Hillary Clinton may not be my preferred candidate in 2008, but it sure looks like she has an excellent chance of being our next president, perhaps for two terms. It's a long ways til election day 2008; a lot can happen between now and then...but, assuming Hillary does indeed take the oath of office on January 20, 2009, how will you Conservatives handle it? Move to Canada? (Or France now - they are our good Conservative Buddies now.) Join an "Impeach Hillary" club? How will you cope until George W. Bush's nephew is sworn in on January 20, 2017?

Andrew

Nope, we will work on stopping anything she tries to do, and defeat her in the next election.

Vote and support a good conservative.

She's all smoke and mirrors, anyway.
She's never had to make a payroll, she's never held an executive position and she's simply riding on her husband's coattails.

Her negatives are so high I don't think her chances are that good. Fair, maybe if conservatives goof up.

Mrs. Clinton may be smart, but thank goodness she's not as slick as her husband.

Herb

Herb, I'm not voting for her, but she does have experience as a senator and a law firm partner. That gives her more experience than Rudy and like the Bush clan, her name recognition may be enough to get her elected. Bill would win if he could run again, so I fear voters will think they get a two-fer with them.

To think that Hillary's experience in politics is limited to her Senate career and her work at the Rose Law firm severely understates her career. Hillary was not just a close adviser and wife of Bill Clinton - she was THE key person and strategist in almost all of his campaigns (1982 on especially), and was basically a partner in governing Arkansas and the US while Bill was the chief executive. While much of her work was behind the scenes, Hillary has far more political experience than any of the candidates running in either party this year - and that's not just counting the fact that Bill is around. She could divorce Bill and still have decades of hard political experience and experience in the inner workings of government. Bill needed Hillary to win - but at this point, I don't think Hillary needs Bill to win.

I'm not saying this in praise of Hillary, only to be fair about her experience. Love her or hate her, you should consider reading Carl Bernstein's excellent book "A Woman in Charge" (I'm halfway through.) It's a fair yet in many ways, devastating portrait of both Hillary and Bill, one they surely wish had not been written, although I doubt the book will make much difference in the end.

Andrew

"That gives her more experience than Rudy..."

I disagree.

Mr. Giuliani was a leading prosecutor in fighting the mob (and he won by putting MANY mobsters away in jail), whilst also cleaning up Times Square and running the city of New York quite well. Perfectly? Of course not. We're talking about New Yawk.

Herb

National Senator trumps City Mayor

Even if Hillary hadn't been elected Senator, she'd still be more experienced in politics than Rudy. Two successful presidential campaigns where she was the key strategist and decision maker aside from her husband is hard to trump.

Andrew

Oh boy, she has some political experience, has she ever had to deal with a military commander, make a major military decision, she probably doesn't know the difference between a brigade and a regiment.

Has she ever had to make a budget for a large organization.

Giulaini has at least dealt with a large police organization, which has some of the same qualities as a military organization, he has written budgets and had to deal with legislatures.

And let's not forget her work way back in 1974 with the House Judiciary Committee and their work on the Watergate scandal.

I'd rather see Edwards in the Whitehouse, but God bless her for that.

"she probably doesn't know the difference between a brigade and a regiment."

Neither does Bush.

"she probably doesn't know the difference between a brigade and a regiment."

"Neither does Bush."

But he CAN swagger around in a flightsuit.

Nwokie writes:
Oh boy, she has some political experience, has she ever had to deal with a military commander, make a major military decision, she probably doesn't know the difference between a brigade and a regiment.

As a member of the Senate Armed Service Committee for the last seven years, I have a feeling Hillary knows the difference quite well. Of course, Rudy hasn't dealt with the military at all. The NYPD just isn't the same - sorry.

Has she ever had to make a budget for a large organization.

Well, as much as Bill Clinton and the two Bushes have, sure. As mentioned, she was integral to her husband's administration. All budget priorities were passed by Hillary and she certainly knew every detail of the Clinton Administration budgets. I'd say she has an edge on Rudy there, given how much more complex the federal budget is vs. NYC's.

Giulaini has at least dealt with a large police organization, which has some of the same qualities as a military organization, he has written budgets and had to deal with legislatures.

Again, you seem to forget Hillary's role when her husband was president and governor. Think Bobby Kennedy when JFK was president.

Andrew

I am not a conservative, but I'll ring in with an answer Mister Trebek:

Eight more years of this?

How will Conservatives deal with 8 years of Hillary?

If history is any guage, they'll bitch and moan their way through another period of unprecedented economic expansion.

"National Senator trumps City Mayor"

You say "city mayor" as if Gulianni is Boss Hogg from The Dukes OF Hazard. I think he was doing a little more than holding prayer breakfasts when he was the mayor of NEW YORK CITY! That city has more people than a lot of states do. It doesn't do his position justice to say "city mayor", as if it's any old city.

"If history is any guage, they'll bitch and moan their way through another period of unprecedented economic expansion."

Sort of like the liberals have bithed and moaned through years of safetey and security following 9/11 with Republicans in office.

Well, we don't have known safety or security.

--and, if the burden can be met for security, we still will have civil liberties for it.

Net loss.

And what's with the liberals bit anyway? Plenty of Americans are bitching about these clowns, not just those so characterized as "liberals".

Yeah, it's sure been safe and secure for all those 3800+ Americans who have been killed in Iraq, hasn't it? Not to mention the thousands more who have been wounded, divorced, committed suicide after they came back, etc.

Anyway, you're right, domestically George W. Bush's record on international terrorism on our shores is almost as good as Bill Clinton's was for his last 7 years in office.

Andrew

Ah Bobby Kennedy was Attorney General, a position with power and responsibility, a bad attorney general, but still he held an actual office.

Robert Kennedy was much more than Attorney General - he was his brother's closest adviser. Like Hillary, no one in the Kennedy Administration dared make an important decision without cross-checking it with Bobby. That's my point. The fact that she held no official title is irrelevant; she had more power than anyone else in the Clinton Administration besides Bill.

Andrew

"The fact that she held no official title is irrelevant; she had more power than anyone else in the Clinton Administration besides Bill."

To put it in terms more easily understood by the masses, she was the prototype for Dick Cheney.

Hillary is a very poor choice, but not for lack of experience. I think -- if everyone wants to pile on her, or conversely, rush to defend her -- she must be doing something right. I wouldn't vote for Missus Clinton, but I understand the passion she inspires on both sides.

Yeah, I'm not meaning to make any sort of statement about what kind of choices Hillary would make as president, only that, like Dick Cheney, she's got a fantastic resume. Bush may have been inexperienced and incompetent when he took office but Cheney wasn't - he was just...wrong.

Andrew

I was watching BBC news just now and they were talking to Dick Armey, the conservative's conservative. He said something that blew me away. He said he sees no one who can beat Hillary. He said he saw plenty of people he'd LIKE to see beat her, but felt there just wasn't anyone on the right who's ruthless or organized enough to beat her. Fancy that.

Herb wrote:

Vote and support a good conservative.

Isn't that an oxymoron, good conservative???

http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071012/NEWS19/710120440/1002

Armey predicted U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton will win the presidency next year, saying no Republican candidate is strong enough to beat her.

"The Democrats will win," Armey said. "I don't see any way that Hillary Clinton won't be president. She is more well-organized, she is more intelligent.

". . . She is ruthless, and she is tough."

The line for bus tickets to Canada starts here.

I love it when leftists get even more arrogant than usual.

That's how we won in 2000 and 2004.

I'm rubbing my hands together and looking forward to Ruth Bader Ginsberg's retirement ceremony.

Roe v. Wade is toast.

Herb

Speaking of arrogant, in his last prediction the Crow Eating King said there was going to be a Democrat bloodbath and I'm sure he mentioned Roe v Wade was "toast" then too.

I'll gladly take a few key victories with any meagre short-term defeat.

We stopped partial birth abortion, no thanks to leftists. On this one, the left has already lost and will lose even more...whilst children will no longer be killed for political expediency.

Herb

Pop Quiz: There was an election in our lifetimes between two Presidential candidates who were both pro-life. Do you remember who ran and when?

My hope is that our next President stops the war so that "children will no longer be killed for political expediency."

Along with the millions of freed Iraqis, Kurdish kids are humans, too and no longer being gassed.

Herb

What is it, really, that makes Hillary so bad?

Spell it out. Take it really far. Be honest.

I just don't personally believe that she would be an effective president. And mostly I just don't trust her with the security of our country.

OK. Perfectly valid.

How did you arrive at those conclusions? What is it that she has said or done that makes you feel that way?

The war is an obvious place to start. Hillary voted for it and still refuses to consider it a mistake. Sure, she had the best shocked and awed expression on her face when it went sour. Like all members of Congress who pretended to be duped, she also conveniently avoided putting the administration on the hot seat. What about the many reports to Congress that were never made?

"The administration would be required to report to Congress that diplomatic options have been exhausted before, or within 48 hours after military action has started. Every 60 days the President would also be required to submit a progress report to Congress."
H.J.RES.114

Here is another reason. I have trouble respecting her motivation. Instead of just doing a good job, she has to make it personal. You may recall that the shrub raised record breaking sums of cash. When America needs new leadership, this is no time for the Democrats to turn this election season into a pecker matching contest:

"She has asked her top tier of supporters, the "HillRaisers," to raise at least $1 million each from other donors-10 times the amount that George W. Bush's "Pioneers" were asked to raise in 2000."
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00000019&cycle=2008

She seems to cling to the idealistic mores of her generation without really moving for real change. Like many of my well-meaning neighbors in Portland, she looks to be a wealthy bumper sticker liberal. Not evil, and not good leadership material either. The kind of person who gripes about the schools, but is too busy working to bother with the PTA or the school board.

It is going to take some real revelations from her to make me take her seriously as a candidate for President.

"I just don't personally believe that she would be an effective president. And mostly I just don't trust her with the security of our country."

I dunno about that. I'm thinking that unlike her husband, if she managed to get bin Laden in her gunsight, she'd fire.

(then follow up immediately with a press conference about health care without even breaking a sweat -- she has pile-on experience now, too.)

" The war is an obvious place to start. Hillary voted for it and still refuses to consider it a mistake."

So what? So did millions of other people, right? Including our current President.

" She seems to cling to the idealistic mores of her generation without really moving for real change."

Like what, specifically?

I'm not in charge here - but I'l say right now: I plan on grilling each stated stance. Do it or not. But once you're in, try and stick with it.

Littlesongs writes:
The war is an obvious place to start. Hillary voted for it and still refuses to consider it a mistake.

Actually, I don't consider that vote a mistake, either. I still think "yes" was the only choice the Congress had at that point. As I've said a few times here, the Congress wasn't voting for the Iraq War that Bush launched months later - they were voting to authorize the use of force if needed to force Saddam Hussein to cooperate with UN Weapons Inspectors, whom he refused to let back in the country. Had Congress voted "no" the United States would have been put in a very weak position. Saddam Hussein was a bad guy who needed to be contained over there; a "no" vote would have been a disaster because he would have felt freer to ignore us. But after the "yes" vote Saddam began to cooperate again and let the inspectors come back. The vote worked - it toughened Bush's position in dealing with Saddam.

I think the Congress in 2002 naively trusted Bush to do the right thing on Iraq, to get a 2nd UN resolution and a large coalition like his father got in 1991 as he promised before going to war. The whole country got behind Bush after 9/11, remember? Few at that time expected him to mislead the nation so badly. Congress certainly should have put more constraints on Bush's use of force than they did and debated the kind of power they were giving Bush, but I don't really blame Hillary for that.

Andrew

I'm interested in this thread.

Please do take the position and step up to the plate with it. IMHO, this is worth some greater discussion.

Chickenjuggler, I appreciate the challenge. I'll try to get to the heart of it -- at least to me.

The war is an obvious place to start. Hillary voted for it and still refuses to consider it a mistake.

I think that a vast majority of people had doubts about the war. Certainly Congress was able to challenge the intel at the source and had back channels to the truth. Members of both parties made brave and lonely "Nay" votes based on real information too. In hindsight, Hillary and others were too wrapped up in fear to ask questions. So were most journalists, and for the most part, so were we the people.

She continues to ride the leaky kayak of that war resolution much like her dear husband stuck to his guns on his dopey fling. Coming clean, playing it straight and taking your lumps goes a long way with me. Just once, she needs to apologize to her constituents and our troops for her role in putting our nation in such a deadly mess. Getting our brave men and women home safely, and being truly dedicated to that mission would be a good start.

She seems to cling to the idealistic mores of her generation without really moving for real change.

I will bring up my first taste of "Clintonlogic" as an example. Taking away the stigma of homosexuality in our military was a noble idea. However, making that proposal right out of the gate was really dumb. Had the administration asked Congress for a long-overdue pay hike for our servicemen and servicewomen first, then made proposals, I believe the outcome would have been quite different. In fact, "don't ask -- don't tell" would never have entered our collective vocabulary.

Her current rhetoric rings of much of the same "doing half the job for half the folks" bit I sat through for all but two of the 90s. Both Clintons inherited the first Iraq war, and passed the blockaded country to another shrub. If this hot potato passes through four administrations over the course of twenty years, it will be the bloody legacy of both families. In a nutshell, I do not trust her to bring peace.

You know, and rather than seem like I am laying some kind of trap, I'll just show my cards right here and now in a spirit of full disclosure:

If you are going to play the " Socialist " card, be prepared to defend that one to the hilt. Not just as a label with which you oppose, but for actual, tangible reasons why it would make the populous worse.

And I'm also going to try and come REALLY clean and go out on a limb and speak a few theories that I would LOVE to see disproved. The following will speak to some general traits I have suspected, but never articulated;

I think that Republicans don't like the idea of Hillary at the helm because it would reinforce BILL Clinton's legacy. That legacy, depending on whom you ask is not all that complex; Republicans believe that Clinton dodged a bullet regarding terrorism. It could have VERY easilly been Bill at the helm when 9/11 happened. But because it was Bush, who was voted in at a time when things seemed like they were going to go just fine and would have time and money to pursue lofty goals ( Mars, anyone? ) Republicans got saddled with a BIG task to address. He was forced to deal with it in a manner Clinton never had to. Unfortunately, he blew it. So that makes us all nostalgic for the Clinton years. To Clinton's credit, he did do good things. But he " had it easy." Right? No. He didn't . But that's the perception.

So now Hillary comes along after Bush has bungled on just about every level and they ( Republicans ) will not be able to save face. It didn't HAVE to BE that way though. That's what Republicans forget. Bush was voted into office by feeble minded folk ( sorry, it's the way I feel ) who actually would go back and do it again.

So them Democrats look great by comparison. ( And please, Democratic Controlled Congress with a low approval rating carries zero weight with me. Deal with it. ).

Which brings me to another dynamic; I think that Republicans assume they are geeks and Democrats are the cool kids. They have been picked on for their faith, their representatives and their scandals. Too fucking bad. Buck up. Pound it.

If I were in your position, I would admit that we, as a party, have blown it on just about every level imaginable. But no. Republicans feign strength in times like that. They try and convince eveyone that these are not the droids they are looking for. When in fact, it is NOT the exception to the rule that bothers me, it's the RULE.

They are a bunch of people who's daddy didn't give them enough love and seek approval and control though power and a firm hand. That's all they know. They know NO introspection or self-assessment. It's ALL about appearances.

All in the hope that they will be accepted and be cool...to God. With which they have false alliance. It's all about the smach and grab this time around. They got their shot, they won the battle - they LOST the War.

I'm tired of being diplomatic and bipartisan. I want to win and FUCK the assholes who are 100% unwilling to think for themselves and try anything new.

Republicans are constantly flaunting their ability to create gridlock.

Fine.

Fuck you.

You want a war? Fine. You're gonna lose. Bring on Armageddon you pricks. I'll see you in HEAVEN.

How's THAT for a challenge?

I think that you have a legitimate gripe Chickenjuggler, and I loved the rant. I hope that when questions are asked in the future, people will step up, and for better or worse, be honest. I do not mind being challenged in the spirit of learning. I found out a bit about myself tonight:

Much of my feelings about Hillary are simply cumulative gut instinct. I will admit it. I can produce the facts that make me uncomfortable, or simply leave it at the sum total of them all: woozy.

We didn't have a winner on today's Pop Quiz, so tomorrow's jackpot grows another $1.69 to fifteen dollars and twenty-one cents. The assembled multitude couldn't come up with Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter in 1976, or Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter in 1980.

See now, that counts for a LOT. It leaves room for new ideas, being corrected or even being proven right.

Gut instinct is GOOD. But say it is just that, when it IS just that. People back off that instinct because they can't support it. But that's fine too. Just say it. My God, who doesn't have instincts? Pay attention to them! PLEASE.

But if you think your instincts are transferable to me, or mine to you, we are going to get into a heap of trouble.

There's your out. Take it or pretend that it's absolute truth. One way will give you progress - the other will hold you back.

Pick one!

"If you think your instincts are transferable to me, or mine to you, we are going to get into a heap of trouble."

Exactly! This is why I try to communicate specifics, but sometimes, the sheer volume of information is overwhelming. It can be difficult to make a valid point without burying it under itself. Perception also means it is different for each individual based on outlook. After being caught and skinned, sometimes the truth has to be boiled down in a stew to be digested.

I believe that nests of baby birds are well served by regurgitated morsels, but people are not. As a voting individual you really have to hunt and eat your own facts. In this age of information, we have plenty to harvest, game to track, and a nation to restore with the bounty. Given enough good ideas, active voters and solid legislators, we may yet find a way to be great again.

It always starts with one.

" sometimes, the sheer volume of information is overwhelming."

That is a very important point. One that is specific to our times that other generations have not had to deal or cope with on this level. Not to get too esoteric, but I believe ( gut instinct, if you will ) this ability or inablity to cope with our current rate of flow of information is something I truly believe will become so ingrained in us that it will change our DNA. My stance has always been that mundane habits we do not recognize as deep, are inadvertantly passed on through our genes.

Alcoholism is a good example of this. 100 years ago, I suspect that most if not virtually all, would have dismissed a penchant for drinking as weak-willed and NOTHING more.

Today, we know that NOT to be the case. Things run in a family that are not fully recognized. The only reason for that is that there is resistance from those who are of a generation that saw it first hand and were left behind as science caught up. And it's not there yet - but there is a lot to support what I am saying.

We, of the information age, are literally going to be transformed by the inundation of information and the result will be a full-on cleaving. Unfortunately, there are still enough of those who will resist it to create barriers. However, that sect is EXTREMELY important, in my mind. They may show us how to do it in moderation that keeps us all efficient. ( Pornography on the internet may be too much for them to sway - but never underestimate a slow subtle influence on something bigger than you can imagine...and no. I'm not on acid tonight ). But there is a balance to be found. Most on the right try and regulate the flow of information on some kind of moral ground. That will never work on anyone but themselves.

But if people could find a way to freely express themselves in the information age, without persecution, a balance will be struck naturally. Try and force it though, and there will be mega-problems.

"Author: Darktemper
Wednesday, November 07, 2007 - 10:14 pm

I just don't personally believe that she would be an effective president. And mostly I just don't trust her with the security of our country."

"Gut instinct man, she sends chills up and down my spine, that's it, nothing more."

But if it comes down to her and a lesser qualified opponent I will have to do some serious soul searching but will likely vote for the best choice whomever that may be. At least the best choice as I see it.

You guys rock!

Little and CJ, that brief exchange sums up a lot of what I feel and why I do what I do. I know this is a big part of why I return here each day. Thanks for getting it done!

(got some more to say about information and speaking freely, but gotta drive first...)

..."They [republicans] know NO introspection or self-assessment."

Chickenjuggler, I'm not sure if you're talking specifically about republican LEADERSHIP, or if you actually think there aren't any VERY introspective republicans who indeed believe our country is making a better life for millions freed from enslavement by the Taliban and Saddam Hussein's evil reign of terror.

And agree with their position or not, it doesn't get much more introspective than the pro-life faithful who sincerely strive to defend innocent human life. Girls also now go to school in Afghanistan and Iraq. The surge is now proving to be largely effective. Perfect? No. But neither is the execution of any war.

However, if you're talking about power-hungry minions within a political party, I agree that there are plenty of those on all sides to go around, republicans included.

Herb

A Hillary presidency will be closer to Carter than Bill Clinton.

Nwokie writes:
A Hillary presidency will be closer to Carter than Bill Clinton.

Based on what? The fact that Hillary like Carter is a scripture-quoting Christian who carries a Bible around? Hillary is certainly a lot tougher than Carter. She's ruthless when it comes to running a campaign and defeating an opponent. Jimmy Carter never was the attack dog that Hillary Clinton can be in a campaign and against opponents in office. To be honest, a Hillary presidency may be more like a George W. presidency than a Bill Clinton presidency.

Andrew

On the speaking freely bit, it's a two way street. On one hand, expressing things is a given. The only real barrier is fear and ones own inhibitions.

That all comes down to concern over how ones peers will react.

The key to all of that really comes down to the realization that what others think is really only as significant as any of us thinks it is. A *lot* of effort is put into keeping that idea from reaching greater acceptance.

On the other hand, there is also exposure of the self! A big part of limiting free speech happens to be resistance to, or fear of, simple change. If the conversation is real, then having it means potentially coming to acceptance on some things not otherwise on the table.

The result of this mess is often conversations that are guarded, or by proxy (talking points, etc...). IMHO, this is perhaps the biggest reason why so many of us leverage so many labels so much of the time.

Keeps the self seperate in a way that limits / keeps change under control.

If one is secure in what they believe and has the strength to confront the reality of what is known true and what is not known true, then change is easy. Really it translates into growth and power, but only if one has a high degree of self awareness, acceptance and honesty that has to come with all of that.

If one has defined their value through others, then acceptance of the self is missing and with that comes limited speech. Fear trumps all, in this case, because identity is not something internal, but external.

(very poor position to be in, IMHO)

Where information is concerned, I find it very interesting to watch people grapple with these things! The greater availability of information of all kinds really is forcing a lot of people to reconsider where their identity lies!

It's rapidly growing impossible to keep one's head in the sand. Poor reasoning, omissions, etc... are really easy to refute these days. The same goes for reputations and the trust that comes with that.

Really, one can find out if a given source is authoritative and weigh that authority in minutes!

And that's what has traditional media sources running scared! They can't leverage their position of implied trust and authority very easily these days. And it's gonna get worse.

A second artifact of this happens to be a greater demand for people to control their focus and critically evaluate what they are consuming.

For those of us, who came of age, prior to this, these things are difficult. Many are making the right changes, growing and learning to deal. Many are not.

Watching my kids, who essentially grew up with this new dynamic, learn has been very interesting and empowering for me. They filter to a much higher degree than many of us do. They also tend to form different trust relationships than we do.

IMHO, the next generation to come up will handle their news and politics differently than the current ones do.

Who somebody is, what their passion is, what they've done and what others think of them will be plain as day. By contrast, many of these things are somewhat hidden and or presented in a specific way to attract and keep the mindshare of those so targeted.

Going forward, this will become increasingly difficult as there will be far too many passionate people, not targeting, but just expressing and that will check the "spin zone" nicely, for anyone interested in looking.

The biggie will be the filtering and interest. Should one just not look, then there is a strong potential for the same old, same old, to keep working as it does.

(this is why blogs and new media is marginalized every single day! "don't look", "just ordinary people", "no credentials", etc....)

Also IMHO, this whole getting people not to look, will be the primary play going forward.

This is why we see so many personal attacks from the right. At the end of the day, much of what they advocate is really just desire more than it is defensible. The only way that works is to keep people focused on deriving their value from others, and reaffirming character flaws (bigotry, discrimination, greed, etc...) as being good things and not the flaws they really are.

The simple reality of things is there right in front of us. Millions write about it, talk about it, learn from it, every single day. There is truth in that, it's powerful, American, and self-correcting in that extreme views, or those flawed but perhaps gratifying views, are easily checked by ordinary people just expressing who they are and what they are about.

This can be seen here --and it's just excellent. The learning and growth that we have given one another is priceless and quite likely to be the primary driver for all of our guilty pleasure.

Because Hilary is an extreme liberal like Carter.

No she's not.

Nwokie writes:
Because Hilary is an extreme liberal like Carter.

No, that's just your right-wing hyperbole, not based on reality. If you actually looked at the facts objectively you'd draw a different conclusion. One hint may be that many who truly are on the left are extremely uncomfortable with Hillary whom they view as too far to the right. A lot of teachers are still wary of Hillary for the way she and Bill took on the teacher's union in Arkansas when he was governor. Of course, many liberals today object to her continued lukewarm support of the Iraq Occupation.

Perhaps liberals have studied the record more carefully than you have?

Andrew

"Girls also now go to school in Afghanistan and Iraq."

Uh, hate to burst your bubble Herrbcrite...technically girls "can" attend, if one is open nearby, but the facts are that the vast majority most of them don't.

They either need to stay home and do chores because their parent(s) and/or siblings have been killed, or their parents are afraid of them being raped or killed on the way to or from school.

Also, a big report just came out a few days ago that the number that do/did attend is declining rapidly. Google it, Herrb.

Herb said>>>
I love it when leftists get even more arrogant than usual.

That's how we won in 2000 and 2004.

And that's how the EXTREME RIGHT will lose the White House to the Dems.
Keep it up Herb and Hillary WILL be our new President. Just keep making fun of her and what she stands for and it will back fire right in your face. KEEP IT UP!
I'm buying my new house in Burn, Switzerland next week because of the way the EXTREME RIGHT is handling themselves.
Thanks for the next 8 years EXTREME RIGHT.

How will Conservatives deal with 8 years of Hillary?

I'm moving to France. Babs sublet me the place she leased when George took over

Hey, now that the evil commie Chirac is gone, the French are my pals.
Maybe Mr. Sarkozy would put us both up at his place.
I hear they have great wine there.
Viva la France!

Herb

I doubt many French people would remotely support your agenda.

Clearly the troll hasn't seen "Sicko." Or else he'd move to Norway instead!

...of course the tax rate in Norway is a bit steep for me, and it gets cold and dark for long periods, but some of the girls are cute, and many speak english. In fact, I would bet that a greater percentage of the Norwegian population speaks english than The frenchies do! I'll call Babs and tell her to hold the chateau until I look deeper into a hillside condo at Trondheim.

Actually, even if I agreed with everything on the Hillary slate, I just don't want to continue along with the Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton, cycle

King George the younger was a downgrade from Georgivus I. I don't want to see if Queen Hillie is a step up Willy The Slick. Wild Bill didn't inherit the mess from GHWB that the next Prez will have to clean up after L'il Georgie. Took Tricky D. a long time to back out of Indochina. Probably take El Next Presidente just as long to.......

(wait for it)

(wait for it)


"re-tract from I-ract!" (feel free to use that Jessie!)


Maybe some of the nervousness in I- ran has to do with U.S. on their border in three countries and propping up Dick Tater in a fourth.* "This is the World Police. President Ineedajacket, we have you surrounded, Drop your nook-ler weapons and come out with your hands up."

*Please refer to your world map for details.

While our foreign trade may be improving because the world is awash in dollars, making our products cheaper, Joe Littleguy* is taking it in the shorts!

*(reference to average american not meaning to offend any native american named Joe Littleguy.)

Used to be we funded a war with bonds or, the increased drain on the economy drove up interest rates and inflationary concerns. Now, we just print more hundreds to cover the cost, the fed keeps the interest rates down so the U.S. citizenry keep spending ourselves into poverty, and the world cashes in their dollars for something a bit more stable.*

*See increases in oil, gold, and foreign currencies! Free appraisals on all of your U.S. and foreign coins!

Remember if the person you vote for in the primary was good enough to earn that vote, then win or lose, they should still be worthy of your vote in November. My choice is my choice. If whoever didn't have the horses to make it to the November ballot, I'm not voting for someone I feel is a lesser candidate just cause more people chose them.

Let's say Obama is your choice, you despise Hill, and the party with the R doesn't appeal to you.

If it's Hill vs any R candidate, would you vote for Hill?

If so, why? You don't like her. Would you vote for an R. candidate? If so, why? You don't like them either. Why wouldn't you just write in Obama in November? Maybe if people would stick to their guns all the way through, the resulting chaos would shake things up. Then we might see some changes so desperately needed.

Somebody has lost focus! Is it the American people, or the government they elect through indifference?

"I doubt many French people would remotely support your agenda."

You better reconsider that statement. THEY VOTED IN MR. SARKOZY, A CONSERVATIVE! HALLELUJAH!

Merci!

Herbe' Milouite Nixonee'

If you think your brand of conservatism matches that of a Frenchie, as Judas Priest would say, you got another thing comin'.