People, people, Hillary is not a man eater, hater or a "femanazi" stop falling for the political propaganda that is eating this nation right now.

She is just a woman that is trying to get a shot to the presidential seat and be the first woman to be nominated to president candidate.

If she wins (that I am starting to doubt) she will do as what any other president has been doing in the last 40 or 50 years, cater to private interest while drowning our nation in more debt.

I can not imagine McCain as a president, he will further the warmongering agenda and will take us to another war..

Seriously I see an opening for the first black (AKA mix heritage) man, I believe that the odds for Obama wining the democratic presidential appointment is very good and so the presidential seat as more and more Americans are fed up with what we have so for as chosen ones.

But still we have to pass the fix voting system that at the end is the one to chose our presidents.

[edit on 21-2-2008 by marg6043]

Originally posted by donwhite
I went to your link on " . . Hillary's disdain for masculinity fits right into the classic feminazi package, which is why Hillary acts on Gloria Steinem like catnip."

Thanks for looking at that link. I don't think that particular thread got to much attention. Thanks for your comment also, very well spoken. I would tend to lean more toward her being the feminazi. Time may change the tides but never know.

I think Obama's base of support is volitile.

Obama's popularity reminds me of Beatlemania or the hysteria that followed Elvis through his early career.

Sooner or later, some Democrat is going to have to define change.

Everytime I see one of those signs calling for change, I want to reach into my pockets to see if I have any to spare.

To paraphrase Darryl Waltrip, What are we going to change and what are we going to change it to?

So far, no one's talking turkey.

Unless a miracle happens, and I'm talking "parting of the Red Sea"-type miracle here, I don't see her winning the nomination.

Obama needs to start defining what these "changes" are going to be, and more importantly, how he's going to implement and pay for these "changes".

She's done, IMHO. Were I Obama, I'd ignore her, and begin running against McCain. Treat her like the non-presidential entity she is...

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Sooner or later, some Democrat is going to have to define change.

I think that statement you made is about right on the money. Every time the natives get restless some politician comes along to represent change. This time it seems it is Obama.
I agree he will have to be laying out these changes very soon to have a shot at the office. With regards to that I have a feeling his path will follow that of Perot. Meaning he will get enough votes to keep one of the other candidates out of office.

Originally posted by seagull

She's done, IMHO. Were I Obama, I'd ignore her, and begin running against McCain. Treat her like the non-presidential entity she is...

I think you may be right about paying the atenshon to McCain. I will definitely not rule out Hillery yet though. Do not forget she is top notch at playing politics. Dollar to donuts she still has more the one ace up here sleeve.

Clinton is dead in the water, in my opinion.

She has demonstrated a complete lack of leadership and the willingness to take responsibility for her own actions.

I couldn't believe it when I heard her in a debate with Obama complain because she always gets asked the first question and alluded to the SNL skit that spoofed the media's Obamamania.

Whine, weep, bitch, blame.

These are not the characteristics of leadership.

If Hillary got elected, we'd get more Billery, because Bill just won't be able to keep his nose out of official business and Hillary won't know whether to weep, whine, or wind her watch.

posted by Murcielago
ok. I kinda jumped around through some of your points ... but now I have a few questions for you "don"

1. What’s your view on the Iraq war ... and if your in favor of a early exit, when? & your strategy?

I’m reading a book, “The Assassins Gate: America in Iraq” by George Packer which recounts the inadequacy of our preparations in the run-up to the Iraqi War. Especially revealing is his re-telling the lack of coordination between Defense and State.

America’s intervention in the Middle East has upset the balance of power reached over the decades first starting in 1920-1922 which was the time when today’s borders were drawn. Then came the 1948 insertion of the Jewish survivors of the European Holocaust into the region taking land already possessed by others.

Today, Iran is the most populated and most tragic country in the region. If we leave Iraq precipitously, without reaching an understanding with Iran, we will surrender the region to Iranian hegemony. That would not be Armageddon per se but it is not our intention either. Yet I cannot shake the notion that our very presence in Iraq is counter productive.

I’d say this. If we don’t have a GOOD plan, openly arrived at, publicly debated, with many inputs, then we need to leave ASAP. There is nothing to be gained by more blundering around. If we do have a good plan how to 1) establish security, and 2) let the Iraqi decide what kind of government they want, then I’d be willing to stay a few more months to see if it is really going to work. I believe it will. Or can.

Part of the reason the Iraqi will not reach an accommodation is that we are throwing away $2 b. a week in Iraq. Aside from being worse that ridiculous we are making it too rewarding for anyone to want us to leave. Chaos for those in power is like GOLD!

2. Illegal immigrants? what would you do about them?

First, many undocumented workers here do NOT want to be US citizens. They do want to work here legally. Next, we cannot compel or force 12 million people to leave the country. We need to register them. We need to identify them. We need to give them not a Green Card, but maybe a BLUE Card. Make them legal. Then get off this craziness of putting them at the bottom of a 10 or 20 years long waiting list, and put them in line to get citizenship if that is their goal.

I HATE walls. Instead we need to establish a JOINT border control authority with Mexico. We cannot stop illegals from entering the US if we don’t have the full cooperation with Mexico. Let’s get over it, and do what we have to do to make it work. Employers could send in weekly numbers needed and those could be posted across Central America. Workers could then enter the country, do the work, and go back home to wait for the next call for help. Most of them prefer that over moving here. It can be solved but NOT unilaterally.

3. the possible/probable Iranian conflict ... I'm talking about how to deal with them ... not about the little hostage thing their doing now.

I’m not sure what you are referring to when you say the “little hostage thing.” If you mean the 1979-1980 hostage taking, I’d say that’s over and we need to keep in mind this is 2008. We have little to no comprehension of the psyche that dominates the people of the Middle East. Proud of their past but screwed by foreigners and their own leaders who sold out to the foreigners time after time. The whole region is filled with desperate people who don’t know who to trust. Until we get “down and dirty” and learn how the man on the street feels and how he or she is getting on, we will never be able to deal with foreigners.

The British did just what we need to do. From their time in India - 1700s - to the time they departed India - 1947 - the Brits managed a civil government in places they were totally strange to but they learned how to manage. We need to study how they did that. And then adapt and apply those lessons to America in Century21 if we plan on being the world’s hegemony.

During that long era - when Britannia ruled the waves from Trafalgar to Singapore - one-fifth to one-third of the graduates of Oxford and Cambridge went abroad, to Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Rhodesia, the Caribbean and to India, the Jewel in the Crown. Most of them stayed on in their chosen countries, for their whole working life. 20-30 years. If you want to rule the earth, you must be in a place long enough to not only learn the language, but to learn the culture as well. You cannot do that on a 12 months tour. It's up to us.

[edit on 2/28/2008 by donwhite]