This is shameful to be targeting women this way. A person’s gender should have no bearing on the job they’re being considered for. Their demonstrated skills, talents, and leadership ability should be the only evaluation.

Isn’t this more cronyism? I mean isn’t this how bush got elected? Being of the same (crime) family as daddy bush. Let’s check ourselves here people.

Because Hilary is a woman is NOT a reason to vote for her, not ever. That’s cheap and shallow. What are her leadership qualities? None that I can think of at all! Why is she even running? Because she wants to be the first woman President…. at least that’s all I’ve heard her say. Why, we wouldn’t even know who she was today except she was the First Lady of President Clinton. That doesn’t qualify her for anything. I’m sorry but NO.

I get the feeling this article is a “focus group” of sorts. So…. to Hil’s pollsters. Tell us what she’s ABOUT will ya! Give us something more than “she’s a woman” and “she’s Bill Clinton’s wife”. Good grief!

For the record, the only way government should be involved with health “care” is to ban the big pharma and insurance advertisements. Look at allll the dollars they spend on that that could be spent on research and real development of cures for real issues instead of male sexual enhancement drugs. Bonus: removes the power of suggestion that sends untold thousands of people running to their health scare provider for the “little purple pill” of the moment. Costs would come down, people could afford it, research get funding. Crisis over.

… only to be confronted by signs announcing “The George Bush Center for Intelligence” as you arrive at the entrance to the CIA.

Yes yes I know it’s the GHW Bush CIA building, but geez, don’t they realize how idiotic that sign must seem with Dubya in charge?

Maybe they should rename it the “Center for Inteligence” so there’s at least a clue about the Bush involvement, but without overwhelming us with their ignrance.

Some people have concluded that Mr. Gore ‘lost’ because of the efforts of James Baker, the Bush family, Katherine Harris, Karl Rove and the Supreme Court.

Some people say you’re on to something.

Rayne @ 249

Kerry used some folks with questionable skill sets who were part of the entrenched old-school powerbase aligned with DLC and the old Dem consultantocracy. It got him the same kind of results that Gore got doing the same thing.

Obviously you’ve not been paying any attention to Gore for the last two years. You could try for starters by checking out his speech at Constitution Hall in Jan. 2006 (and no, I’m not going to find it for you). That’s the same Al Gore who’s finally shed the blight of old school, the same guy who in 1992 as a seated Senator called for a Marshall Plan for energy to free us of the national security threat that is petroleum.

You might also do us the favor of just spitting it out and telling us who you’re stumping for. I am rather tired of the incessant Gore-bashing for purposes you’re not disclosing.

Believe it or not, I see this in generational terms. When I was in DC in politics in the early 70s, my office building was next to Kerry (VVAW). I saw quite a bit of him. I thought then and think now, he was an insincere self-promoter whoc was not even effective at it. Opinion formed then and continued through his wind surfing presidential campaign. Also ran into Gore during the same period with his high pressure parents forcing him into politics, he was unhappy with politics then and now and besides he is not the sharpest knife in the drawer (miles between him and the Clintons). To wit Gore does have the basic instinct to be an effective national leader.

I am stumping for skipping the Vietnam era generation of conventional politicins and moving on to the next generation. Unfortunately, Clinton, Kerry and Gore, Bush are the worst of the Vietnam era, all second rate self promoters.

last sentence, first paragraph there is a typo, sorry

She won’t be getting my vote. I cannot support her no matter what. She will insure a Republican victory either way. She needs to go sit down and contemplate, over there on the bench with Lieberman, why they’re Republicans and neocons.

There is nothing she can do to prove leadership ability after her vote for the war. She cannot eat it no matter how she tries. That one act, that vote tells me she has not the spine nor the leadership abilities to lead this country any place other than down the same garden path we’re on.

I’d give anything to see a woman President in my lifetime. Nominating and electing her would not accomplish that.

With all due respect, could we please all develop some valid criteria for locating our next leader. Let’s start with these: NO family members of previous leaders. NO one who voted for the war. NO exceptions.

Thank you.

Edited ** and released by Mod

leftdcin72 @ 245

Bush was a sitting duck for a competent campaign. As far as morals are concerned, I agree. But Bush is nothing more than a confused puppet and he could easily have been beaten if the Democrats had implemented a competent campaign. Maybe you do not rememeber how enept Gore and Kerry were/are.

Kerry used some folks with questionable skill sets who were part of the entrenched old-school powerbase aligned with DLC and the old Dem consultantocracy. It got him the same kind of results that Gore got doing the same thing.

Obviously you’ve not been paying any attention to Gore for the last two years. You could try for starters by checking out his speech at Constitution Hall in Jan. 2006 (and no, I’m not going to find it for you). That’s the same Al Gore who’s finally shed the blight of old school, the same guy who in 1992 as a seated Senator called for a Marshall Plan for energy to free us of the national security threat that is petroleum.

You might also do us the favor of just spitting it out and telling us who you’re stumping for. I am rather tired of the incessant Gore-bashing for purposes you’re not disclosing.

Believe it or not, I see this in generational terms. When I was in DC in politics in the early 70s, my office building was next to Kerry (VVAW). I saw quite a bit of him. I thought then and think now, he was an insincere self-promoter whoc was not even effective at it. Opinion formed then and continued through his wind surfing presidential campaign. Also ran into Gore during the same period with his high pressure parents forcing him into politics, he was unhappy with politics then and now and besides he is not the sharpest knife in the drawer (miles between him and the Clintons). To wit Gore does have the basic instinct to be an effective national leader.

I am stumping for skipping the Vietnam era generation of conventional politicins and moving on to the next generation. Unfortunately, Clinton, Kerry and Gore, Bush are the worst of the Vietnam era, all second rate self promoters.

. . . . Obviously you’ve not been paying any attention to Gore for the last two years. You could try for starters by checking out his speech at Constitution Hall in Jan. 2006 (and no, I’m not going to find it for you). That’s the same Al Gore who’s finally shed the blight of old school, the same guy who in 1992 as a seated Senator called for a Marshall Plan for energy to free us of the national security threat that is petroleum.

You might also do us the favor of just spitting it out and telling us who you’re stumping for. I am rather tired of the incessant Gore-bashing for purposes you’re not disclosing.

Actually, Gore has been recently painted as a shill for big business, especially the nuke energy sector. And the petroturds have all made GREAT inroads to nuke investing and development.

So, he really ain’t about the comman man, in any sense. But, would he be better n what we have? Oh yea. Would he be better n Shilary?

Oh yeah.

Scary thought, he runs, and takes Shilary as VP.

TexBetsy @ 190

Breaking News from ABCNEWS.com:

EXCLUSIVE: PRESIDENT BUSH CHOOSES LT. GEN. DOUGLAS LUTE AS NEW ‘WAR CZAR’ TO OVERSEE CONFLICTS IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN.

General George Armstrong Custer to the rescue.

“Aboooouuutttt FACE! ADVANCE, Towarhds The REEEAAHHHHHH!”

Cue ‘Gary Owen’ . . . and, VOLUME UP. Fade to black.

Here is an article about some of his views – interesting – he’s not a neocon – maybe this is a good thing:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/9f81fe…..511c8.html

Interesting comments there, but, since August of 2005, there’s been a lot of shit come down that’s not part and parcel of ANY of that article.

My guess is Lute is the bag holder, and will be charged with making sure NO ONE (or at least few) withdraws down till after the General Election.