<p>Nice try, HH. It’s not the Democrats telling people how to think. Have you forgotten the infamous claim of the right that “God is a Republican”?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Must be an “old white guy” joke. I thought that knocking his mother was a little unseemly. The crowd reaction was decidedly mixed.</p>
<p>I’m not sure that having Karl Rove mock black rappers is really smart politics either.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s a respect for the perspectives that women can bring to the political debate. Broader perspectives contributing to policy decisions probably lead to better decisions, all things being equal.</p>
<p>…But it’s ok for Hillary to joke about dealing with “Evil Men”, and her experience with that in reference to her own husband during a recent campaign stump ?</p>
<p>(The same husband who may be the future first lady,… errr man . ;)</p>
<p>“But instead they lied to cover up, and then are working overtime to cover up the lie”</p>
<p>Bingo!!</p>
<p>All they had to do was tell the truth, simple. Instead the lies roll out of their mouths… why the need? </p>
<p>If you have to lie about a personel decision does the decision become suspect? </p>
<p>To lie and then come back and claim at the “will of the president” just piles onto the subject. That should have been the first thing out of their mouths and the only thing. consistently. </p>
<p>To the righties out there, don’t blame the demos for this, it’s not their fault. The fault lies again at the feet of this administration. Whining about the demos doesn’t change the fact that AG lied over nothing, thus making it something. Your blaming the wrong side, that is as long as you continue to side with this administration for lying, your missing the point. I mean if AG was your child would you tolerate his excuses?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And it’s very disengenious. How could the firings have been the “will of the president” when they actually claimed that the White House wasn’t even involved?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I thought that was effective precisely because she did not reference her husband.</p>
<p>Right, if Bush had just said something about bossy women in general, and let people draw their own connection to Barbara “Beautiful Mind” Bush, it might have been funny. Instead he just came across as once again rankling at his parents’ authority.</p>
<p>The entire Bush family has been joking about Barbara for as long as I can remember. Not knocking him Mom or rankling at this parents’ authority…or an old white guy joke at all.</p>
<p>Mock black rappers? You watched it and came to that conclusion?</p>
<p>Respect for perspective that women bring to the debate…the perspective is fine, the nagging, know-it-all, scolding attitudes of Nance and Hill are not.</p>
<p>God is a Republican? </p>
<p>But I’ll defer to the humor experts here on all of these.</p>
<p>Gonzales is incompetent and not the sharpest tool in the shed, and Bush is personally loyal to a fault. This does not mean we are in the midst of a constitutional crisis.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, heaven forbid we elect a politician who actually knows something. Much better to have one who thinks that Gen. Petraeus rides around Baghdad in an unarmored Humvee.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You support the religious right, but you claim never to have heard its key article of faith? Yes, God is indeed a Republican according to the leaders of the movement.</p>
<p>"The one-liner came in response to a question shouted at the former first lady from the audience asking whether she had the mettle and experience to deal with evil and rotten men - like terrorist Osama bin Laden and the tyrants of North Korea and Iran. </p>
<p>Clinton grabbed the mike and told the audience that the questioner wanted to know “what in my background equips me to deal with evil and bad men.” She then smiled, raised her eyebrows and nodded knowingly at the questioner. </p>
<p>Her nod and the ensuing eruption of laughter had rally-goers convinced she was talking about her husband, whose Oval Office affair with intern Monica Lewinsky exploded into the Sexgate scandal and led to impeachment proceedings. "</p>
<p>If it wasn’t a joke about Bill, her reaction made no sense! Why would she wait for laughter and applause if she wasn’t mocking her husband? The audience got it. :o</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Whoa. Rather a sweeping statement. My personal “religious right” is not necessarily others’.</p>
<p>Sokkermom:</p>
<p>I believe that little exchange is in one of the town hall meeting videos on Sen. Clinton’s website.</p>
<p>It was hilarious.</p>
<p>From a purely political campaign standpoint, it was the moment that convinced me she had found a suitable voice for dealing with “the Bill issue” during the campaign…a voice that allows her to simultaneously embrace him and distance herself.</p>
<p>I still for the life of me don’t understand how referring to your husband (even in jest) as evil and bad “embraces” him. I personally think it mocks him and demeans him. </p>
<p>I think Bill is distancing himself from Hillary as well. I can imagine that he knows full well that she wouldn’t even be a candidate if it weren’t for him and his popularity! I also think he would (or will) have a very hard time assuming the role as the subservient first lady. Somehow his ego is too big for that. I also think his ego is too big to allow Hillary to continue to mock him. It will be intersting to see how he responds if she continues to cherish the limelight and discredit or ignore him as her husband. I doubt he sees himself as an “issue”. My guess is he sees himself as an asset to her campaign. I would guess that there are still many voters who like Bill much better than Hill, even if she thinks he’s evil… I think she understands that Bill is still more popular than she ever will be.</p>
<p>I can’t figure out why this story has any legs anyway.</p>
<p>It seems as though they decided to fire a handful of overly partisan US attorney’s who refused to prosecute democrats. If so, they ought to have been fired.</p>
<p>If that was the story, there wouldn’t be any. Have you been watching?</p>
<p>“And it’s very disengenious. How could the firings have been the “will of the president” when they actually claimed that the White House wasn’t even involved”</p>
<p>Exactly. They should have just said outright that these people are at will representatives and the president wanted to make some changes. done over, next problem. </p>
<p>Understand it’s not that I support GW’s decision to do this, but simply the action could have been done without the lies and excuses and been over. America would have never been the wiser, they could have gotten away with what ever they were doing.</p>
<p>Now before the strong GW supporters jump in there and state “well they haven’t done anything illegal, it was within his rights…” THEN SIMPLY WHY THE NEED TO LIE TO AMERICA? Everybody should be upset by the fact that they have to lie about somethng that is supposed to be truthful. You shouldn’t have to lie about something innocent. Yet here we go. </p>
<p>I no more want full demo control of things than I wanted full goper control. This country gets messed up when one side controls it all. However, standing behind an administration that clearly doesn’t represent you anymore, means the demos will carry again in 08. They will cotrol everything. Then just like the gopers, legislation will be enacted without thought about what it does to this country. I for one, am tried of the bipolar existence living in America has become. They need to work those demons out in the three branches of administration before they stick us with them. </p>
<p>And the fourth estate, when it’s not too busy sucking up to the administration, should go back to reporting, watching and actually putting our leadership on the spot, rather than worry about ratings points. Press should be done by lottery, I am tired of reporters who won’t ask hard questions.</p>
<p>"Now before the strong GW supporters jump in there and state “well they haven’t done anything illegal, it was within his rights…”</p>
<p>We don’t know that they haven’t done anything illegal. One of the highest-ranking lawyers linked to the White House, Ms. Goodling, fears she might have and has chosen not to chance incriminating herself. Since she played no role in the decisionmaking process, virtually the only possibility I can think of is she fears there was indeed a criminal conspiracy.</p>
<p>“I no more want full demo control of things than I wanted full goper control.”</p>
<p>Bipartisan control is a recipe for disaster. It gave us NAFTA/CAFTA, WTO, “free” trade, shipping of jobs overseas, blinded six-year-olds sewing Nike soccer balls in Islamabad, global pollution and global warming, immiseration of the Third World, hundreds of thousands of those immiserated making it over the U.S. southern border, failed drug policy and aid to the Taliban, half a million dead children in Iraq, lies perpetuated by a CIA director serving at the whim of the leaders of both parties, and continuing conflict with Iran, and nuclear weapons in Pakistan and North Korea. Bipartisanship is crap (but it might be better than Democratic or Republican control. ;))</p>
<p>dadx.</p>
<p>“It seems as though they decided to fire a handful of overly partisan US attorney’s who refused to prosecute democrats”</p>
<p>These were gopers, not demos. Living in WA state, the guy fired was responsible for the millineum bomber prosecution which lead to a great deal of information in regards to terrorism. He also strongly supported a criminal justice communication system that linked hlsecurity,fbi & local police databases together. He investigated our governors race and found no criminal acts committed. Our governor was a demo. Let’s see, which would you fire the guy for? Or was he supposed to prosecute the governor and lose because he had no case?</p>
<p>“We don’t know that they haven’t done anything illegal”</p>
<p>Exactly. So why the need to lie or take the 5th? That’s the screw up. Tell the truth or even their version of the truth and nobody cares beyond 20 minutes. But lie, change your story several times and hey the thing grows legs.</p>