Posted on 03/02/2005 1:03:35 AM PST by MindBender26
The 2008 Five Five Democrats have begun informal staff interviews for 2008 presidential runs, according to a few who've been interviewed. So far, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is dubbed "the most aggressive" in seeking out aides, followed by Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack . The others are Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards , and 2004 candidate Sen. John Kerry .
Further, I think that Condi will outshine Hillary to such a degree that it will be pathetic.
I used to worry about the depth of the Repub bench of candidates before, but it doesn't bother me now.
I will be willing to hold that Franklin until election night 2007.
I might just have to find you every once in a while to help me keep my fears at bay. ;)
How come it's perfectly fine to demean, degrade, insult, scorn and attempt (unsuccessfully) to humiliate Condi Rice on the part of all Democrats who can manage to get a word in edgewise..........but "not nice" to play hardball with Killery-The-Killster?
Your post is stupendous. Thanks for the newspaper clipping, and for all of your comments. I agree with everything that you say. This woman is a reptile. Strong language and explosive sentiments are quite appropriate, and the comparison to Hitler isn't excessive. You've got it exactly right. "Monster" comes to mind every time I see her! Heaven help America, if she manages to slither into the presidency!
How do you like "Commandress in Chief?"
She will not win. The Hildabeast is not a good person-to-person campaigner. In addition, her involvement in all those Clinton scandals will surface throughout the presidential campaign. If she gets the nomination, Hitlery will be passed in the home stretch by a good GOP candidate who will take the lead in honest polls in late October, 2008. I can't believe I'm already offering predictions for the 2008 election.
Run Hillary Run!
Note what the RHINOs like McCain and Gingrich have been saying about her lately, and you have your answer.
The problem I have with Hillary running for anything is that you can never get her to answer any questions. Everything she says is predetermined and controlled by her handlers. The MSM will never ask her any sticky questions and she will never be brought to task. She is nothing but a snake in a pants suit.
"Remember what happend to Lazio. Are they going to cringe and shut up the first time the press reams them for being mean to a woman?
The only mistake in your statement is the "women" part. LOL
Her Senate record is dismal == No legislation of any significance proposed or passed. Support of anything to benefit the country or New York for that matter spotty at best.
I've argued for years that a great career awaits the first big-time dem who will break ranks on Social Security and help lead a bipartisan victory on reform. The door is wide open.
Are any of the current dems smart enough to walk through, or are they all paralyzed by interest group vetoes? So far, the latter, but if anyone has the wit and courage to break free ....
Wow! I understand and share your concerns that Hillary Clinton either (i) hides her far-left principles, (ii) HAS no real principles other than her own personal ambition, or (iii) all of the above. I think both her politics and her character make her a grave danger if elected to higher office. (I would almost rather see a sincere, open leftist elected to office than her. No one that I know of accused Paul Wellstone, for example, of insincerity - people disagreed with his politics, but respected him.) I find the mere concept of her as president to be nauseating beyond belief. I am worried also that many Republicans are going too easy on her. On top of everything else, I don't know how she can be touted as such a big feminist given her husband's shenanigans and her own riding her husband's coattails into a career. (For some reason, I just find it particularly galling when a spouse, be it Yoko Ono, Tom Arnold, or someone else, gets a career out of who they slept with.) If I cataloged all of Hillary's moments of mendacity it would fill a book, and already such events have filled several!
But I gotta be honest about the Hitlery comment. (Lots of people here use it, and I sort of just breeze past it. But since you raised the "controversy" over it I will take the opportunity to politely comment on it.) I would, all things considered, rather not see it than see it here. You will get no argument from me on what a danger it would be for her to become President. And I do think that Bush and Hillary are different cases when it comes to the Hitler analogy - they have totally different politics, character, and "modes of operation." Apples and oranges, to say the least!!!
I do think that we have to be careful not to fall into the DU trap of overstating our case and going negative (again, to say the least). And it may provide an opening to Hillary supporters to change the subject from her to her detractors. (Maybe I am guilty of falling into that trap in this post. But I don't have much to add about Hillary Clinton, since I agree with the predominant views about her expressed here.) Maybe I am raising politics over honesty in the minds of some; I just don't know how much it helps to use the term.
I get concerned about the Hitler analogy (in any context) for another reason. This country fought Hitler with all its might; nothing was held back. If we could have "taken him out" at any time after Pearl Harbor we would have. I don't want this post to be pulled, but my fear is that with so many leftists out there (a small percentage of the population, but very rabid) seething with hatred for Bush and thinking him a Hitlerian monster, it would only take one to act on it. I sometimes find myself analogizing some of the dehumanizing logic that seems to be part of the pro-choice movement to the Nazi death camps. But I am of two minds about this: if someone REALLY thinks something is akin to Nazi Germany, then they might also think any violence against it is justified, and we have a breakdown of society as more and more people make their own decisions. If, on the other hand, we use "Hitler" as a purely rhetorical device, then the memory of that monster loses some of its meaning. Maybe I am just taking it all WAY TOO SERIOUSLY - politics is tough and people can't be flinching from mere insults. I just want to make sure that we are not just 100 times better than the left, but even more so, if that's possible.
Again, I respond to you with all respectful intentions, and you have borne the brunt of something I have wanted to say for a while generally. I might get flamed; I might be accused of playing into the left's hands; I might get called a troll. I might be full of sh*t! But I'm just letting some thoughts that have bouncing around out of my head.
I do agree, though, as strongly as I can, that Hillary Clinton is a severe danger to the US. We could survive a Hillary Clinton presidency; we could survive a lot of horrible things. But why should we? We need to work hard and make sure we have a better candidate and win so that she will never become President. I also feel like we have burdens in this struggle: the MSM, a sometimes feckless Republican leadership and the possibility of a rift in the Republican party or somehow otherwise snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. But we do have right, virtue and love of country on our side!
Yes, this is a conservative site. And I am a conservative...maybe not as conservative as you, but conservative. I am what you like to tag a RINO because I am not hardline conservative. My speculation is that without your much disliked "RINO" votes, our Republican candidate will not be elected.
My next question is why do you have a monopoly on the Republican party? Does it have YOUR name on it?
That's not how it works.....hehehe.
FRegards,
You said that you were a RINO, not me.
RINO is Republican in name only -- meaning that you are really a Democrat in your beliefs.
I would suspect that you really are a Republican in your values, but somehow, I doubt that the conservative label fits. I could be wrong because I don't know you at all other than your posts on this thread.
My party? No, not mine. Not yet. You'll know when it is.
Thanks for replying back today....
I'm a moderate conservative who believes in personally funded abortion within the first trimester and who has alot of gay friends.
Am I a "RINO?"
What are you beliefs on guns?
Governments role in your life?
Government role in my life?
----and who has alot of gay friends----
You have fallen into the trap of the media perpetuated myth of conservatives vs gays.
TRUE conservatives are not anti-gay & never have been. Real conservs are 100% in favor of everyone having the same rights. Don't confuse privileges with rights.
I have gay friends and relatives. Big da*m deal.
If you examine the issue very closely you will see that certain wedge type issues have been seized by the DemocRats and twisted.
For example, I am 100% against gay marriage. That is not a human right. Marriage is an institution for the opposite sexes. If two gays want to enter into some kind of self determined legal contract for property inheritance or such, that's fine. But does my opposition to gay "marriage" make me anti-gay? No connection. I think SS needs reforming, that doesn't mean I hate seniors. Duh. DemocRats have been very successful in linking certain issues to make conservative appear that we have some vendetta against homosexuals.
I do not like having someone shove offensive public behavior in my face. That is not a right of anyone. We are very tolerant of others that show a little discretion and consideration for us. How can I be anti-gay because I don't want special privileges extended to a vested interest group?
Remember the crap where the leftist scum tried to paint Dick Cheney as a gay basher because he is against same sex marriage (which is an oxymoron BTW)? They said he hated gays & by extension his daughter because of it. Absolute crappolla!
I could go on and on, it just inflames me to be accused of being anti-gay because I don't swallow every bit of blather from the gay pandering left, or the militant gay lobby.
And I'll bet you big bucks that the leftists who so obviously pander to the gay lobby sit back in private amounst themselves and and laugh themselves silly making queer jokes. In life, when someone panders to you for your vote, you can be sure they have no respect for you.
Whew, now I feel better.
I believe in the right to bear arms.
I do not believe in big government control.
I do not believe the government should have control over your life.
ChildOfThe60s, my conversation with Badray is whether or not I am the dreaded RINO, because I believe in a woman's choice in the first trimester. It seems my stance on this issue makes me a "Republican in Name Only" by many freepers (extreme IMO) I've come across.
btw, I'm a child of the 60s, a acid-dropping, pot smoking, barefoot hippy turned right wing, Methodist, PTA mom. Regarding your tag, I still for the life of me can't remember how I got stuck in the woods sans clothes one morning during a 3-day concert in 1971. (quaalude time)
We're doomed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.