Stop Hillary

[7,052,770]

Obama will face even more wrath and swiftboating than Hillary.  Being black and this Muslim school business are going to kill him, unfortunately.

[WalterMitty]

obama cant take the heat.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Obama will face even more wrath and swiftboating than Hillary.  Being black and this Muslim school business are going to kill him, unfortunately.

Then Edwards is your guy if that's your worry. Hillary is simply not going to appeal to anyone who didn't vote for Kerry, that's basically the end of it.

[skybridge]

I'm almost certain that the US will attack Iran if she's elected President; she has no qualms about GOP foreign policy.

Just give it another month or two. No need for a 44th president for that to happen.

If she wins the nomination, the Democrats will have conceded that they're not interested in being an opposition party...

Well said.

[MODU]

It's so nice to see so many people not supporting Killary.  Welcome to the light!

[John Dibble]

other: yes, stop Hitlery, but "anyone but Hillary".

Pretty much my opinion - it's not like there aren't worse people than Hillary. "Anyone but Hillary" implies you'd accept Hitler reborn for crying out loud!

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It's so nice to see so many people not supporting Killary.  Welcome to the light!

Did you actually stop to see why people are not supporting her?

[MODU]

It's so nice to see so many people not supporting Killary.  Welcome to the light!

Did you actually stop to see why people are not supporting her?

Yup.  And I'll take it.  hahaha . . . just keep her out of the White House.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It's so nice to see so many people not supporting Killary.  Welcome to the light!

Did you actually stop to see why people are not supporting her?

Yup.  And I'll take it.  hahaha . . . just keep her out of the White House.

Why? She's a hell of a lot closer to you than any other Democrat.

[MODU]

Why? She's a hell of a lot closer to you than any other Democrat.

Voting records do not reflect character. 

[7,052,770]

It's so nice to see so many people not supporting Killary.  Welcome to the light!

Did you actually stop to see why people are not supporting her?

Yup.  And I'll take it.  hahaha . . . just keep her out of the White House.

Why? She's a hell of a lot closer to you than any other Democrat.

she's definitely not...

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Who else is a war apologist who supports "stay the course" and was booed for saying so at a speech?

[MODU]

Who else is a war apologist who supports "stay the course" and was booed for saying so at a speech?

There is more to politics than a single issue.

[7,052,770]

Who else is a war apologist who supports "stay the course" and was booed for saying so at a speech?

There is more to politics than a single issue.

^^^

Also, when has Hillary ever used the words "stay the course"?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

She said something along those lines at a speech before the 2006 elections and was booed by the crowd for it.

I see no reason to support anyone pro-war when all the other candidates are anti-war.

[7,052,770]

She said something along those lines at a speech before the 2006 elections and was booed by the crowd for it.

I see no reason to support anyone pro-war when all the other candidates are anti-war.

How can you call her pro-war?  She opposed the troop surge and has plans to get troops out of Iraq once she's elected.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Then why does she continue to stand by her vote for the war?

And what the hell makes her more electable than Edwards? She's the most hated woman in the country.

[MODU]

Then why does she continue to stand by her vote for the war?

And what the hell makes her more electable than Edwards? She's the most hated woman in the country.

Because you should always stand by your vote.  That doesn't mean you cannot change your mind on future votes which mirror the prior vote and defend it.  Considering those who voted for continuing the war in 2003 had advocated the same thing they said in the 1990s prior to going back into Iraq, based on the same knoweldge that they had at that point, their vote was justified.  Now that parts of what was understood to be true has so far turned up to be false, they can modify their position.  However, their vote in the past was their vote, and they should defend why they voted in that manner and explain how their vote would change in the future based upon new knowledge.  This is what sank Kerry because he couldn't explain his changes in position well.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Edward simply said flat out "I was wrong." Why can't Hillary do the same? She's just a pro-war right-wing pandering whore.

[MODU]

Edward simply said flat out "I was wrong." Why can't Hillary do the same? She's just a pro-war right-wing pandering whore.

Because, she wasn't "wrong."  At the time she casted her vote, based on the information she had at the time and in her best judgement for the good of the nation, her decision was sound.  Edwards, on the other hand, is the one pandering to the anti-war crowd.  That is why I get so annoyed with these "If I knew back then what I know now, I would have voted no" folk.  Have a spine and defend your actions, and then explain how in the future if the said event occurs again, what you would do to ensure you make the correct decision.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Hillary's website doesn't have an issues section.
Why bother having a website if you don't give a sh**t about informing people?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/1/17134/52847

Obama has a decent section, but he's supposed to be the substance free candidate.

[Boris]

Hillary's website doesn't have an issues section.
Why bother having a website if you don't give a sh**t about informing people?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/1/17134/52847

Obama has a decent section, but he's supposed to be the substance free candidate.

haha, I noticed that too while I was surfing her site awhile back.

But let's be honest; one paragraph per section is quite meaningless. I haven't read any other candidate's issue sections, but I could probably guess what they all say (pretty much the same thing). IMO, all candidates should be a bit more comprehensive with regards to their viewpoints on the issues. But that's not the purpose of a political website. The purpose of a political website is for people to easily donate funds. Very few people other than Hillary partisans are going to visit "hillaryclinton.com" anyway.

[KEmperor]

Hillary's website doesn't have an issues section.
Why bother having a website if you don't give a sh**t about informing people?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/1/17134/52847

Obama has a decent section, but he's supposed to be the substance free candidate.

Her "issue" is and always has been getting elected President.  Has been since before she moved to New York to run for Senate.