<p>And part of what bugs me about that is that it wasn’t “advised,” much less ill-advised. Nobody told her to say that. It’s just who she is. (One of those telling moments.)</p>
<p>Hillary was never inevitable. That was simply how the media attempted to portray the situation.</p>
<p>For me, the fact that Hillary Clinton is a woman has never been an issue. Sure it would be heartening to see a woman as President, but not just ANY woman. For me, it’s a matter of trust. I don’t trust Hillary. Every bone in my body tells me that she is mean-spirited, vindictive, and sorely lacking in personal integrity—of course, this can be said to a certain extent of politics and politicians in general, but I think Ms. Clinton has these traits in spades. She tries to hide it, but it just sort of radiates out of her, like fever radiates from one gravely ill. I won’t deny that she is probably one of the most intelligent and driven people currently in politics, but it’s going to take far more than that to win people’s trust. Apparently, a lot of people have grave reservations about her suitability for the job of President.</p>
<p>I personally also have a lot of reservations about the concept of Bill being back in the White House. What will he do? I asked this question in an earlier post, entitled, “WWBD?”(What will Bill Do?). People just sort of blew off the question, but I still think it’s a legitimate, and compelling question. Who will really be President in that scenario? Will it be a Co-Presidency, with the VP’s role being…what?</p>
<p>This was one of Bush’s strengths. He looked to be totally trustworthy. Look what happened.</p>
<p>I judge people by their actions, not what my bones tell me.</p>
<p>Well Vacarious, I’m sure you’re among the few truly enlightened of the American populous, knowing the difference between your head, heart, and bones. More’s the pity that more of us aren’t like you.:rolleyes: You do make an extremely valid point about GWB’s seeming trustworthiness. Unfortunately though, there will be a lot of people who will not vote for Hillary Clinton due to the injunction mandated by their viscera, gut, bones, whatever. She does have baggage, not all of which was packed by those of the vast right wing conspiracy.</p>
<p>Dixville-Notch in NH just voted their primary at midnight Tuesday (finishing at 12:02 a.m.): Obama won the Democratic side with 7 votes; McCain won the Republican side with 4 votes. Notably, Clinton received 0 votes. Edwards 2 votes. </p>
<p>It was broadcast live on CNN and since it’s only 9 p.m. here in Calif. I was watching. :)</p>
<p>Everyone is in the mood for “change” whether it be Ron Paul (all by himself), or Huckabee (Republican reformed apparatus), or one of the Democratic contenders. The change will be welcomed, not appreciated, but necessary. I hope its gonna be the Republicans who win, because they got us into this mess, and they should get us out; </p>
<p>If you don’t think we are in a mess. Wait another 6 months.</p>
<p>“The Republicans have never let the truth be a consideration in their Swiftboating.”</p>
<p>Oh, you mean like the “Black churches will burn if Republicans are elected” pamphlet in Missouri or the James Byrd add tearfully narrated by his daughter implying George Bush was somehow complcit in or condoned the death of her father?</p>
<p>No I mean things like lying about John Kerrys war time record and John McCain mental stability. </p>
<p>Are you saying because a someone said something untrue about a Republicans that give the Republicans the right to lie?</p>
<p>"I have here in my hand a list of 205a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department . </p>
<p>Sen. Joseph McCarthy, February 9, 1950</p>
<p>"No I mean things like lying about John Kerry’s war time record "</p>
<p>I see that you are a product of “If you say something often enough, people will begin to believe it.”</p>
<p>Perhaps you could offer up some proof that the things said about Kerry by the Swifties were lies? Without such proof, your allegations are nothing but smears against those who honorably fought in Vietnam and were resentful of Kerry’s slander against them.</p>
<p>In speaking of lies, perhaps you could start with Kerry’s Christmas excursion into Cambodia which even his campaign had to back away from.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>He’s charismatic and all, but I just couldn’t get past his lack of experience, not having run anything even at the city level. Could he turn out to be a great leader despite this? Possibly, but I can’t be sure of that. I’m more sure about Hillary and Richardson.</p>
<p>FF - The basic lie which was the essence of the Sleazeboat group was the claim that they “served with him.” That was a lie, plain and simple. Criticize a man, make claims about unprovable facts all you like - but don’t wrap yourself in a cloak of “brothers in arms” just because you were on a different boat in the same ocean at the same time. All but one of the men who actually did serve with Kerry supported him in the election - the Sleazeboat jerks were just puffing up their credentials when they claimed to have personal insight into the man, and as far as I’m concerned they dishonored their own service by lying about it. And I’m not even a Kerry fan. </p>
<p>I swear - the right wing in America has been sold so many lies for so long that the basic ability - or concern - to tell when someone is deliberately trying to twist and manipulate the truth seems to have been lost over there.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t say I am “anti” Clinton, but i have been contributing to Obama for several years. ( Of course Bill Gates spreads his around- I limit my political donations)
I also don’t drink martinis ( usually- )
But while I look forward to the day when I can cast a vote for a female president, it isn’t the sex that is my primary criteria.
Also- while I admit it makes her seem warmer, Clintons emotional behavior when she isn’t doing as well as she hoped ,emphasizes that she isn’t the person we need to lead and unite our nation.</p>
<p>“I swear - the right wing in America has been sold so many lies for so long that the basic ability - or concern - to tell when someone is deliberately trying to twist and manipulate the truth seems to have been lost over there.”</p>
<p>when were the last of Kerry’s military records released? Last I heard was that a chunk were redacted, but I’ve not heard further about that. Anyone?</p>
<p>Until all relevant records are released, it’s impossible to tell who, if anyone, is lying. There were certainly some irregularities, whether intentional or not, to Senator Kerry’s public statements about the Christmas 1968 incursion and being fired upon by Khmer Rouge raised some legitimate questions.</p>
<p>“He looked to be totally trustworthy.”</p>
<p>He did? Not to me. Not to a majority of voters in 2000. I agree that the people who liked him back then liked him for visceral reasons, but he didn’t come close to fooling all the people all the time.</p>
<p>^^uum ya- apple didn’t fall so far from that tree.</p>
<p>totally agree with Hanna.</p>
<p>Zoosermom - what you say may be true - but it’s irrelevant. The issue never was parsing the minutia of Kerry’s service in that chaotic and now long-past era, but the basic lie that men who served with him found him to be unworthy. That was the group’s selling point, and it was a lie, plain and simple - no ambiguity, no pouring over 30 year old documents, no maybe yes, maybe no. It was a basic, essential, and significant lie. And the fact that those on the right were OK with that basic lie is, to me, evidence of the loss of integrity on that side of the political spectrum. The right wing has heard the vilest, most twisted attacks on any public servant on the “other side” for so long that even basic decency has ceased to matter. The Ford ad that I linked to a couple of pages ago, with the “white bimbo” Playboy mansion reference is another example - and it was paid for by the RNC.</p>
<p>“Zoosermom - what you say may be true - but it’s irrelevant”</p>
<p>If you’re not interested in the topic, then DON’T POST. I’m within the terms of service and perhaps someone else will have information. I can’t get over some of the things you people post. Who do you all think you are?</p>
<p>tommy - get a grip</p>
<p>kluge, </p>
<p>Those on the other boats were not just “in the same ocean” - they were in the same river and involved in the same action. They were the ones who gave aid to the mined boat and hence were more likely to know whether there was “withering fire” or not. To ignore their collective testimony is ridiculous.</p>
<p>In addition in the other incident, where Kerry claimed his first purple heart, the other person in the boat with him ultimately became an admiral in the JAG unit. I’d say that he has a bit of credibility.
[RealClearPolitics</a> - Articles - John Kerry’s Skimmer Scam](<a href=“http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/06/john_kerrys_skimmer_scam.html]RealClearPolitics”>RealClearPolitics - Articles - John Kerry's Skimmer Scam)</p>
<p>The bickering on this thread about irrelevant topics explains the appeal of Obama. </p>
<p>How is it relevant today what happened in Vietnam/Cambodia? Seriously.</p>