<p>And last but not least, she stood by her Man! :)</p>
<p>She is simply amazing. An angel in disguise.</p>
<p>Btw, I haven’t donated to anyone yet and, as they say, I’m keeping my options open. But one item on my checklist in favor of Hillary is just the idea of how much she will drive the wingnuts ******* right up the wall and half way across the ceiling…for sheer entertainment value, you can’t beat it. </p>
<p>[note: asterisks self-supplied, beating the spam filter]</p>
<p>Actually, 1s, she’s more of a dragon, not in disguise. But that’s okay. Any comparisons between Hillary and the current Doofus-in-Chief favor the former considerably.</p>
<p>^ And she is probably Mother Theresa to all the Moonbats…</p>
<p>(P.S. I am an independent and have voted for democrats most of my life.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or, as she puts it in her stump speech, "Let me tell you, I know a little something about ‘staying the course’.</p>
<p>“And last but not least, she stood by her Man!”</p>
<p>Hey, that’s an awful lot better than Rudy stinking up the Mayor’s Mansion with his squeeze, or Newt leaving his first squeeze when she had cancer and the second with MS, and finding other squeezes in the middle. </p>
<p>Come to think of it, relative to Rudy and Newt, she IS Mother Theresa. (That’s a pretty sad state of affairs.)</p>
<p>See, just look at 1sokkermom’s posts! That is exactly what I’m talking about. I feel probably more like Mini does–no personal issues, but nothing there to support.</p>
<p>But there is a whole country full of people who spout the same dire stuff about her-- don’t know what or where it comes from; I can’t figure the depth of that antipathy; it’s all winks and nods–but it’s there, and i don’t think she can make it go away. She would not be good for the Dems.</p>
<p>^ Yup. 
Dire stuff with no substance. oh wait, that’s a wink…
You are brilliant. She would not be good for dems garland.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah. I’m not seeing those particular negatives.</p>
<p>I think that it would be fair to say that, at various points in her political career, she has been:</p>
<p>– Idealistic
– Naive (but not anymore)
– Ruthless (still is)
– Polarizing (but not anymore, based on her Senate bi-partisanship)</p>
<p>But if you can ever vocalize what the dire stuff is, 1S, i’d love to know. Can not for the life of me figure out how keeping her marriage together makes her a pariah.</p>
<p>ID–I do think she gave up Idealistic a while ago. I could be wrong. And opinions of the usefulness of that will value. I personally am in favor of idealism (as long as the ideals are good ones ;))</p>
<p>“Mini, you are already sure you won’t vote for Hillary. Who do you like among the candidates that may actually get the nomination?”</p>
<p>I can think of virtually no conditions short of Newt under which I would vote for Hillary, for reasons already stated.</p>
<p>I’m okay with Obama - hasn’t had enough time to mess stuff up much, and I think he is better qualified now than he would be in eight years. I LIKE the symbolism. I’m okay with Edwards - I LIKE his trial lawyer experience, and I think he is more tenacious than he comes off (he’s much too nice.)</p>
<p>Candidates I like but wouldn’t vote for include Huckabee and Hagel and Gravel. Hagel is a real wild card, depending on what happens to the hostile, aggressive occupation. (He made the right call in waiting.)</p>
<p>I see no particular reason to vote for any candidate who is part and parcel of current bipartisan foreign policy, so-called “free” trade, and the immiseration of my friends abroad. There go Bill Richardson, Joseph Biden, and Chris Dodd. But I actually could vote (with my usual reservations) for Obama or Edwards.</p>
<p>Example of “dire stuff”: Fundamental dishonesty?</p>
<p>From another who has issues with her personal integrity:</p>
<p>“She is fundamentally dishonest … almost pathologically dishonest. Perhaps the greatest example of her innate dishonesty would be the saga of the Rose Law Firm billing records. The congress served a subpoena on Hillary for those records. She said that she did not have them. For two years she denied that those records were in her possession, and in fact suggested that they may not exist at all. Then, two years after the subpoena was served, those very records were found in her private living quarters at the White House. Not only were they found, but they had her fingerprints and handwriting all over them. In other words … she lied.”</p>
<p>Okay - fundamentally dishonest. Then the “source” cites a single episode in her entire career, and claims this is a “greatest example”.</p>
<p>My first-year students in critical writing would have a field day.</p>
<p>There are many more examples I am sure. I do not want to cite every example. Then I would be considered to be a right-winged @$$. ( If anything, I think I am more of a centrist @$$.) Everyone is entitled to an opinion. I think she is dishonest. I do not share her self serving values.</p>
<p>Sokkermom:</p>
<p>Seriously. Rose Law firm billing records and Clinton’s penny ante Whitewater investment are so yesterday’s news. Kenneth Starr spent how many millions trying to make that dog hunt and came up with nothing. Big whoop.</p>
<p>If that’s the best the Rovians can come up with as the “greatest example”, then I would say that the Republicans are in for a long election.</p>
<p>Again, though, I state what I 've been saying–it don’t matter that it’s penny ante; people go frothing-mouthed over her and then dredge up those peanuts to justify i t.</p>
<p>Can’t figure it, but can’t ignore it.</p>
<p>I’m with you, Mini–Obama or Edwards look okay to me, and winnable as a pair.</p>
<p>“Kenneth Starr spent how many millions trying to make that dog hunt and came up with nothing. Big whoop.”</p>
<p>Appearances are what count. If they came up with the biggest dog hunter in the Republican camp and equipped him with millions, he MUST have come up with something. (Even if he didn’t.)</p>
<p>It won’t take that much in the case of Rudy. The story of his squeeze and his pre-adolescent daughter were front-page news. The lack of communications equipment during 9/11 was frontpage news. The quick bulldozing of the bodies was frontpage news. The hiring of his former bodyguard and limo driver as police chief, who then took 9/11 donations and rented an apartment to carry on affairs with Judith Regan, among others, was frontpage news. </p>
<p>The Party of Appeasement and Family Values will have a new face, all right.</p>
<p>How did Hillary get elected in New York with no previous experience? Two words:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Chuck </p></li>
<li><p>Schumer</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Go ahead and pat her on the back for taking the back seat for a couple of decades in the backwaters of her profession. Give her a big Atta Girl! Then find me a male professional you would patronize in that way.</p>
<p>Women can take a few decades off and still come out with professional credibility. It’s not easy but it can be done. Nancy Pelosi has a much more credible career in my career gal eyes. She’s battled her way up through the trenches. She used her husband’s checkbook but she graduated from Trinity in 1962, had five kids and then got herself elected to the House of Representatives in 1987. She was elected to Speaker-- twenty years later. </p>
<p>Yup. That’s a decent professional career for a 60-something woman.</p>
<p>Hillary’s Park Ridge parents had to be appalled by her decision to follow a guy who seemed like a big galoot. If your D made a decision to give up her glittering career prospects to follow some sexy Ricky Bobby dude to Little Rock, idad, you’d be reaching for the virtual shotgun to ward him off. Don’t even tell me you wouldn’t. With your luck, he’d be a big frat boy too.</p>
<p>Hillary gave up her career and a vision of herself that she was clearly pursuing–for his hugely selfish vision of himself. She gave her ideas up for great sex. Marriage to Bill is not a ‘career’ btw.</p>
<p>All candidates are opportunistic. Lincoln was among the most opportunistic. I don’t thinks Hillary qualifies for ‘sleazy’ but I think she has professional credibility issues. So says me–a righteous, liberal, female professional/mother with a successful thirty year career–one who would love to see some female ‘symbolism’.</p>
<p>If she is the Dem candidate, I will reluctantly vote for her but for now, I’m waiting to see who bubbles to the surface.</p>