This is a little off-topic, but does anyone think that a Democratic nominee would benefit by saying they will put a Republican in charge of homeland security? If people consistently side with the Republicans on the issue of security, wouldn't a Democratic nominee look both moderate and sensible by saying he/she would place a Republican in that post?

Any thoughts?

__________________
"The nice part about being a pessimist is that you are constantly being either proven right or pleasantly surprised.”
- George Will

No. She sucks. Too bad for her, she believed her own press releases (and the MSM asskissing) and is just about the last person in the country to realize she sucks.

Sucks, sucks, sucks.

Her first step to recovery is first admitting she sucks and then moving along. She can go become a homemaker in Chappaqua, NY. I hear she "makes a mean tossed salad" (Colin Quinn, SNL News (link): "The centerpiece of Hillary’s announcement [for the 2000 NY senate campaign] was a biographical videotape in which the First Lady looks into the camera and brags, “I make a mean tossed salad.” You know, she’s definitely not... [stumbles] ...new-new-new to New York if she doesn’t know what “tossed salad” means. [laughter] How about THAT one...) At least she didn't attempt to play the rusty trombone on The Arsenio Hall Show...

Never happen.

They [mistakenly] think they can accomplish the same thing by simply finding a [nearly random] Democrat who wore a military uniform at some time in their life. *cough* Kerry *cough*.

__________________

"Compassionate Conservatism"?!?! That is a stupid phrase. Conservatism is inherently compassionate. It is liberalism that is cruel for the sake of maintaining a constituency.

OMG I must have seen her "cry" while watching the news seven or eight times since dinner. I can't take it anymore. Its obviously 100% acting. That this is necessary is so utterly ridiculous it makes me mad.

In Jason's defense it is very relevant how poor Bush has been. All of the candidates on the Republican side save for Ron Paul would be a continuation of the Bush presidency with a new face. They would continue the war in Iraq they would continue to spy on Americans and continue to operate Guantanamo. The failure of Bush is very relevant.

But the Homeland Security has been a disaster for the last 7 years. It started by watching a few planes into buildings while a star wars plans were being put together...

Ports are underfunded, Mexico border is a disaster...

Yeah, it's amazingly transparent, isn't it?

Hillary took a drubbing in Iowa. Limps off to "reinvent herself" before NEw Hampshire. Some campaign focus group says she's too detached, so now we've got the new, emotional Hillary.

Too bad she doesn't have the range as an actress to pull it off......

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

By the way, I pretty undecided but the more ye slag her off the more I like her. This woman will bring an admin which are at more compentent than the present guy.

Bill financially was brilliant. Didn't get involved in really stupid wars. Actually got closer to killing OBL than Bush ever did with how many multilpe amounts spent.
He got closer to peace in Palestine than antone has ever, pity the next guy dropped the ball.

So I say bring back the good times. Look at the brightside Hillary won't be getting a blowjob...

The way all ye are sounding you sound like your all on the poverty line for the last Clinton admin..

IMO the whole crying thing is overblown. She didn't really cry.

She was having coffee with "the girls" and she just broke it down like she really cared.

It was odd to see her show emotion whether it was real or fake.

That's the whole thing about Hillary is that you don't know if she means it because there's been so many times when she obviously didn't. It's the public genuineness that's been lacking the whole time.

In light of the situation, it seems like this is yet another time when she's been coached to connect with people.... the problem is that it's just not her nature.

I don't feel sorry for her by any stretch of the imagination. She's led a privileged adult life thanks to Bill. I don't think she's an evil witch either. Nothing really deserves the character assasination she's gone through. But that's just the Brittney Spears era we live in...

__________________


Screw Change!! Let's have a Seamless Transition of Power and Policy.. John McSame in 2008!

That's nice. I'm sure winning the primary in County Galway will put here over the top....

Her public policy history is every bit as poor as Bush's. Every single bit. Worse, probably.

Nonsense. Bill rode the .bomb crest.

Kosovo?
Somalia?

Perhaps you've heard of them?

Hillary has zero experience actually running a government. She's been involved in one major public policy initiative, which cost the taxpayers millions and achieved only dismal failure.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

U.S. intervention in Kosovo, I believe, was backed by NATO. That doesn't necessarily justify it, but it gives it more credit.

U.S. intervention in Somalia, as I understand it, had the ultimate goal of fighting Islamic terrorist forces located there. Clinton admitted that he failed to capture Osama bin Laden, but the intervention in Somalia was an attempt to confront Al-Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist forces.

Furthermore, I don't think either situation qualifies as a U.S.-led war any more than U.S. intervention in Central America during Reagan's presidency would qualify.

Military intervention is military intervention, but scale must be taken into account.

__________________
"The nice part about being a pessimist is that you are constantly being either proven right or pleasantly surprised.”
- George Will

From the moment Bush entered he has been disaster in Economics. The tax back cuts during a war, No economist can defend. Clinton and in all fairness Rep Congress made it look easy while Bush showed how it could not be done.

Hillary's healthcare plan was killed by huge lobby groups. Most Americans now want Universal Healthcare. The only think she can be guilty of for is being ahead of her times. She faced one of the biggest hate campaigns in recent years in her quest to give people access to healthcare. Bush did nothing for these people except talk.
But to say she cost the tax payer millions. It would be more true that the Lobbists and Health Insurance Association of America cost the taxpayers millions. Clinton tried to take on a health lobby and lost, I suppose you don't want your politicians to try at all.

When it came to wars Clinton got involved with as little as possible and use diplomacy with issues rather than war. Actually Clinton and Bush Sr had quite similar policies.

Bush has done a lot of things wrong. No doubt there.

How does Hillary having slept in the White House qualify her any better?

Hillary's healthcare plan was killed by majorites in both houses from her own party, while her own husband was in the White House pushing it along.

It died because it sucked.

Her plan was so unfeasible her own party killed it in committee......

Which, in the end, is precisely what Hillary has done for them.

Bush's talk didn't cost millions.

Because she did. You don't think those "blue-ribbon" committees in DC come for free, do you?

I want competent leaders, with actual experience, to try.

Hillary was given that project for no apparent reason (unless Bill just wanted her busy and out of the way of his extra-curricular activities). She's never lead even a city government. She's never been involved in a significant public policy initiative that wasn't a miserable failure.

Clinton was better that Bush Sr. on that front, but pretending he didn't get involved in military entanglements is both inaccurate and naive.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Sorry, I disagree, it is totally irrelevant at this point. And why, pray tell, would a new republican president want to go down in history in the fashion that GWB will?

__________________
Are you a spineless slave to political correctness?

Had the Clintons been in office these last 8 years, hypothetically speaking of course, the country would not have doubled the debt, Iraq would not have been invaded and occupied(yeah...she voted to authorize force....but she wouldn't have gone there on her own volition), wouldn't have pulled out of Kyoto, wouldn't have prevented stem cell research, wouldn't have shamelessly put religion in the public square, wouldn't have gone backwards on Korea and Pakistan and Israel/Palestine, and the list goes on and on and on.

I like Richardson too. I really like Ron Paul who is all for self-reliance and personal liberty.

With Hillary and with most every other candidate, especially Obama, I keep getting the feeling that people just put way too much hope on these people to just change everything and take care of things and run our lives.

We need to become the "change that we want to see", and then we need to work towards that. Stop thinking that one person can just make everything good. It's lazy thinking that happens every 4 years in America.

Tossing Salad may mean something different to Hillary then it does to most people.

In the words of Chris Rock, "Tossing Salad means getting your A-hole eaten out with Jelly or Syrup.............I prefer syrup"

__________________


"These two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis,"

"The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies,

the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." - Rep. Barney Frank (D)

he didn't pull out of Kyoto, he refused to sign it even IF it did come out of both houses of congress for his signature..he didn't kill stem cell research he helped tailor a bill that would with restrictions ala destruction of embryos that would not prove necessary re: use of federal funds etc. ...gone backwards on Korea? Put religion in the public sqaure? can you explain those please?

__________________
Obama-e fungis nati homines....