Um, Jane, I’m not yet angry. Not even. But it wasn’t me who let HRC off the hook, something you have yet to even deny, so I guess you agree with me about that. Cool, we have some common ground.

Based on this thread, it looks like you’re going to support HRC for president, despite her stand on the war. Good luck with that.

I see you’re STILL refusing to debate the central issue. You’ll do well in the WH Comms office when you get HRC elected. But don’t try to lay claim to any sort of anti-war stance, this thread pretty much blows your cred right out of the water.

That hellhound on your trail won’t be any fun when it catches up with you. That’s what happens when you go to the crossroads and sell your soul. You done sold it, Jane. I bet Hil has e-mailed you a wonderful, supportive message.

Enjoy your accolades. I don’t think I could.

Hillary has not emailed me ever, I have never expressed my support for her presidential run, I don’t agree with her on Iraq and your arguments are made up of fantasies that are as foundationless as your claims to be poised and calm.

You are a Republican, addicted to repeating Republican talking points about stories ginned up by Republicans to benefit Republicans. I don’t care about John Edwards’ haircut and if you tried to ask him about it I’d delete you myself.

BTW, Jane, thanks for opening up this thread.

:o)

Where wuz we?

I dunno; the staff here seems to be possessed of the idea that Hillary, with her support for bush’s war, and with her refusal to admit that it was a mistake, didn’t deserve even a moment’s grilling on anything that is controversial.

Jane, doesn’t that “no, it wasn’t a mistake” scare you some? I think it should, and I think it should have made you tell Pete:

“Sure, bring her on, but we’re gonna open it up, and let some people ask her the toughies.”

Because that’s what this is all about.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is not part of the solution; she’s part of the problem.

And she’s the front-runner for the democratic nomination.

And a lot of democrats are unhappy about the efforts of the same old loser mainstream dems trying to bestow the nomination on her, without her being called out on her uneaten war-vote, or her support for gung-ho Joe in the Primary.

I’m sure you’re smart enough to know that once Lamont won the primary, she had NO option to openly support Lieberman’s trying again, as an independent. Can you imagine what Obama and Edwards would do with THAT, in their speeches against her? Or Howard Dean?
It would have been political suicide for her to back Lieberman in the general election.

And I still insist that by campaigning with Lieberman in the primary, she helped the repubs put him back in the senate. If she had supported Lamont, Lieberman might have done poorly enough that he would have packed it in. And is the irony lost on you, of my speaking those words at someone, on her site, who worked long and hard for Lamont? :o)

Moving right along here, being accused of misogny, when we bring these things up about Hillary, is piss-thin-gruel.

If you guys get John Edwards on, I’ll be the first one to ask him how it feels to be a “populist” who pays $400 for a haircut.

That is, if Christy doesn’t delete me for going off topic. :o)

I know; he’s said it was a “mistake that has been corrected”, or something like that, but that doesn’t change the fact that he likes VERY high-dollar haircuts, and was too politically unhip to know that the publishing of that fact was sure to ding him some.

It’s not a monster issue, but if it had been a republican doing it, you guys would have been all over it, and rightly so.

We NEED to know what these people are like, to avoid another bush. And the way to do that is not by asking the easy questions, but by asking them things like:

“You say you have a plan to end the war. What are the specifics?”

Let’s get to it.

Ah, so Senator Clinton is the devil now….very Biblical.

I’m an atheist. You want to support the “Russertization” of FDL, go for it.

many thanks to jane and tom w. for fighting the good fight.

Based on this thread, it looks like you’re going to support HRC for president, despite her stand on the war. Good luck with that.

I see you’re STILL refusing to debate the central issue. You’ll do well in the WH Comms office when you get HRC elected. But don’t try to lay claim to any sort of anti-war stance, this thread pretty much blows your cred right out of the water.

That hellhound on your trail won’t be any fun when it catches up with you. That’s what happens when you go to the crossroads and sell your soul. You done sold it, Jane. I bet Hil has e-mailed you a wonderful, supportive message.

Enjoy your accolades. I don’t think I could.

More so than you, it would appear. You didn’t like the criticism and you got pissed. NO ONE has engaged in the kind of ad hominem you have, and you still refuse to debate the issue of letting HRC off the hook. Don’t talk to me about civil discourse when you have the kind of tantrum you’ve been having here.

Yes your anger is righteous, and mine is…well, unladylike. I see your point.

Please refuse to ask any questions of Hillary Clinton about her support for George Tenet and her “reliance” on him for her Iraq war vote and please do not ask her why she only wants to talk about “equal pay” on your site and please be sure that all tough questions for Hillary come from the truly progressive. I refuse to accept the notion that Hillary has any kind of plan to do anything for anybody other than her petty self. That also applies to the Gores and Kerrys of this generation, a political generation of leftovers from the emasculating effects of the Vietnam War. Let’s skip HRC, Kerry, Gore, etc and move on.

HRC would let the notion float that she is just practical and when elected, good things will happen or bad things will not happen. Well my sister the doctor tried to work with Ms. Clinton on her so called efforts on health care. She and I have no use for Ms. Clinton. But if it is that opposition to Ms. Clinton is played as reactionary on this site, then so be it.