What is going to be “impressive”, is when Iraq gets down to the cinders; bush’s ratings are in the high teens, and Clinton discovers that her authorization vote (and the war, itself) was a mistake, after all.

And in the breakout session she was actually pretty impressive.

leftcin72: good for you. You demonstrate the kind of petulance and closed mind that Michelle Malkin shows. I just saw the Dems cave in on FISA yesterday because they are too afraid of taking responsibility; and wanted to go on vacation. I think there is hope for the right. We have some single minded characters here too who have been bad for us. Good to see the Democrats have them too.

Great Alan, I am glad we share the same open minds. I am open to change for the better and I have had enough of the Clintons, enough. They are not an option but I am definitely open to other options. The Clintons are essentialy, as you refer it, Republicans and by that I mean 21st century Repubicans. So go for a swim in their pool and enjoy. (oh their poolsmith, only builds for celebrities).

I feel “pure”, because I’ve been speaking out against the war, and the people who dragged us into it, for 5 years now.

I feel “pure” because I’m tres pissed at
Sen. Clinton, for being politically stupid enough to think that she could sleaze to the right to try to pick up conservative votes which simply are NOT there for her, and do it without being called out on it, by the progressive wing of the party.

I feel “pure” because the candidate whom I now support, John Edwards, has shown a good deal of political courage, while Hillary Clinton has shown none of it, and has, in fact shown a ton of political cowardice, with her support for the war, until it became as plain as mud that it was costing her dearly, at which point, she discovered her inner anti-war self…except, not enough to pronounce her vote to authorize, a mistake.

Which means that she can’t call the war, itself, a mistake. And if you think that is going to appeal to the center now, much less by the time the election rolls around, I hope you’re not a political science professor at Harvard.

And that’s where you are very mistaken. If we get enough “anti-Clinton rants”, especially rants that point out the same truth I did, that neither the republicans (I giggle) nor the independents, will vote for her in numbers that can offset the conservative democrats who will simply sit out the election (not to mention the progrssives who are pissed at her for oozing over to the right) then we can get about the business of nominating someone who CAN be elected. In fact, probably WILL be elected.

Clinton is a political train wreck waiting to happen. Seeing her nominated is Karl Rove and the GOP’s juiciest fantasy.

Why else do you think that, with her lead over both Obama and Edwards, the republicans are spending more of their time and energy attacking Edwards, than Clinton? They would roll out the red carpet for her, next year in Denver.

And if you think supporting bush’s war was “appealing to the center”, and refusing to say, flat-out, that her vote to authorize it was a mistake, is “appealing to the center”; and if you think that supporting Joe Lieberman against Ned Lamont was “appealing to the center”; and if you think that taking those bucks from A*P*C, and then blaming the Iraqi government for what is going on in Iraq, is “appealing to the center”, then, let me tell you, YOUR lack of “persuasion” is world-class. :o)

edited and released by Mods

Tanbark:

i really don’t find you persuasive. The progressives just don’t have the votes for Obama or Edwards unless they, too, appeal to the centre. We may not like it but we need the centre to get to 51% plus. Now you can wish for something, and that’s ok. But going on an anti-Clinton rant is not going to help the Democrats. Like Naderites we can only ensure a Republican President. It will be great to say we fought a good fight for a principle but lost. Sounds like the the progressive mantra for sometime now. Why do we think we are so pure?

It is not going to be the Clintons because we have nothing better. We are not going to say the Clintons are better than Bush and they are the sole electable candidates. We are going to do better than elect the second worst President in the history of our great country, namely HRC. We are going to do better than DLC Kerry, Gore and the Clintons this time around. Whoever it is is going to be better than the Clintons. No more wasting time with the Clintons. And we are going to win. And we are going to have a serious President, not some petty careerists like the Clintons.

i really don’t find you persuasive. The progressives just don’t have the votes for Obama or Edwards unless they, too, appeal to the centre. We may not like it but we need the centre to get to 51% plus. Now you can wish for something, and that’s ok. But going on an anti-Clinton rant is not going to help the Democrats. Like Naderites we can only ensure a Republican President. It will be great to say we fought a good fight for a principle but lost. Sounds like the the progressive mantra for sometime now. Why do we think we are so pure?

Let’s hope that changes in time to nominate someone whom numbers of republican and independents whom we need, to win the presidency and sweep both houses, don’t despise with a white-hot hatred.

Clinton has been handled with kid gloves on this issue…even by her opposing candidates.

Evidently no one wants to speak openly about her dirty little campaign secret:

She can’t win the presidency.

The percentage of republicans who would vote for her is in the “decimal-point-followed-by-two-zeros-and-an-integer” range.

The number of independents who would vote for her probably has only ONE zero, but with the bush administration having coattails slathered with a political ebola virus, do we NEED another close election for them to steal?

I think not.

Maybe because he realizes that the lobbyists are a big part of the problems we have, instead of the solution.

When do we get that epiphany from Clinton?