholars think H.W. Bush would have won, or at least been very close. (Very similar to the Nader effect in 2000.)
After taking office the '94 elections were a landslide victory for the republicans, which polling showed an 82% dissapproval of Clinton and gave the republicans control of the house after 40 years of democrat majority. History the Clintons probably like to forget.
Clinton won in 1996 against a weak republican nominee and largely was able to reshape his presidency enough to stem the tide of party losses. (Many hard core dem's I know think Bill acted like a republican after '94.) He did lead the party to slight house pick-ups for the dems in '96 and '98. In similar fashion Bush did the same for the republicans in '02 & '04. 2006 was to Bush as 1994 was to Clinton.
Pure numbers though, Bill did very little to help the democrat party. I think it's fair to blame some of his failings on the republican attacks, but generally chalk that up to politics as I think Bush has received an equal amount of attacks. (I also think the attacks have mostly been warranted, both Clinton & Bush.)
Long story short, Hillary is no lock because of name and so-called experience. Secondly, she isn't Bill, who IMO is a far better politician than she could dream of being. Frankly I'm surprised the democrat faithful support her at all. Then again, I do think the republicans are better strategists at winning elections.
How do you know that she was briefed with the same information that Bush was given? She didn't join the Committe of Armed Services until 2003 after the 2002 war vote. Bush's administration was extremely selective with who was allowed to review any war information. Think about it - do you think that Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Rumsfeld would want to a Clinton in their meetings?
Regardless, one can easily make a decision and, with time, realize it wasn't the right choice.
She let her husband run around getting sucked off by 20 something interns and didnt do anything about it. Now she wants a marraige to the American people. Just imagine who'll be fucking us next and guess who still wont be doing anything about it.
what politician (or anyone for that matter) is perfectly pure? if there was such an animal, i probably would not want to vote for him or her. as long as one's moral indiscretions have no bearing on his or her job performance, i couldn't care less.
Our country is now fucked because her husband had affairs and she didn't leave him? Look around, there are plenty of who have had their spouse or significant other cheat on them and they are still staying with them. It's a completely personal matter that doesn't make one more or less apt to run a successful business, be a good architect, be a decent person, or run a country.
I disagree because it means your a doormat, or victim. But she seems to playing the victim role pretty well this week, and theres plenty of "vicitms" that came out to vote for her.
Really. Whatever happened to letting everyone vote? It's like the legal equivalent of scare tactics in predominantly black neighborhoods on election day.
hillary is a liar. how about this quote; "I'm not some Tammy Wynette standing by my man." what a tool, what did she do? yep, her husband sticks his lil' bill and a cigar in an intern, and she still stood by her man. oh yeah!
i have one question Hellary Cliton; Mrs. Clinton, what guarantees do we have that your husband won't embarrass this country again?
A type of defamation. Slander is an untruthful oral (spoken) statement about a person that harms the person's reputation or standing in the community. Because slander is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement. If the statement is made via broadcast media -- for example, over the radio or on TV -- it is considered libel, rather than slander, because the statement has the potential to reach a very wide audience.
hey, ORAL is in the definition, so it can't apply to Billy...
beta, you are pretty much acting like a bull-headed dolt. How do you propose changing opinions and minds of your fellow archineteurs with such hateful mongering? Take your angry blather somewhere else. And don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.
let's extrapolate a little here. people are envisioning a return to the glory days of the 1990's, you know when bill was prez, and tech markets were all abuzz with money and high expectations. well, a return to the past almost certainly begs to ask; are we ready for a return of ?
it's not even worth replying to you, beta. you have made good contributions to the 'nect in the past, but on this thread, you are simply a troll. go away.
funny thing is i searched this thread for something substantive that either of you might have contributed to this thread, and the only thing worth responding to is the shiite you have thrown at moi. so put that in your hookah and puff.
there have been many marriages that didn't end because of infidelity. that the clinton's had to have their dirty laundry ie stained gap dresses aired in the public eye was a tragedy for them, their family and the nation. just because hillary didn't leave bill doesnt mean she didn't let him have it, in whatever private moments they had together.
wait - it means shes a sap. Plain and simple. The president cant be someone who gets "cheated on". Its indicitive of weak personality, bad choice in a mate, unawareness of whats going on around her and worse of all inability to earn the respect of her husband.
I agree its terrible their dirty laundry was aired but in the end, shes still a door mat to be walked all over.
my biggest beef with hillary clinton is that she won't win if nominated. i don't think we can underestimate how many people really dislike her...and who are willing to vote republican just to vaote against her. she'll bring out the vote...it just won't be in her favor.
i also don't like the fact that she is a continuation of the recent dynastic propensity of the white house. as of today, 1 in 4 americans have only known either a bush or a clinton as president during their lifetimes...yikes! i really like to see something new here.
having said all of that...i would personally love to have a woman president...and i might even be inclined to support hilary (despite her clinton name and onvious baggage) because i think she is tough as nails. of the democrats, i believe that she is the only one would keep us in iraq (despite whatever she might say to get elected).
even though I thoroughly opposed the iraq invasion, i don't believe that u.s. can leave the middle east unless the average american consumer is ready to stomach the reality of gas prices in the $6 to $10 per gallon range.
i can hardly believe that I'm saying this...but i'm leaning republican in this election
if only i could vote for bob marley or lucky dube...ding,ding, a-licky, licky bong
OK, so I'm back to infiltrate the Hillary thread, and here's why. I want to like Hillary, I really do....and I'd like to think that if she wins the nomination, I could support her. But I don't know that this is the case. Those of us who are Obama camp are hearing increasingly disturbing things about the Clintons and their "scorched earth" politics. Case in point:
1. This article, about how the Clintons would turn a win for Obama in South Carolina into a race war.
2. This article, about alleged anti-Obama, pro-Hillary push-polling in South Carolina.
3. This article, about how both Clintons have said kind things about Reagan in the past, which underscores how unfair their recent attacks on Obama for bringing up Reagan really are.
What is going on here? Has the whole world turned upside down? Why should I not believe any of this? It seems to me like the Clintons are turning their backs on who they used to be and turning to Rove-style politics as the answer to how to win, at any cost. God help this country if any of this is true. And god help me for saying this, but if it is true, then I too, am leaning Republican. (Unless its Romney, in which case I'll do a write-in or something.)
a few months ago a question was burning inside me, that i thought would be appropriate to ask the candidates; What is more important, winning the election or being President?
i get the sense that this could be a nomination for the head of the PTA and the Clintons would still do the same thing. win at all costs.
whereas Obama gives me the sense that he wants to be the President, he wants to lead, not lead a few of us but all of us.
i am disappointed that his staff/advisors are the ones that are acting like they haven't done this before, and that they didn't know what the Clintonistas would be up to.
Barack, to me at least, is the moral center of the democratic party, he is the only one really telling it, and asking all of us to be part of the solution. demonization and polarization don't seem to be part of his lexicon, he doesn't do it well.
I am sure there are lots of people like us, who have only recently awaken to the danger this couple is. I have lived in a few of the redest of the red states, and I know how Hillary is loathed.
Half the country will be against her from day one and Billary is doing their best to alienate a chunk of the other half right now. How does she plan to lead with a diminishing coalition? Her and Bill against the world who is against them.
I hear on the radio prominent democrats say it will be fine and that the party will come back together, but I cannot see it. If you fight the idealistic movement Barack was starting with such nastiness there is no real way of coming back. I am afraid they may turn me (and a lot of other democrats that simply cannot vote for them anymore) republican, if McCain sets the agenda, for a while.
This is a generational struggle, not because of the ages of the politicians in the fight but because it will re-shuffle the parties for the next couple of voting cycles. I don't think Billary have the vision to see it that way and fight a clean fight for the good of the party.
Run Hillary Run
sw, i agree that i wish hillary weren't a clinton. there's a lot of baggage there (much of it heaped on by the conservatives during bill's admin that has unfortunately stuck even amongst liberals), but i think she has a very complex world view that is necessary at this time. of all the candidates i have the most confidence in her that she could take us out of iraq in a responsible way and work in a diplomatic manner to move towards peace in the middle east. i like her expansionist, globalized understanding of the u.s. and world economy, and believe her to be the best candidate to guide us through an impending recession.
i do wish that she were less divisive, but in terms of the issues, i'm with her on most of them.
Like, I know! Putting in an uninspiring, stiff, poll-driven, flip-flopping-on-the-war, corporate-funded establishment crab worked SO well last time, lets try it again!
hillary has never flip-flopped on the war (that's just more conservative rhetoric). personally, i disagree with her for voting to go into iraq in the first place, but in recent years/months, she's advocated for a phased pull-out which given the recent successes in achieving a civilian peace is not a bad position.
and seriously, what candidate is not corporate funded? that may be a cynical response, but without financial backing a candidate is dead in the water, see john edwards. makes you wish mccain-feingold woulda passed, but this is the political reality of the day.
you can't vote for the war and then say the war is wrong.
^ Of course you can. The American people were mislead into believing this war was for just reason. We were told by our government that we had proven intelligence that showed strong links and proof of terrorist groups with weapons of mass destructions. We have since learned otherwise. So it's absolutely understandable to say yes to something you were mislead into believing was correct. And it's absolutely understandable to feel otherwise when you are proven wrong.
bull. she had the same info that GWB had, and she still voted yes, and she votes amp up hostility towards Iran.
i agree with your about her vote on kyl-leiberman... it is questionable to say the least. it seemed to be eerily parallel to her 2002 vote. her vote on that bill removed all doubt from my mind that i wouldn't be voting for her.
A lot of republicans actually want Hillary to win the nomination. They feel she is the weaker canidate because she is so polarizing. People either love her or hate her. She can't get the swing vote, thus would permit a weak republican canidate the win.
I've always said Hillary can't win a national election and stand by it.
The Clinton's aren't the political machine the media makes them out to be. Bill won in '92 with just over 40% of the vote. Had Perot not been a factor (18% of vote) most scholars think H.W. Bush would have won, or at least been very close. (Very similar to the Nader effect in 2000.)
After taking office the '94 elections were a landslide victory for the republicans, which polling showed an 82% dissapproval of Clinton and gave the republicans control of the house after 40 years of democrat majority. History the Clintons probably like to forget.
Clinton won in 1996 against a weak republican nominee and largely was able to reshape his presidency enough to stem the tide of party losses. (Many hard core dem's I know think Bill acted like a republican after '94.) He did lead the party to slight house pick-ups for the dems in '96 and '98. In similar fashion Bush did the same for the republicans in '02 & '04. 2006 was to Bush as 1994 was to Clinton.
Pure numbers though, Bill did very little to help the democrat party. I think it's fair to blame some of his failings on the republican attacks, but generally chalk that up to politics as I think Bush has received an equal amount of attacks. (I also think the attacks have mostly been warranted, both Clinton & Bush.)
Long story short, Hillary is no lock because of name and so-called experience. Secondly, she isn't Bill, who IMO is a far better politician than she could dream of being. Frankly I'm surprised the democrat faithful support her at all. Then again, I do think the republicans are better strategists at winning elections.
How do you know that she was briefed with the same information that Bush was given? She didn't join the Committe of Armed Services until 2003 after the 2002 war vote. Bush's administration was extremely selective with who was allowed to review any war information. Think about it - do you think that Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Rumsfeld would want to a Clinton in their meetings?
Regardless, one can easily make a decision and, with time, realize it wasn't the right choice.
hillary is wrong. why did she vote to escalate hostility towards Iran?
She let her husband run around getting sucked off by 20 something interns and didnt do anything about it. Now she wants a marraige to the American people. Just imagine who'll be fucking us next and guess who still wont be doing anything about it.
^^ a true pearl of wisdom ^^
Character isnt for republicans only.
what politician (or anyone for that matter) is perfectly pure? if there was such an animal, i probably would not want to vote for him or her. as long as one's moral indiscretions have no bearing on his or her job performance, i couldn't care less.
Our country is now fucked because her husband had affairs and she didn't leave him? Look around, there are plenty of who have had their spouse or significant other cheat on them and they are still staying with them. It's a completely personal matter that doesn't make one more or less apt to run a successful business, be a good architect, be a decent person, or run a country.
I disagree because it means your a doormat, or victim. But she seems to playing the victim role pretty well this week, and theres plenty of "vicitms" that came out to vote for her.
Really. Whatever happened to letting everyone vote? It's like the legal equivalent of scare tactics in predominantly black neighborhoods on election day.
i'm sick of people getting on this thread to trash hillary. go back to your obama lovefest.
The Dems need to get their heads out of thier fucking asses!!!!!!!!
hillary is a liar. how about this quote; "I'm not some Tammy Wynette standing by my man." what a tool, what did she do? yep, her husband sticks his lil' bill and a cigar in an intern, and she still stood by her man. oh yeah!
i have one question Hellary Cliton; Mrs. Clinton, what guarantees do we have that your husband won't embarrass this country again?
and which, pray tell, is slanderous?
A type of defamation. Slander is an untruthful oral (spoken) statement about a person that harms the person's reputation or standing in the community. Because slander is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement. If the statement is made via broadcast media -- for example, over the radio or on TV -- it is considered libel, rather than slander, because the statement has the potential to reach a very wide audience.
hey, ORAL is in the definition, so it can't apply to Billy...
Im not a huge hill fan but I dont see what that stuff has to do with anything.
beta, you are pretty much acting like a bull-headed dolt. How do you propose changing opinions and minds of your fellow archineteurs with such hateful mongering? Take your angry blather somewhere else. And don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.
let's extrapolate a little here. people are envisioning a return to the glory days of the 1990's, you know when bill was prez, and tech markets were all abuzz with money and high expectations. well, a return to the past almost certainly begs to ask; are we ready for a return of
?
hey Nazi, eat me, hill brought this on herself. post nazi someplace else.
what is so hateful about quoting someone anyway?
I'll gladly eat you with a side of corn as soon as I can find a recipe for Stewed Idiot.
just make sure it's vegetarian.
i love when alter-egos post on the 'nect. clearly no sack.
thank you, post nazi.
ja just for you babeee!
it's not even worth replying to you, beta. you have made good contributions to the 'nect in the past, but on this thread, you are simply a troll. go away.
I love when blowfish 'nector contributors post angagonistic crap. Clearly no class.
funny thing is i searched this thread for something substantive that either of you might have contributed to this thread, and the only thing worth responding to is the shiite you have thrown at moi. so put that in your hookah and puff.
nazis.
there have been many marriages that didn't end because of infidelity. that the clinton's had to have their dirty laundry ie stained gap dresses aired in the public eye was a tragedy for them, their family and the nation. just because hillary didn't leave bill doesnt mean she didn't let him have it, in whatever private moments they had together.
bill cheating on her was the best thing that could have happened to her politically. bill owes her, big time.
wait - it means shes a sap. Plain and simple. The president cant be someone who gets "cheated on". Its indicitive of weak personality, bad choice in a mate, unawareness of whats going on around her and worse of all inability to earn the respect of her husband.
I agree its terrible their dirty laundry was aired but in the end, shes still a door mat to be walked all over.
wow ep - tell us what you really feel!
well how do you respect someone who doesnt respect themselves?
Go ahead - vote for a chump. You get what you vote for.
i wish i ever got what I voted for.
nazis...romans...what's the difference raelly?
my biggest beef with hillary clinton is that she won't win if nominated. i don't think we can underestimate how many people really dislike her...and who are willing to vote republican just to vaote against her. she'll bring out the vote...it just won't be in her favor.
i also don't like the fact that she is a continuation of the recent dynastic propensity of the white house. as of today, 1 in 4 americans have only known either a bush or a clinton as president during their lifetimes...yikes! i really like to see something new here.
having said all of that...i would personally love to have a woman president...and i might even be inclined to support hilary (despite her clinton name and onvious baggage) because i think she is tough as nails. of the democrats, i believe that she is the only one would keep us in iraq (despite whatever she might say to get elected).
even though I thoroughly opposed the iraq invasion, i don't believe that u.s. can leave the middle east unless the average american consumer is ready to stomach the reality of gas prices in the $6 to $10 per gallon range.
i can hardly believe that I'm saying this...but i'm leaning republican in this election
if only i could vote for bob marley or lucky dube...ding,ding, a-licky, licky bong
yes man!
OK, so I'm back to infiltrate the Hillary thread, and here's why. I want to like Hillary, I really do....and I'd like to think that if she wins the nomination, I could support her. But I don't know that this is the case. Those of us who are Obama camp are hearing increasingly disturbing things about the Clintons and their "scorched earth" politics. Case in point:
1. This article, about how the Clintons would turn a win for Obama in South Carolina into a race war.
2. This article, about alleged anti-Obama, pro-Hillary push-polling in South Carolina.
3. This article, about how both Clintons have said kind things about Reagan in the past, which underscores how unfair their recent attacks on Obama for bringing up Reagan really are.
What is going on here? Has the whole world turned upside down? Why should I not believe any of this? It seems to me like the Clintons are turning their backs on who they used to be and turning to Rove-style politics as the answer to how to win, at any cost. God help this country if any of this is true. And god help me for saying this, but if it is true, then I too, am leaning Republican. (Unless its Romney, in which case I'll do a write-in or something.)
a few months ago a question was burning inside me, that i thought would be appropriate to ask the candidates; What is more important, winning the election or being President?
i get the sense that this could be a nomination for the head of the PTA and the Clintons would still do the same thing. win at all costs.
whereas Obama gives me the sense that he wants to be the President, he wants to lead, not lead a few of us but all of us.
i am disappointed that his staff/advisors are the ones that are acting like they haven't done this before, and that they didn't know what the Clintonistas would be up to.
Barack, to me at least, is the moral center of the democratic party, he is the only one really telling it, and asking all of us to be part of the solution. demonization and polarization don't seem to be part of his lexicon, he doesn't do it well.
dubk, i feel the same way, i am thinking republican if only to prevent 8yrs of Clinton, and to give Obama, if not nominated, a headstart in 2012.
in other hillary related news from credible news sources, the new york times has endorsed hillary clinton for democratic presidential nominee.
WK, beta, preach it!!
I am sure there are lots of people like us, who have only recently awaken to the danger this couple is. I have lived in a few of the redest of the red states, and I know how Hillary is loathed.
Half the country will be against her from day one and Billary is doing their best to alienate a chunk of the other half right now. How does she plan to lead with a diminishing coalition? Her and Bill against the world who is against them.
I hear on the radio prominent democrats say it will be fine and that the party will come back together, but I cannot see it. If you fight the idealistic movement Barack was starting with such nastiness there is no real way of coming back. I am afraid they may turn me (and a lot of other democrats that simply cannot vote for them anymore) republican, if McCain sets the agenda, for a while.
This is a generational struggle, not because of the ages of the politicians in the fight but because it will re-shuffle the parties for the next couple of voting cycles. I don't think Billary have the vision to see it that way and fight a clean fight for the good of the party.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.