[NYC GOP Chick]

GOP Chick, I hear what you are saying but this is the way I look at it - as conservatives we often criticize liberals for attacking people instead of ideas, and I don't want to fall into that trap. If the bill is good, it is good whether Hillary is associated with it or not, the bill should stand on it's own merits and not on the merits (or lack of) of it's co-sponsors.

I'm not saying that he should criticize her or anything, just that he shouldn't be going out of his way to not only help burnish her "military credentials" but to *praise* her!

She's working hard to establish a reputation as being strong on military issues (an essential for any woman who wishes to lead a nation) and as a more "moderate" 'rat who is not the left-wing harpie that we know she is and who can "reach across the aisle" and work with some of the most conservative senators.

Am I happy Hillary may get some political mileage of of this? No, but I am happy to see some consideration given to reservists, who have been called upon to do a lot the past decade or so and have not given much credit by the press. I am glad to see Mr. Graham's name associated with the bill.

All true -- but she is not in any way *needed* for that. It just galls me that this hag from hell despises the military, but is using them and their well-being as a steppingstone to a White House campaign, and Lindsey Graham is aiding and abetting her in that.

[el_texicano]

I hope ya'll will forgive my intrusion into this discussion, but Randjuke has raised an issue that I believe bears further amplification.

I agree with the point that we as conservatives should not lower ourselves to 'name calling' as such. However, I would venture that what passes for 'name calling' here (and Mrs. Clinton evokes many) is rather a deep resentment for what she stands for, what she truly is as a person.

No one will argue the issue that Hussein, Hitler, bin Laden are deserving of labels (some might term it 'name calling' as well) of every vile nature for such describes their person. Hillary Clinton no less is such a vile person. She is duplicious, calculating, manipulative, hateful and in my humble opinion, just plain evil (I do not jest here).

The difference between her and the former is they attack from without, she works from within the system to subvert, weaken and overthrow and because of such she is the more dangerous...a Quisling if you will, not of a country, but of an ideology.

How can I state such things, how can I make such judgments? Consider all the evidence that associates with this woman's name, you name it...Vince Foster 'suicide', Whitewater, WH Travel office, Health care debacle, all the insider revelations...the list is endless.

I have no qualms in stating that this woman is a dire threat to just about every value we hold in American government or American social structure.

It is not so much that her name is associated with something (i.e. legislative bills) that may be "good" in and of itself, it is the fact that this woman will associate herself with good things like a virus, like poison...hoping we will swallow it and take her in.

Let's not fool ourselves one iota. She is only working to manipulate public opinion for her own purposes and that purpose is ultimately control of the highest office in the land.

May we be wise as serpents and harmless as doves.