Comments on: Valedictory Debate?

By: danny

danny — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 06:43:53 +0000

Hillary Clinton is going to be the President of the United States. We only have 11 months before she’ll be sworn in as commander in chief. Don’t feel bad when she wins because she is going to work hard for you everyday and this country will see a President second to none as she is willing able and ready to do whatever it takes to bring us all together to take America back to her glory.

Hillary Clinton is a mastermind and she is going to build together with the people of America a masterpiece of which the world has ever seen before, we will all be in awe of the blessings God has bestowed on us through the hard work, dilagance and competence she will bring out in this country ready to serve our leader President Hillary Clinton.

Thank you God for such a blessing. Thank you God.

I have a lot of love in my heart for this country and Hillary Clinton has shown the commitment and love for her country everyday now for many years and she is the one we will be pleased to call President.

By: priscianusjr

priscianusjr — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 00:06:41 +0000

I do not hate Hillary. But I am mystified as to why she deserves to be nominated to the Supreme Court or Senate Majority Leader when she has no particular qualifications for either post.
It strikes me that people are proposing this either because (a) they have been supporters of her failed bid for the presidency and feel she deserves at least SOMETHING big … (b) They have not been supporters but they think Obama should make nice and give her a little bitty consolation prize, like, you know, the Supreme Court or SML. or (c) she’s famous, so she should wind up with something suitable to her famousness. None of these, to put it mildly, are good reasons.
Let me point out that Hillary, as far as I know, is neither a distinguished jurist, nor an especially accomplished or senior leader in the Senate. She has done absolutely nothing to justify her being nominated for, let alone taking, either position. Her chief activity in the Senate has been kowtowing to Bush and not making waves with senior Senators, her main achievements in law involve the Rose Law firm, which I imagine would be brought up at any confirmation hearings that might be held.
There are probably hundreds of more distinguished lawyers/judges, and ceratyinly a number of Senators (Dodd, Leahy, Feinberg?) vastly more qualified for eiother of these positions.

By: hazmaq

hazmaq — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 22:20:02 +0000

Chris Matthew just admitted he was ‘touched’ (up his other leg?) by Clinton’s plagiarized closing comments.
Half of that ‘touching’ close was written by John Edwards, and the other half be her husband Bill in an early 90’s speech.

He was on Obama like mad for his use of Patricks’ words.

But gets shivers at her fake words?
Isn’t Matthews just the epitome of a why women are driven to silicon?
What a Dickhead.

By: RevBev

RevBev — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 20:53:24 +0000

I think the possibility of the Obama election, let alone that he has come this far is a very healing step for this country. No, it is not racial parity or redemption, but it is a meaningful point that we are reaching. And coming soon enough that some of the 60s activists are still alive to see this day/possibility.

Another thing I really like is an Inaugual photo of Obama/Michelle with W. Which one is more polished, brainier, more professional, better looking etc etc etc. And the stark realization that the mean spirited, petty character of W (if I can use that word) let alone his evil ,mendacity, selfish, narcissitic, lying, incompetent, smug self has in many ways provided the impetus for this outstanding historical moment. God’s plan? Who knows. But I think it is just delicious: guess who Barb may have to invite to Maine?

By: wsayscoupgood

wsayscoupgood — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 20:49:07 +0000

Obama (D-IL), Not Voting

Obamanables vote Feb 12…..gee I guess he was out politicking just like Hillary does that mean you have as much contempt for him as you do for her…be consistent now!

By: wsayscoupgood

wsayscoupgood — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 20:46:47 +0000

Gee that means you will have to vote against Obamanable here is how his vote for Feb 12 is recorded:

Obama (D-IL), Not Voting

If you want to be consistent then you have to not vote for anyone considering. And by the way it is my belief that if Obama ws in the Senate when the IWR was voted on he would have supported it especially if he had visions of the oval office dancing in his head the calculus would have been to great against him. THe mind set of course was that the war would be a cake walk and be over and not really an issue in this election and if it had been a raging success and he had voted agaisnt it he would have been bludgeoned with OH YOU DON”T WANT TO DEFEND YOUR COUNTRY AGAINST EVIL MEN…or some such nonsense

By: wsayscoupgood

wsayscoupgood — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 20:34:23 +0000

I have only one question for the “Obamanables” who are so jazzed about this election. If you are 22 years of age or older did you vote in the last election. There seems to be a lot of people who are new to this and I can’t believe they are all under the age of 22 which would have made them legally able to vote in 2004. So if you are so passionate about ending the war and about who or who did not vote for the war and you had a chance to throw out the creep who started the war and you knew by then that War criminal Bush was going to continue the crimes of his presidency why didn’t you come out in droves in 2004 to vote him out. I think all this HYPE OF HOPE is very silly and to quote Bob “YOU JUST WANT TO BE ON THE SIDE THAT WINNIN” Or you want to be cool. I will not vote for Obama if he is the nominee. That won’t make much difference I know but I will know that I was true to my self. I will vote local but not for president.

By: nogowar

nogowar — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 19:28:46 +0000

A little time and space from last night..
Her “we’ll be fine” clearly lifted from Edwards both in stump and debates was heartfelt..(but would have meant more if she hadn’t done the xerox thing.)
Same with the “taken hits” part
http://gregmitchellwriter.blog.....oming.html

not making a value judgment..just embracing the irony

oh yeah a little Renzi reading from TPM
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.c.....ndictment/

By: MarkH

MarkH — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 18:16:18 +0000

My post focused on the notion of the role of government in addressing the nation’s problems, and here I find their positions fundamentally progressive. It’s straight out of the New Deal, or the Great Society. Folks can add all the caveats they want, and I probably agree with many of them.

In my view the word Progressive doesn’t relate directly to Conservativsm or Liberalism. It refers to a hyper-aggressive effort to make great leaps forward by making big changes to fix problems or enable possibilities. That’s what Teddy Roosevelt did and he was hardly a Liberal. But, OTOH, FDR did a lot of both. He transformed America AND much of it was with Liberal programs.

So, the differences are incremental change or big bold changes AND whether those changes are done in a Conservative way or a Liberal way.

In the case of John Edwards he was clearly seeing the same problems as most of us and he wanted to be a Progressive. Which KIND of Progressive he would’ve been probably depended upon the specific issues.

In the case of Clinton there seems to be a very wide range of issues and views on how to handle them, but not a lot of energy to be Progressive.

In the case of Obama I see little Progressive zeal, but a voting record of Liberalism. I’d guess he’ll be a lot less like the activist Carter and the Conservative Bill Clinton and a lot more like Truman or Mondale & Dukakis. Eh, okay, but not quite what we need, in my opinion.

By: Crosstimbers

Crosstimbers — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:54:08 +0000

The “when called into service” phrase modifies the “militia of the several states.” There has never been a time with the U.S. didn’t have a standing military of varying size.