Hillary

[spare_change]

Hillary's Nose Is Growing

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 9:17 AM

By: Ronald Kessler

As Hillary Clinton rises in the polls, her nose grows longer and longer.

To be sure, she has never had any shame about making stories up out of thin air. After 9/11, Clinton appeared on national TV and claimed that when the two airplanes hit the World Trade Center, her daughter Chelsea was going to jog at Battery Park near the towers, where she heard and saw the catastrophe unfold.

Clinton’s arrogance was so profound that she did not coordinate the story with Chelsea, who wrote an article for Talk in which she described what she had been doing that day. According to Chelsea, she was on the other side of town in a friend’s apartment on Park Avenue South. She watched the events unfold on TV.

Nor does Clinton’s hypocrisy have any limits. When asked about the recent MoveOn.org ad suggesting that Gen. David Petraeus has betrayed the country, Clinton on "Meet the Press" on Sept. 23 called for an end to such attacks. “I don’t condone anything like that, and I have voted against those who would impugn the patriotism and the service of the people who wear the uniform of our country,” she said.

Yet three days earlier, Clinton had voted against a Senate resolution to condemn the MoveOn.org ad. Her closest competitor, Sen. Barack Obama, voted earlier that day but conveniently missed the vote condemning the ad.

Now that she begins to see her candidacy in the general election as a certainty, Clinton’s prevarications — largely ignored by the media — are becoming more frequent.

On Sept. 23, on "Fox News Sunday," Clinton said that she has “fought hard” for body armor . . .” She added, “I’ve stood with my colleagues to fight hard for armored vehicles because we knew that they needed additional protection in Iraq and they weren’t getting it.”

Yet last May, Clinton voted against the emergency supplemental bill to provide $1.6 billion for body armor, including advanced combat helmets; $2.4 billion to help protect against improvised explosive devices; and $3 billion for mine-resistant, ambush protected vehicles.

During her Sept 23 appearance on "Meet The Press," Clinton said that current strategy in Iraq is not working: “I will end our involvement at the level that we’ve seen that has not proven to be successful.” But in August, Clinton had said in a speech at the Veterans of Foreign Wars national convention in Kansas City, Mo., that the so-called surge in Iraq is “working.”

Clinton’s prevarications about her vote to support the Iraq war are even more striking. On Oct. 10, 2002, she stated on the Senate floor: “It is clear. . . that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” On Sept. 15, 2002, she said on "Meet the Press": “I can support the president, I can support an action against Saddam Hussein because I think it’s in the long term interests of our national security . . .”

Yet this year in the Democratic presidential debate on Aug. 19 in Des Moines, Clinton claimed that when she voted for the Authorization of the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, she thought she was voting to support more diplomatic efforts. She said she “regret[ed] giving George Bush the authority that he misused and abused.”

In fact, she voted against an amendment introduced in 2002 by Sen. Carl Levin that would have required more diplomacy. On the Sept. 23 "Meet the Press," Clinton made yet another misleading statement about that vote, saying she opposed the measure because she did not want to give the United Nations veto power over U.S. actions. But the measure did not give the U.N. veto power and explicitly said the U.S. has the inherent right to use military force in self-defense.

In fundraising appeals, Clinton has claimed the administration is spying on innocent Americans, when she knows that National Security Agency intercepts of calls and e-mails are to ping in on terrorists before they kill innocent Americans.

Last Sunday, when asked questions by Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday" and by Bob Schieffer on CBS' "Face the Nation," Clinton engaged in prolonged cackling. In particular, when asked by Schieffer if her healthcare plan was a step toward socialized medicine, Clinton began to giggle uncontrollably.

Like her ever changing positions on Iraq, her contrived performance suggests that she thinks she can give almost any response to a question and get away with it.

“Hillary has a keen sense of entitlement,” Bay Buchanan, author of "The Extreme Makeover of Hillary (Rodham) Clinton," has told me. “She doesn’t admit mistakes or learn from them. She believes in her own mind that she doesn’t have to take responsibility for things she’s done in the past. She can say whatever it is she wants to say today, and it’s as if the slate is clean and nothing has occurred before this.”

At a hearing on Sept. 11, Clinton told Gen. Petraeus that “the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief.”

In making that accusation, Clinton aptly described what our own reaction should be to her serial dissembling. If any other job candidate had such a record, only a fool would hire the applicant. If Hillary Clinton becomes the Democratic presidential candidate in 2008, it will say as much about us as about her.

[baby face]

In my opinion there isn't a good democratic canidate. Lets have a woman who has no clue what she is really doing or Obama who I feel may be associated with those who are fighting against us. If it comes down to it I would have to vote Hillary but I no my vote will be for the Republician party. If we can keep the Lord in our country then we can finish helping Iraq do what is needed to rebuild their government to be ran somewhat civil like ours.

[PunkyBob]

Gotta agree with Spare here...Hillary is a conscienceless politician who only looks after her own career. She follows whatever wind is blowing, stands up for nothing consistently. She ain't gettin' my vote. I'm not happy with any of the candidates, either democratic or republican. I trust none of them.

[Postman]

If that bitch gets in........I'm going to be a Canadian.

[Code]

Well IF (and I pray she is not) she is elected this will be her third term in the white house. Anyone who believes she did not pull many of the strings while Bill was busy getting his BJ's has their head in the sand. We have to remember that the clinton family is very powerful in political circles. But as with all politicians if their lips are moving there is a 99% chance they are lying.

[Shiane]

As Hillary Clinton rises in the polls, her nose grows longer and longer.



You know that all women reserve the right to change their minds, it's just that she changes hers more frequently than her underware.:D

You should have figured out by now, she will do and say whatever it takes to gain popularity.

This from the NRO...The National Review Online.
1. “When I was growing up, the neighborhoods I lived in were surrounded by farm fields, and every harvest season we had a lot of the migrants who come up from Mexico, through Texas, following the harvest, all the way up through Illinois and Michigan,” Mrs. Rodham Clinton has told the spellbound.

Of course millions of people across the country have no idea where Park Ridge is located. They don’t realize it is, was and forever will be an appendage of O’Hare International Airport, attached to Chicago like your nose is to your face.

Mrs. Rodham Clinton has been telling the Big Woods of Park Ridge story since 1996 when she told an audience: “Those of you who did not grow up around Chicago in the 1950s and can only imagine flying into O’Hare where everything looks developed, might find it hard to believe how many farm workers we would have.” ...

According to the Encyclopedia of Chicago, Hillary’s recollections of her Park Ridge neighborhood being “surrounded by farm fields” are as fictional as Uncle Jed’s black gold and Texas tea.

“Many of the farms on Chicago’s Far Northwest and Southwest Sides disappeared in the face of the speculative building boom of the 1920s. Industrial and residential developers began to work on suburban farmland convenient to bus, truck, and automobile traffic.”

Even Park Ridge’s official history states “The agrarian society was changed by the Industrial Revolution, and by the time of our incorporation in 1873, Park Ridge had been transformed from an agricultural community to an affluent business town.”


2. She left this out of her bio but Bill didn't.
Back in 1995, the then-First Lady was visiting New Zealand and met the great adventurer, Sir Edmund Hillary, then 75 years old. Naturally, her true excitement expressed itself in a lie: she told him that her mother had named her after Sir Edmund, in admiration for his scaling Mount Everest. It did not take long for researchers to discover that Hillary Rodham was born in 1947 while Sir Edmund did not make it up the hill until 1953. This quickly became a synecdoche for all her other fabrications, obfuscations and tergiversations. How big a liar do you have to be to lie about your own name? lol

3. Her views on the war changed with popularity....

On the Senate floor re: the Iraq authorization, she was quoted as saying, "It's with conviction I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. It's a vote that says clearly to Saddam, "This is your last chance. Disarm or be disarmed." She has been a huge hawk from Day 1 on the Iraq War, continually votes to fund it, and only very recently, when all the polls indicated she was on the wrong side, started to backtrack.

Sen. Clinton also lied to Olbermann about her positions since the war began. She told Olbermann: "I have been a very consistent and persistent critic of the actions that the Administration has taken." That is a lie. For most of the period that the violence in Iraq has taken place, Sen. Clinton remained silent, despite pleas from Democratic activists and families whose loved ones were killed in the war that she speak out. Only during her re-election campaign in 2006, when the war was clearly driving the dynamic of the political season, did she begin to pipe up. Her first substantive public criticism of Donald Rumsfeld came, not surprisingly, just a week before the Democratic Senate primary in Connecticut where her ideological soul-mate on the war, Joe Lieberman, was on the ropes. She and her advisors realized that her chances to run for president would be severely compromised if she did not become more visible as a critic of the war.

Olbermann said this...........

Sen. Clinton's unwillingness to speak out early against the war, even after her vote for the war, and her willingness to lie about what she did in the past and to try to rewrite history, is precisely why she is not fit to be president of the United States, not to mention receive the nomination of the Democratic Party. Our country, and our party, need leaders who will own up to mistakes, lead us with integrity and honesty, and have the moral compass to speak up, whatever the political consequences might be.:55

[oldandnaked]

Poor Hillary is really taking a beating here. I wonder if she makes it to the nomination, will she take the same beating from the Republican nominee? Okay, we've established Hillary is a liar. Can anyone name a successful politician that isn't? The only recent one that comes to my mind as being "honest" was Jimmy Carter and we all know how well that worked for him. At least her lies haven't cost thousands of lives and billions of tax payers dollars like the lies of some other high profile individuals in the current administration. I know a number of you will say Bush, Cheney and his crew were not lying but merely misinformed. If you truly believe that, come down to Florida, I've got some swamp land I'd like to sell you.

In my opinion a "good politician" is one that can work both sides of the aisle and with the other world leaders to his or her and hopefully the country's advantage. If to accomplish that requires a little bending, flip flopping and yes even lying then so be it.

Presidents and presidential nominees should be judged by not only what they say they will do but also on what they actually get done whether it be good or bad. In an earlier post someone mentioned that Hillary was a major part of the policy making in her husbands administration. I believe this to be true, and I for one would welcome back the times of the Clinton administration: a budget surplus; at least an effort to reduce the national debt; no major, long lasting conflicts; more cops on the streets; more eco friendly, more respected by the world community, etc. etc.

I don't give Bill and Hillary all the credit for what occurred during their terms but I do blame the Bush administration for what has gone wrong during theirs.

If I don't vote for Hillary it won't be because she told a few comparatively innocent lies, it will be because I don't believe she is the best candidate to do the job of turning this country around and getting our priorities straight.

[mrdiscreet]

What I think must be conceded is that the Repubs leave Dems in the dust in marketing; they are very effective in "branding" opponents.

So be it in the rough and tumble of politics. I just wish the Dems would get some quality marketing talent working for them.

I do dislike that the Repubs play up divisiveness and target market in that way.

[oldandnaked]

Couldn't agree more.


I hear Carl Rove is available.

[spare_change]

First, let me say this --- in my opinion, Hillary Clinton is the most unconscionable, inveterate liar with a God complex, and a complete disdain for the average American, that it has ever been my displeasure to meet. She is singularly dangerous ---

Now, having said that -- the rest of this will be repetitive.

Poor Hillary is really taking a beating here. I wonder if she makes it to the nomination, will she take the same beating from the Republican nominee? Okay, we've established Hillary is a liar. Can anyone name a successful politician that isn't?

A wonderful set of criteria for our leaders. Are you a good liar? Are you dishonest?

In my opinion a "good politician" is one that can work both sides of the aisle and with the other world leaders to his or her and hopefully the country's advantage. If to accomplish that requires a little bending, flip flopping and yes even lying then so be it.

I admire your pragmatism almost as much as I abhor your lack of ethics. Ends justifies the means? It's okay to lie as long as it suits my purposes? Cheating is okay as long as I win. Surely -- you didn't mean it that way.

In an earlier post someone mentioned that Hillary was a major part of the policy making in her husbands administration. I believe this to be true, and I for one would welcome back the times of the Clinton administration: a budget surplus; at least an effort to reduce the national debt; no major, long lasting conflicts; more cops on the streets; more eco friendly, more respected by the world community, etc. etc.

Course, let's also not forget the higher taxes, nanny state programs, a military stripped so low (in order to fund so-called social programs that were nothing more than an attempt by the administration to gain more control over the lives of Americans) that when it became time to go to war they didn't have the weapons, materials, or personnel to get it done, a consistent policy of coddling our enemies, failing to take decisive actions against terrorist acts, deserting our allies, ignoring the deaths of our military and citizens abroad, theft, perjury, adultery, lies, and various other misdemeanors. Let's also not forget that Hillary was almost completely ostracized from her husband's administration because her socialist views and antithetical programs were loudly denounced and rejected. Those who say that Hillary was a major player in setting policy during the Clinton administration have quickly forgotten history.

I don't give Bill and Hillary all the credit for what occurred during their terms but I do blame the Bush administration for what has gone wrong during theirs.

And, herein lies the problem -- there are those that are in such a hurry to get rid of the Bush administration, they will settle for anything -- they will take anything -- they will follow anybody ............ blindly.

Before you respond, the question at hand is whether Hillary would be a good President -- the question is not whether she would be better than Bush. Bush isn't the issue -- Hillary, with her complete lack of moral character, is.

[mrdiscreet]

Interesting that jumping from the Bush ship is complete, even among conservatives now.

Yet where is the moral indignation against the lies and hypocrisies of GOP politicians, from Bush on down?

[spare_change]

Interesting that jumping from the Bush ship is complete, even among conservatives now.

Yet where is the moral indignation against the lies and hypocrisies of GOP politicians, from Bush on down?


Where it should be -- available when discussing the GOP --- not used to diffuse the attention on the Democratic candidates (well, not successful, thought often tried).

[mrdiscreet]

Admirably pragmatic!

[oldandnaked]

Any man or woman who claims to have never told a lie is a liar. Should Hillary be held to higher scrutiny and standards than the rest of us mere mortals because she is running for president? Maybe so. Has she lied more than any of the other viable candidates? Probably not. I consider Hillary to be as much of a liar as was John Kerry a disgrace to the military and was Al Gore an abortionist candidate. Like Mrdiscreet said, it's all in the marketing.

To answer your question, no one knows if Hillary will make a good president until she has the opportunity to try. I'd like to say she couldn't be any worse than what we have now but apparantly I'm not allowed to make comparisons.

[roadie4us]

Cant say I will vote for Hillary....but can say I will not vote for a republican candidate. Im so very dissappointed in both parties. We need some major changes. I think I will vote for anyone who is not an incumbant.

[spare_change]

Any man or woman who claims to have never told a lie is a liar. Should Hillary be held to higher scrutiny and standards than the rest of us mere mortals because she is running for president? Maybe so. Has she lied more than any of the other viable candidates? Probably not. I consider Hillary to be as much of a liar as was John Kerry a disgrace to the military and was Al Gore an abortionist candidate. Like Mrdiscreet said, it's all in the marketing.

Yes.

[tt]

Hilary is Non Starter. Her Nomination would guarantee a Republican Victory in November '08. What ever on Earth are you bitching about. That is what you want is it not, at least another four (04) to eight (08) years of Republican do nothing rule?

[Iwantutowantme]

I donno.............I think Bush 2 is still the biggest lier on record.....but Hillary is only a distant second. If she gets in we can look at a war with Iran, syria, Turkey ..while she is polishing her nails.......... But Bush 2 is laying all the ground work for her all she has to do is push a button and it will all happen.....of of course the dems will be blamed for it.

[Iwantutowantme]

Hilary is Non Starter. Her Nomination would guarantee a Republican Victory in November '08. What ever on Earth are you bitching about. That is what you want is it not, at least another four (04) to eight (08) years of Republican do nothing rule?

Replicans are doing alot.........24/7 working to dismantle the manufacturing sector of the US, using NAFTA and CAFTA and every evil deed they can create. They are creating a debt that can never be paid by the next three generations of Americans...... borrowing money from China, Japan and Europe to pay for the present wars in Iraq and Afgahnistan. The corporate elite are pocketing the borrowed money that our kids, kids will be scraping to pay.

[Iwantutowantme]

Very good article loose.......tks for posting it... ;)

[Sneaky]

Hilary is Non Starter. Her Nomination would guarantee a Republican Victory in November '08. What ever on Earth are you bitching about. That is what you want is it not, at least another four (04) to eight (08) years of Republican do nothing rule?

I agree. If Hilary gets the Nomination the Dems can kiss another election goodbye. And if there is any election the Dems should take it would be this next one.

Of course, I said that the last time and look what happend.

[Iwantutowantme]

Poor Hillary is really taking a beating here. I wonder if she makes it to the nomination, will she take the same beating from the Republican nominee? Okay, we've established Hillary is a liar. Can anyone name a successful politician that isn't? The only recent one that comes to my mind as being "honest" was Jimmy Carter and we all know how well that worked for him. At least her lies haven't cost thousands of lives and billions of tax payers dollars like the lies of some other high profile individuals in the current administration. I know a number of you will say Bush, Cheney and his crew were not lying but merely misinformed. If you truly believe that, come down to Florida, I've got some swamp land I'd like to sell you.

In my opinion a "good politician" is one that can work both sides of the aisle and with the other world leaders to his or her and hopefully the country's advantage. If to accomplish that requires a little bending, flip flopping and yes even lying then so be it.

Presidents and presidential nominees should be judged by not only what they say they will do but also on what they actually get done whether it be good or bad. In an earlier post someone mentioned that Hillary was a major part of the policy making in her husbands administration. I believe this to be true, and I for one would welcome back the times of the Clinton administration: a budget surplus; at least an effort to reduce the national debt; no major, long lasting conflicts; more cops on the streets; more eco friendly, more respected by the world community, etc. etc.

I don't give Bill and Hillary all the credit for what occurred during their terms but I do blame the Bush administration for what has gone wrong during theirs.

If I don't vote for Hillary it won't be because she told a few comparatively innocent lies, it will be because I don't believe she is the best candidate to do the job of turning this country around and getting our priorities straight.

Let's not forget about B. Clinton's answer to 'free' trade. NAFTA . Alot of people are losing their jobs and the country is losing factories because of it. I think that NAFTA is a big reason that the middle class has been disappearing. But then Bush II helped create CAFTA. It's like giving away America on a silver platter.

[tt]

Any man or woman who claims to have never told a lie is a liar. Should Hillary be held to higher scrutiny and standards than the rest of us mere mortals because she is running for president? Maybe so. Has she lied more than any of the other viable candidates? Probably not. I consider Hillary to be as much of a liar as was John Kerry a disgrace to the military and was Al Gore an abortionist candidate. Like Mrdiscreet said, it's all in the marketing.

To answer your question, no one knows if Hillary will make a good president until she has the opportunity to try. I'd like to say she couldn't be any worse than what we have now but apparantly I'm not allowed to make comparisons.

It now being reported that at a recent campaign stop in Iowa, Hilary had people planted in the audience with prepared questions for her. Not quite as bad as the pre-packaged and pre-screened "Town Hall Meetings." of Georgie, where only those individuals who had signed a "Loyalty Oath." and all the questions were screened to insure no one challenged Bush, but it is up there.

Hilary is the one candidate the Republicans know they can beat. Dodd and Biden are a close second. I donot include Obama because he's more than likely going to be the V.P. Candidate.

In the end, voters in Iowa and New Hampshire will go into to the booth, see the names on the ballot, and vote with their gut. Deep down inside I just don't think people will want to throw away the White House by voting for a two term Senator (by the way, the last Sitting U.S. Senator to win the White House was John F. Kennedy) who is so damn polarizing.

If she does get the nomination, then the Republicans get the White House, and the dems will deserve the loss, they had a chance and blew it.

[p.a]

Is it about Hillary? Or is it about Bill?


A customer came into the store the other day and we got to talking about gas prices. During the conversation the customer made an interesting comment about voting for Hillary in order to get Bill back in the White-house. Suggesting that Bill may have some influence over Hillary and how she runs the country if elected.

I'm wondering if others who support Hillary are doing so for the same reason.


Opinions please.

[oldandnaked]

Is it about Hillary? Or is it about Bill?


A customer came into the store the other day and we got to talking about gas prices. During the conversation the customer made an interesting comment about voting for Hillary in order to get Bill back in the White-house. Suggesting that Bill may have some influence over Hillary and how she runs the country if elected.

I'm wondering if others who support Hillary are doing so for the same reason.


Opinions please.

Does anyone know of any married couple where one doesn't have "some influence" over the other? I believe Hillary had a limited amount of influence in Bills' decision making while he was in office and see no reason why he wouldn't if she were to be elected. They are respectful of each others opinions and intelligent enough to use their spouse as well as others as a sounding board for their thoughts on what's best for this country.

Bill Clinton is a man that is either very loved or very hated and yes I think if it weren't for Bill, Hillary wouldn't be a nominee. She has both endeared and turned off the voters on her own merits or lack of them depending on one's opinion but I think she would never have had the platform to do so without Bill.

To answer your question, yes, I think if you're a Bill Clinton fan, you're probably a Hillary supporter and if you aren't then the opposite would apply.

[oldandnaked]

It now being reported that at a recent campaign stop in Iowa, Hilary had people planted in the audience with prepared questions for her. Not quite as bad as the pre-packaged and pre-screened "Town Hall Meetings." of Georgie, where only those individuals who had signed a "Loyalty Oath." and all the questions were screened to insure no one challenged Bush, but it is up there.

Hilary is the one candidate the Republicans know they can beat. Dodd and Biden are a close second. I donot include Obama because he's more than likely going to be the V.P. Candidate.

In the end, voters in Iowa and New Hampshire will go into to the booth, see the names on the ballot, and vote with their gut. Deep down inside I just don't think people will want to throw away the White House by voting for a two term Senator (by the way, the last Sitting U.S. Senator to win the White House was John F. Kennedy) who is so damn polarizing.

If she does get the nomination, then the Republicans get the White House, and the dems will deserve the loss, they had a chance and blew it.

Any suggestions on who the Dems should nominate?

I hate to admit it but there is probably some truth in the fact that it would be difficult for Hillary to be elected. Not only because of her obvious affiliation with Bill, her political agenda and because of her being a "two term Senator" but also because of the simple fact that she's a woman. It's disheartning in this day an age that that would be a factor but I believe it would. I also believe Obama would have the same difficulty because of the sound of his name or the color of his skin.

If this is indeed the case then I guess the Dems better get behind Edwards. He's white, he's male and has a very American sounding name. Welcome to the 21st Century.

[Wil]

As a life long New Yorker, I would LOVE to hear from all of you folks in support of Hillary for president as to what she has done for the STATE of NEW YORK...


...she has done nothing for the manufacturing sector in NY state, jobs in that sector are in the basement and most recently...can't answer a simple question regarding drivers licenses for illegal immigrents (Gov. Eliott Spitzer, (D)-NY), sorry gang, everyday I go to work and look at the skyline, there are a couple of buildings missing...you know what...go ahead and elect her president...I'm willing to share....:55

[p.a]

I think she will probably be elected for 2 reasons. Bill Clinton and the republican party.
Bill Clinton because despite his faults and womanizing he was a better president than both Bush 1 and 2. And number 2 is that the Republican party has done one piss poor job of running the country for eight years. Just my opinion of course.

The country has not been this divided since the civil war under the republicans reign.

I'm not a Hillary supporter by no means. But I do listen to everyday people who come in to the store every morning. What I have heard is a consensus of discontent with the republican party in what has been and essentially red state for several years.

[Wil]

Will someone please remind me to skip this thread next time....my fucking heart can't take it...

[p.a]

Will someone please remind me to skip this thread next time....my fucking heart can't take it...

Sorry you feel that way Wil. Just my opinion.........Nothing personal.......

[oldandnaked]

As a life long New Yorker, I would LOVE to hear from all of you folks in support of Hillary for president as to what she has done for the STATE of NEW YORK...


...she has done nothing for the manufacturing sector in NY state, jobs in that sector are in the basement and most recently...can't answer a simple question regarding drivers licenses for illegal immigrents (Gov. Eliott Spitzer, (D)-NY), sorry gang, everyday I go to work and look at the skyline, there are a couple of buildings missing...you know what...go ahead and elect her president...I'm willing to share....:55

Your post reminds me of what a friend of mine who lived in Texas told me when GW was first elected. That this country is in serious trouble. He turned out to be right and if Hillary is elected you may be as well. Time and circumstances will tell. I agree her unwillingness to take a stand on the driver liscense issue was a mistake on her part. I would have a greater respect for her if she would have answered directly. No one ever accused of her of not being a politician. Although I do think it's a bit unfair to lay the blame for the "missing buildings" on her shoulders as it is to blame her and the democratic Governor for the loss of manufacturing jobs. That predicament is not isolated to the state of New York. It's a problem felt in nearly every state of the union. If blame is to be cast, then it should be on the Federal government.

[Wil]

Sorry you feel that way Wil. Just my opinion.........Nothing personal.......

none taken...

[Wil]

Your post reminds me of what a friend of mine who lived in Texas told me when GW was first elected. That this country is in serious trouble. He turned out to be right and if Hillary is elected you may be as well. Time and circumstances will tell. I agree her unwillingness to take a stand on the driver liscense issue was a mistake on her part. I would have a greater respect for her if she would have answered directly. No one ever accused of her of not being a politician. Although I do think it's a bit unfair to lay the blame for the "missing buildings" on her shoulders as it is to blame her and the democratic Governor for the loss of manufacturing jobs. That predicament is not isolated to the state of New York. It's a problem felt in nearly every state of the union. If blame is to be cast, then it should be on the Federal government.

Question stands...What has she done and what qualifiers her for the job...

[p.a]

Question stands...What has she done and what qualifiers her for the job...

I think that question can apply to all the candidates being that none of them have ever been a president before. Again I don't think it's her qualifications that's going to get her elected. I think it's more the mood of the country. In the last congressional elections it wasn't anything the Democrats did that won them congress and the Senate. Basically it was a vote against the Republican party. I think the same sentiment will put Hillary in the White-house unless the Republicans can pull a candidate out of the rabbit hat that can beat her. Huckabee would be a good choice but Guiliani, Romney, and Fred Thompson are using up all the press. Again just my opinion. The independent voters are going to decide the presidential election and right now from what I have read independents are leaning blue.

[Wil]

I think that question can apply to all the candidates being that none of them have ever been a president before. Again I don't think it's her qualifications that's going to get her elected. I think it's more the mood of the country. In the last congressional elections it wasn't anything the Democrats did that won them congress and the Senate. Basically it was a vote against the Republican party. I think the same sentiment will put Hillary in the White-house unless the Republicans can pull a candidate out of the rabbit hat that can beat her. Huckabee would be a good choice but Guiliani, Romney, and Fred Thompson are using up all the press. Again just my opinion. The independent voters are going to decide the presidential election and right now from what I have read independents are leaning blue.

Peter my friend...all of the gentlemen you reference have held office...some have actually run state (ma) or local government (nyc)...that goes for both sides of the isle...Ms. Hillary, the jr. Senator from NY, bought a house in Chappaqua and ran for office in the most democratic state in the union and not run a government...and while oldandnaked is correct in that the manufacturing problem is a national problem...it does not change the fact that she has done nothing for the State...her "home" state...and by the way...Chuckie Schumer would make a fine Vice-President...

[p.a]

Peter my friend...all of the gentlemen you reference have held office...some have actually run state (ma) or local government (nyc)...that goes for both sides of the isle...Ms. Hillary, the jr. Senator from NY, bought a house in Chappaqua and ran for office in the most democratic state in the union and not run a government...and while oldandnaked is correct in that the manufacturing problem is a national problem...it does not change the fact that she has done nothing for the State...her "home" state...and by the way...Chuckie Schumer would make a fine Vice-President...

I do agree...all your points are good ones. But again I don't think any of that matters to the general public. Like I have stated, people are going to vote against the republican party unless the find a way to bring the country back to pre Bush government, or they catch Hillary sleeping with Rosie O'donnell.

Personally I think Barak Obama would make a better choice but this country is not ready for a black president unfortunately.

[Iwantutowantme]

I think she will probably be elected for 2 reasons. Bill Clinton and the republican party.
Bill Clinton because despite his faults and womanizing he was a better president than both Bush 1 and 2. And number 2 is that the Republican party has done one piss poor job of running the country for eight years. Just my opinion of course.

The country has not been this divided since the civil war under the republicans reign.

I'm not a Hillary supporter by no means. But I do listen to everyday people who come in to the store every morning. What I have heard is a consensus of discontent with the republican party in what has been and essentially red state for several years.

Is it just a coincidence that you named Bill Clinton and the republican party in the same sentance? It's my opinon (conspiracy nut of course) that Mr clinton was really a republican in a democrats clothing. He did very little to change the military agenda that Bush one left him with. He did alot to create NAFTA. Which, in my opinon did very little for the middle and poor classes and alot for the very weathy. The damage that this treaty has done is more than what a dozen atomic bombs could have done...and it is still draining the manufacturing sector of the US. But then Bush II expanded on the idea and helped to create CAFTA ....and he wanted more countries to enter the slave trade deals. hope you have a nice Thanksgiving day...... :)

Oh yes.....I believe that Hillary has been groomed for US presidentcy well before her husband was president.........you can take that to the bank.... I personally have been canvasing for my choice for president since I am from Iowa. I have had a close look at alot of the candidates. It will take alot to turn around the ruins of the past four presidents........ Kripto..... Lets vote for change and hope......:)

[Iwantutowantme]

I do agree...all your points are good ones. But again I don't think any of that matters to the general public. Like I have stated, people are going to vote against the republican party unless the find a way to bring the country back to pre Bush government, or they catch Hillary sleeping with Rosie O'donnell.

Personally I think Barak Obama would make a better choice but this country is not ready for a black president unfortunately.

I agree!!!!!. But I think his skin color will not make as much of a difference as you think..................

[p.a]

I agree!!!!!. But I think his skin color will not make as much of a difference as you think..................

I can't agree. congress woman Maxine Waters ( Black congress woman ) was recently asked on the Bill Mahre show who she was supporting. Her answer was Hillary Clinton because " we want to win ". When asked about Barak Obama she sort of brushed the question off. Hillary leads Obama in the pole of black voters. Black leaders like Al Sharpton support Hillary and she has been endorsed by the black caucus. While Obama has the support of many white voters, many black voters don't think he can win especially in the south. I like Obama. I think he is the best choice of all the candidates because I believe he would unite the country. It's the perception that he's non electable.........

I really hope I am wrong.

[tt]

I think she will probably be elected for 2 reasons. Bill Clinton and the republican party.
Bill Clinton because despite his faults and womanizing he was a better president than both Bush 1 and 2. And number 2 is that the Republican party has done one piss poor job of running the country for eight years. Just my opinion of course.

The country has not been this divided since the civil war under the republicans reign.

I'm not a Hillary supporter by no means. But I do listen to everyday people who come in to the store every morning. What I have heard is a consensus of discontent with the republican party in what has been and essentially red state for several years.

I doubt if she will be the nominee. She is way to polarizing for one. To much baggage from bill is another reason. Her support for and then running away from the Iraq debacle is another. She voted for the amendment making the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, which Bush could use as a backdoor excuse for attacking Iran.

People will do a gut check before voting for her. Remember Howard Dean was unbeatable before Iowa, as was John McCain.

No, Hilary is a non-starter.

[p.a]

I doubt if she will be the nominee. She is way to polarizing for one. To much baggage from bill is another reason. Her support for and then running away from the Iraq debacle is another. She voted for the amendment making the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, which Bush could use as a backdoor excuse for attacing Iran.

People will do a gut check before voting for her. Remember Howard Dean was unbeatable before Iowa, as was John McCain.

No, Hilary is a non-starter.

I have no problem with that.....I hope your right.

[tt]

I have no problem with that.....I hope your right.

You ain't the only one brother.

[Iwantutowantme]

Your post reminds me of what a friend of mine who lived in Texas told me when GW was first elected. That this country is in serious trouble. He turned out to be right and if Hillary is elected you may be as well. Time and circumstances will tell. I agree her unwillingness to take a stand on the driver liscense issue was a mistake on her part. I would have a greater respect for her if she would have answered directly. No one ever accused of her of not being a politician. Although I do think it's a bit unfair to lay the blame for the "missing buildings" on her shoulders as it is to blame her and the democratic Governor for the loss of manufacturing jobs. That predicament is not isolated to the state of New York. It's a problem felt in nearly every state of the union. If blame is to be cast, then it should be on the Federal government.
*******
Dont quote me on this...... but I do remember former president Clinton helping to create NAFTA......which has led to the loss of many manufacturing jobs.....Wonder if his wife will expand on Bush II's CAFTA.....will she call it AFTA?

[Iwantutowantme]

I can't agree. congress woman Maxine Waters ( Black congress woman ) was recently asked on the Bill Mahre show who she was supporting. Her answer was Hillary Clinton because " we want to win ". When asked about Barak Obama she sort of brushed the question off. Hillary leads Obama in the pole of black voters. Black leaders like Al Sharpton support Hillary and she has been endorsed by the black caucus. While Obama has the support of many white voters, many black voters don't think he can win especially in the south. I like Obama. I think he is the best choice of all the candidates because I believe he would unite the country. It's the perception that he's non electable.........

I really hope I am wrong.

Me too.... I also believe he is the candidate that can unite Americans.....

[oldandnaked]

We have another year for any of the nominees of both parties to rise to the top or shoot themselves in the foot and sink out of sight. I for one am looking forward to watching how it all plays out. Obama, whom I have much respect for and I think is truly an honest and dedicated servant with some fresh and well meaning ideas and plans, I believe would turn out to be a relatively ineffective president because he lacks the "quality" he puts Hillary down for, being too much like the "old guard". Unfortunately just wanting to accomplish things doesn't make them happen and that is specially true in Washington. Without the ability and desire to "smooze", compromise and wheel and deal, (in other words be an old guard politician) to get your ideas and plans implemented you'll just sit there spinning your wheels. Jimmy Carter was a good example of this. An honorable man with worthy ambitions but an impotent leader. Hillary on the other hand is pragmatic and has the ability to work both sides of the aisle. Unfortunately, although honesty and integrity are still extremely admirable traits and I sometimes question Hillary in those areas as I do most other candidates, we truly need someone to reunite this country and be able to gets things done with the assistance not the opposition of their peers in Washington. Will Hillary, someone else or anyone be able to do it? The next few years will tell.

[tt]

Any suggestions on who the Dems should nominate?

I hate to admit it but there is probably some truth in the fact that it would be difficult for Hillary to be elected. Not only because of her obvious affiliation with Bill, her political agenda and because of her being a "two term Senator" but also because of the simple fact that she's a woman. It's disheartning in this day an age that that would be a factor but I believe it would. I also believe Obama would have the same difficulty because of the sound of his name or the color of his skin.

If this is indeed the case then I guess the Dems better get behind Edwards. He's white, he's male and has a very American sounding name. Welcome to the 21st Century.

Well the news out to Iowa now that Clinton, Edwards and Obama are in statistical dead heat. Hilary is just not electable.

The Republicans want her to be nominee because they know they can beat her. With her name on the ballot in November '08, there will be a large number of people who will vote "Any Body But Hilary."

Just check out the number of sites with that very quote as your search string on google, then ask why she is running.

[p.a]

*******
Dont quote me on this...... but I do remember former president Clinton helping to create NAFTA......which has led to the loss of many manufacturing jobs.....Wonder if his wife will expand on Bush II's CAFTA.....will she call it AFTA?

You are absolutely correct. It started out as George Bush Sr's. baby..Remember that million dollar gift to George from the Chinese Government?
But Bill pushed it through to appease The Republican party.

[something_more]

If that bitch gets in........I'm going to be a Canadian.

oh canada our home and native land... im practicing just in case

[oldandnaked]

oh canada our home and native land... im practicing just in case

Alec Baldwin sang the same tune when GW got reelected, he's still here. I'm guessing if Hillary gets in, most of you folks claiming to make the trek up north will be as well.

[something_more]

Alec Baldwin sang the same tune when GW got reelected, he's still here. I'm guessing if Hillary gets in, most of you folks claiming to make the trek up north will be as well.
actually I have a job offer in japan. I work in the defense industry and if hillary does get elected im giving it an 80 percent chance I will take it.

[oldandnaked]

actually I have a job offer in japan. I work in the defense industry and if hillary does get elected im giving it an 80 percent chance I will take it.

Hell, I'd go if she get's elected or not. Unless you're tied to family here that's an opportunity that often comes only once in a lifetime. Someone once said, "the world is a book and one who does not travel reads only one page".

[Postman]

Well there is only one thing to do about this situation folks..................VOTE!!!!!!!!!!

[tt]

Well there is only one thing to do about this situation folks..................VOTE!!!!!!!!!!

If every registered voter in the U.S. actually voted, it would take days to vote, and even more days to count the vote. I for one would love it.

[spare_change]

There once was a movement to make voting mandatory -- everybody would have to vote, even if it was to mark your ballot that you didn't want to select a candidate.

Is that viable?

[Cotties]

yes it is very viable and should be your patriotic duty by law


India is by far a more democratic country than the U.S but for some reason so many Americans [from what I can see]think the U.S has the greatest democracy in the world even though so few think its worth going to the ballet box...

and on a side note..In Australia our semi equivalent to the U.S democratic party was voted in last night after an 11 year rule by our prime minister John Howard who leads our liberal party. The country in the last 11 years has been the strongest financially ever, lowest unemployment ever, low interest rates and prosperity like never before. It's a shame such a good leader was voted out but it seems like people are looking for change....I wonder what they are expecting.
There once was a movement to make voting mandatory -- everybody would have to vote, even if it was to mark your ballot that you didn't want to select a candidate.

Is that viable?

[mrdiscreet]

yes it is very viable and should be your patriotic duty by law


India is by far a more democratic country than the U.S but for some reason so many Americans [from what I can see]think the U.S has the greatest democracy in the world even though so few think its worth going to the ballet box...

and on a side note..In Australia our semi equivalent to the U.S democratic party was voted in last night after an 11 year rule by our prime minister John Howard who leads our liberal party. The country in the last 11 years has been the strongest financially ever, lowest unemployment ever, low interest rates and prosperity like never before. It's a shame such a good leader was voted out but it seems like people are looking for change....I wonder what they are expecting.

Maybe to get out of Iraq and start mending the hole in the ozone layer shredded above your fair skies?

[oldandnaked]

There once was a movement to make voting mandatory -- everybody would have to vote, even if it was to mark your ballot that you didn't want to select a candidate.

Is that viable?

Not sure it wouldn't be viable, but I think it would be a bad idea. I'd like to go a step further and say voters should be required to take a test in order to cast their ballots. One that would require some knowledge of the candidates and issues. I'd like to, but that I realize wouldn't be viable. The reason I say that is because with the way things are now, quite often people go into the voting booth to select the candidate of their choice in a particular race, usually for a high profile position such as the presidency or governorship, etc. while knowing absolutely nothing about the other races, judges, local representatives, etc., on the same ticket. Consequently they vote for the name that sounds most appealing or for whatever reason that pops into their heads at the moment without having a clue about the qualifications of their choice in these "lesser" contests. I'm not convinced this is the best way to select the best person for the job.

[tt]

There once was a movement to make voting mandatory -- everybody would have to vote, even if it was to mark your ballot that you didn't want to select a candidate.

Is that viable?

Something we agree on spare. It would force candidates to actually do more than photo ops and sound bites.

[p.a]

Take the money out of the campaigns. Every candidate gets free time by all the major networks for one month before the poles open. Simple questions with no spin simple straight forward answers. No personal or political attacks against there opponent. You only bring your baggage to the table.

Institute term limits, no congressional office held over 2 terms. Same as the President.

You got 6 years to make policy and 2 years to groom your successor whom we decide will succeed you in an election held 2 years prior to your retirement.

[tt]

If Hilary looses in Iowa (Which I hope she does), she will have only five (05) days to bounce back in New Hampshire. If she looses in New Hampshire, she is out.

The latest polls in Iowa show her running second to Obama. For every dollar Hilary has, Obama as $1.85. Just three weeks ago she was ahead.

I look forward to her withdrawing.

[Iwantutowantme]

If Hilary looses in Iowa (Which I hope she does), she will have only five (05) days to bounce back in New Hampshire. If she looses in New Hampshire, she is out.

The latest polls in Iowa show her running second to Obama. For every dollar Hilary has, Obama as $1.85. Just three weeks ago she was ahead.

I look forward to her withdrawing.

I second that opinion...:)

[Cotties]

I would say he will be doing both...lets just hope he is making the right decisionsMaybe to get out of Iraq and start mending the hole in the ozone layer shredded above your fair skies?

[Cotties]

I can't see why people should sit for a test to become legible...In australia we all have to vote in order to not be fined...

At the top of the ballet paper we have 7 or so parties..we have a choice..take one box from the top choices [being the seven] or fill in your the bottom section choosing the senators in order of preferences...knowing all 72 seats takes some knowledge...

so in this format the knowledgeable and the not so knowledgeable can express their desires for which leadership they prefer...and at the end of the day

every man and women over 18 in our country has had their say...even the so called disheartenedNot sure it wouldn't be viable, but I think it would be a bad idea. I'd like to go a step further and say voters should be required to take a test in order to cast their ballots. One that would require some knowledge of the candidates and issues. .

[oldandnaked]

Suggesting that people be required to take a test was merely wishful thinking on my part. I realize that's not a very realistic or viable suggestion. I am suprised to hear that one can be fined for not voting in Australia. Seems to me that's carrying things too far in the other direction. Shouldn't one have the right not to vote?

[Sandy]

i don't think she'll withdraw, shes doing what most people due when there running, shes lying her ass off, to give you what she thinks you wants, but doesn't releize we're not stupid, and see her for what she really is.

[spare_change]

Suggesting that people be required to take a test was merely wishful thinking on my part. I realize that's not a very realistic or viable suggestion. I am suprised to hear that one can be fined for not voting in Australia. Seems to me that's carrying things too far in the other direction. Shouldn't one have the right not to vote?


Unquestionably, not voting is a statement (of what, I'm not sure -- usually laziness and self absorption), but the proposal I saw mandated that you go to the polls, but you could opt (mark a box) to not cast any vote.

[mrdiscreet]

If people can't be bothered to vote, what is their vote worth?

We've reached the point where we take a lot for granted in this country, maybe we don't deserve to be free anymore, if no one cares to actually exercise the responsibilities that come with the rights of being a citizen ...

I'm stuck by how often we have to turn to foreign news sources for real news; how little most Americans care for news beyond entertainment puff pieces.

[spare_change]

i don't think she'll withdraw, shes doing what most people due when there running, shes lying her ass off, to give you what she thinks you wants, but doesn't releize we're not stupid, and see her for what she really is.


SANDY!!!!


Damn, I've missed your sweet ass!! (Oh yeah, the rest of you, too!) Welcome back!

[tt]

Hilary (in my opinion) seems to think that she has a right to be the Nominee of her party. I know that the candidates have to put forward a good face, but it goes beyond that, she and the people around (including Bill) are arrogant.

I am also very put off by what she called "ganging up" on her. What does she expect in the General Election? What will happen when the Republicans start their campaign in earnest against her? She won't be able to cry foul then.

[Cotties]

donkey votes are common...as long as you get your name marked off a list and get given the electoral form...you may do what you like as long as you place it in the box before you leave..there is no name or number on the form.


but better yet...we have small party that know they may only get a seat or two...their slogen is.."we'll keep the bastards honest"..the bastards being one of the two main parties that always wins.
Unquestionably, not voting is a statement (of what, I'm not sure -- usually laziness and self absorption), but the proposal I saw mandated that you go to the polls, but you could opt (mark a box) to not cast any vote.

[Postman]

Doesn't look like I'll need to become Canadian.
F*^#ing bitch

[Cotties]

I feel one should not have the right not to vote. For a democracy to thrive everyone must be involved. What they choose to do with their ballot paper is their right. They can draw funny faces if they choose. Saying that we have a much smaller population even though spread out over the same sized land mass does make it easier.A few minutes out of a persons life every few years is a small price to pay to ensure a fair and just democracy.


The act was enabled with this explaination.

"
In 1911, the former Act was

amended to make enrolment compulsory.

In 1924, to increase voter turnout and

reduce party campaign expenditure, the

Act was amended to make voting at federal

elections compulsory."


But not knowing enough about your polital system let alone ours. I see the biggest advantage in our political system is that a poor man can rise to power thru his political party. We more so vote for a party rather than a man. Also our ministers can only be appointed for roles [e.g finacial minister] after they have been voted in by holding a majority of votes in his local constituency. I'm under the understanding your elected leader may choose who he pleases to fill the roles of the government after he is elected. Am I incorrect in that presumption



Suggesting that people be required to take a test was merely wishful thinking on my part. I realize that's not a very realistic or viable suggestion. I am suprised to hear that one can be fined for not voting in Australia. Seems to me that's carrying things too far in the other direction. Shouldn't one have the right not to vote?

[oldandnaked]

Unquestionably, not voting is a statement (of what, I'm not sure -- usually laziness and self absorption), but the proposal I saw mandated that you go to the polls, but you could opt (mark a box) to not cast any vote.

I think everyone should educate themselves on the candidates, understand that voting is both a right and a priviledge, should have a desire to participate in the political process and should be extremely grateful to be living in a country where these things are possible. Having said that, I'm still not convinced requiring citizens to vote is a good idea.

Just because there is a box that gives one the option to not cast a vote doesn't neccessarily mean one has the good sense to use it. I can easily picture the scenario where someone who was "forced" to vote, that is clueless on the issues, will make his choice because he/she likes the sound of a candidates name over his opponents, or vote for a male over a female or vice versa, etc.

Here in Florida, as it is I would imagine in all states, we not only vote for persons running for public office but also important issues such as amendments to the state constitution. I'm not sure it would be advantageous to the population to have every Tom, Dick and Mary be forced to help decide the fate of said amendment when probably nearly a third of them would have no idea what they are voting for or against.

Voting is like parenting, everyone should have the right to do it, but no one should be forced to, particularly the ones who wouldn't do it well. You know, the politically unconscious, the "lazy" and the "self absorbed".

[Annie]

I think everyone should educate themselves on the candidates, understand that voting is both a right and a priviledge, should have a desire to participate in the political process and should be extremely grateful to be living in a country where these things are possible. Having said that, I'm still not convinced requiring citizens to vote is a good idea.

Just because there is a box that gives one the option to not cast a vote doesn't neccessarily mean one has the good sense to use it. I can easily picture the scenario where someone who was "forced" to vote, that is clueless on the issues, will make his choice because he/she likes the sound of a candidates name over his opponents, or vote for a male over a female or vice versa, etc.

Here in Florida, as it is I would imagine in all states, we not only vote for persons running for public office but also important issues such as amendments to the state constitution. I'm not sure it would be advantageous to the population to have every Tom, Dick and Mary be forced to help decide the fate of said amendment when probably nearly a third of them would have no idea what they are voting for or against.

Voting is like parenting, everyone should have the right to do it, but no one should be forced to, particularly the ones who wouldn't do it well. You know, the politically unconscious, the "lazy" and the "self absorbed".It's not a "right" or a "privilege", it's an obligation as an American citizen. Too many people don't get that!

[tt]

According to the latest polls out of Iowa, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama and Former Senator Edwards are now in a statistical dead heat. Senator Obama is ahead of Senator Clinton by three (03) points. Former Senator Edwards is been holding steady at Twnety-Three Percent (23%) of Iowans polled.


Senator Clinton must place a solid first or second coming out of Iowa to win in New Hampshire, which is only five (05) days after the Iowa Straw Poll. Should she place second, it will force her to spend more money than planned.

People are looking Clinton and not likeing what they see. She is abrupt, arrogant and some what condecending to people. Her vote in support of the military action in Iraq is hurting her, as is her vote to put the Iranian Revolutionary Guard on the Terrorist Watch List.

What seemed a certain nomination only a few short months ago has turned into a real horse race.

And Hilary won't be the winner.

[spare_change]

I think everyone should educate themselves on the candidates, understand that voting is both a right and a priviledge, should have a desire to participate in the political process and should be extremely grateful to be living in a country where these things are possible. Having said that, I'm still not convinced requiring citizens to vote is a good idea.

Just because there is a box that gives one the option to not cast a vote doesn't neccessarily mean one has the good sense to use it. I can easily picture the scenario where someone who was "forced" to vote, that is clueless on the issues, will make his choice because he/she likes the sound of a candidates name over his opponents, or vote for a male over a female or vice versa, etc.

Here in Florida, as it is I would imagine in all states, we not only vote for persons running for public office but also important issues such as amendments to the state constitution. I'm not sure it would be advantageous to the population to have every Tom, Dick and Mary be forced to help decide the fate of said amendment when probably nearly a third of them would have no idea what they are voting for or against.

Voting is like parenting, everyone should have the right to do it, but no one should be forced to, particularly the ones who wouldn't do it well. You know, the politically unconscious, the "lazy" and the "self absorbed".


I understand your point, but I got to tell ya -- I get this "elitist" impression ... "most people aren't smart enough or educated enough or aware enough to vote, so leave it to those of us who are."

I guess I got a little more faith in our citizenry than you do. I really didn't have a position one way or the other on this issue until this thread, but I must admit now I'm leaning toward mandatory voting.

[Shiane]

The biggest problem I see with mandatory voting is uninformed voters. If we could have mandatory knowledge with mandatory voting I would be 100% for it. Yeah, like that will happen! :whee:

To be perfectly honest here I would like to see an end to party ties. I know a lot of people, (Yellow Dog Democrats) who would vote for whoever the democratic candidate is regardless of what they stand for, God forbid, even Hillary.

I don't look at who is a Republican or who is a Democrat. I look at what they stand for, how they feel about issues that are important to me. The way I see it is that we are divided, either you are a Rep or a Dem. One party is always blaming the other or trying to make them look bad. When we should all be more concerned with filling it with candidates who care more about the issues than they do about party affiliation. If each party spent their time in office working for us instead of trying to make the other guy look like a bafoon, we could have some real good come out of it.

We need to look at public office just like any other job we are hiring for. When I look at any other job, I look for the guy who is gonna do the best job for me at the best price. Can you imagine how hard these guys would be working if they got paid only for what they got accomplished? LOL, there would be a whole lot less talk and a whole lot more action.

[mrdiscreet]

The biggest problem I see with mandatory voting is uninformed voters. If we could have mandatory knowledge with mandatory voting I would be 100% for it. Yeah, like that will happen! :whee:

To be perfectly honest here I would like to see an end to party ties. I know a lot of people, (Yellow Dog Democrats) who would vote for whoever the democratic candidate is regardless of what they stand for, God forbid, even Hillary.

I don't look at who is a Republican or who is a Democrat. I look at what they stand for, how they feel about issues that are important to me. The way I see it is that we are divided, either you are a Rep or a Dem. One party is always blaming the other or trying to make them look bad. When we should all be more concerned with filling it with candidates who care more about the issues than they do about party affiliation. If each party spent their time in office working for us instead of trying to make the other guy look like a bafoon, we could have some real good come out of it.

We need to look at public office just like any other job we are hiring for. When I look at any other job, I look for the guy who is gonna do the best job for me at the best price. Can you imagine how hard these guys would be working if they got paid only for what they got accomplished? LOL, there would be a whole lot less talk and a whole lot more action.

This has largely already happened. There are now more Independent voters than Dem or Rep. It would be interesting to see what might happen with a moderate 3d party ticket, willing to blow off the wacko interest groups on both the right and the left..

[Cotties]

It's interesting to see how uneducated you think the majority of non voters are. Does anyone really believe people would just vote for a name. Perhaps the parties might be forced to make their agenda more simplified for the common man or use smaller words on billboards.

One man one vote...I'm not even that fussed about women being eligable to vote The biggest problem I see with mandatory voting is uninformed voters. If we could have mandatory knowledge with mandatory voting I would be 100% for it. Yeah, like that will happen! :whee:

.

[cherokeered]

It's interesting to see how uneducated you think the majority of non voters are. Does anyone really believe people would just vote for a name. Perhaps the parties might be forced to make their agenda more simplified for the common man or use smaller words on billboards.

One man one vote...I'm not even that fussed about women being eligable to vote

The majority of people are sheep who vote for the party their grandfather's belonged to.....and yes, they would vote for a name...how do u think arnold became governor????

[Boredmarriedlover]

The majority of people are sheep who vote for the party their grandfather's belonged to.....and yes, they would vote for a name...how do u think arnold became governor????

Muscled his way through the :shp: :shp: :shp:

[cherokeered]

Muscled his way through the :shp: :shp: :shp:


ye...on the shoulders of his wife and hollywood.....

[Boredmarriedlover]

read my joke on the joke forum? "a good one i heard today". It sets the bar.

[oldandnaked]

It's not a "right" or a "privilege", it's an obligation as an American citizen. Too many people don't get that!

Couldn't agree more. Voting is an obligation and as with most obligations, there comes responsibility. Some of us go to great lengths to learn about the candidates and issues by watching the debates, through the media and by whatever sources are available to us. Others choose their candidate by what they pick up from sound bites in the 30 second ads aired during the commercial breaks of "American Idol" or "My Name is Earl". I'm not trying to sound like an elitist here, I personally fall somewhere in the middle of those two categories and I actually like both those shows.

I certainly don't advocate anyones right to vote should be restricted or discouraged and I think all of us here agree that everone should feel it's their duty to vote in both local and national elections. My problem is mandating it. Would this requirement be for currently registered voters or would it be all inclusive for eligible citizens?

If my vote is going to be cancelled out by a voter of an opposing view that has educated himself and is voting with his heart or his mind, I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is my vote being cancelled out by someone who is only voting because they "have to" and who may know the names of "Britney Spears" children or all three of the words to one of her songs but thinks "Condi Rice" is Uncle Ben's latest flavor. There I go sounding like an elitist again.

Like I said before, we all agree everyone should vote but if my memory serves me correctly, the original question was should it be mandatory?

[oldandnaked]

I understand your point, but I got to tell ya -- I get this "elitist" impression ... "most people aren't smart enough or educated enough or aware enough to vote, so leave it to those of us who are."

I guess I got a little more faith in our citizenry than you do. I really didn't have a position one way or the other on this issue until this thread, but I must admit now I'm leaning toward mandatory voting.

I would never say "most people aren't smart enough or educated enough or aware enough to vote", I would say a very small percentage are, but certainly not most.

Have you ever seen the segment on Leno where he goes into the street and asks passersby simple questions regarding our government and leaders? Listen to some of their answers and you may feel a little elitist yourself.

I also believe There are many smart, educated and aware people out there that choose not to vote because they have no interest in politics, a disenchantment with our government or for whatever their reason may be. I don't agree with their decision to not participate in the proccess but I defend their right not to.

[Annie]

I would never say "most people aren't smart enough or educated enough or aware enough to vote", I would say a very small percentage are, but certainly not most.

Have you ever seen the segment on Leno where he goes into the street and asks passerbys simple questions regarding our government and leaders? Listen to some of their answers and you may feel a little elitist yourself.

I also believe There are many smart, educated and aware people out there that choose not to vote because they have no interest in politics, a disenchantment with our government or for whatever their reason may be. I don't agree with their decision to not participate in the proccess but I defend their right not to.
I have seen those segments on Jay Leno and I have always wondered.... how many people did he ask that question of, before he found the idiot with the stupid answer that he showed on air?

I don't put any value on the polling done on a comedian's talk show.

[oldandnaked]

I have seen those segments on Jay Leno and I have always wondered.... how many people did he ask that question of, before he found the idiot with the stupid answer that he showed on air?

I don't put any value on the polling done on a comedian's talk show.

I agree those segments are edited and are used purely for entertainment value. I certainly didn't mean to imply that the people aired represent the majority of Americans. I would also contend that the people with the "stupid answer" aren't neccessarily "idiots", just politically challenged or disinterested. They do bolster my argument that not everyone should be mandated to vote. I've pretty much fallen in line with you on most issues and truly respect your opinion, do you think voting should be mandatory?

[Sneaky]

I also believe There are many smart, educated and aware people out there that choose not to vote because they have no interest in politics, a disenchantment with our government or for whatever their reason may be. I don't agree with their decision to not participate in the proccess but I defend their right not to.

I was talking about this with someone yesterday, and they brought up a very good point. We are overloaded with information when it comes to politics. What you watch, and what you read will determine the "spin" you'll get on a certain issue. I think some poeple try to stay well informed, but get confused trying to figure out what is truth and what is spin.

[spare_change]

I was talking about this with someone yesterday, and they brought up a very good point. We are overloaded with information when it comes to politics. What you watch, and what you read will determine the "spin" you'll get on a certain issue. I think some poeple try to stay well informed, but get confused trying to figure out what is truth and what is spin.



Amen.

[Annie]

I agree those segments are edited and are used purely for entertainment value. I certainly didn't mean to imply that the people aired represent the majority of Americans. I would also contend that the people with the "stupid answer" aren't necessarily "idiots", just politically challenged or disinterested. They do bolster my argument that not everyone should be mandated to vote. I've pretty much fallen in line with you on most issues and truly respect your opinion, do you think voting should be mandatory? No, I don't think voting should be mandatory. That would create more problems than it would solve!! What are we going to do... call out the Election Police?

You are right though, "politically challenged" is a much better word for those "less informed".

[tt]

I would be in favor of having weekend voting. Even better, start the polling on the Friday before election day in November. Have four (04) full days of voting.

Polls could open at 6:00 A.M. and close at 6:00 P.M. on Friday and Monday. For Saturday and Sunday, open the polls at 8:00 A.M. and close at 5:00 P.M. This would allow those who might otherwise not be able to find time to vote, to go down and fill out their ballot. There should a complusory ban on "Exit Polling." and no results of any of the polls would be made public until Tuesday Election Day.

Election Day itself would a mandatory National Holiday. At a pre-arranged time argeed up by all interested parties, the results of the Election would be made public.

The right to challenge the election results would be also be made public. Any voting irregularities would be automatically challenged, and if need be a re-vote could be taken.

[Pebbles]

Okay..a question here. Do you think that Americans who live abroad should be able to vote???

[Willy S]

yes

[Willy S]

in national elections at least

[spare_change]

Okay..a question here. Do you think that Americans who live abroad should be able to vote???

Of course.

[Sneaky]

Okay..a question here. Do you think that Americans who live abroad should be able to vote???

Yes, I think so also.

[Iwantutowantme]

I would be in favor of having weekend voting. Even better, start the polling on the Friday before election day in November. Have four (04) full days of voting.

Polls could open at 6:00 A.M. and close at 6:00 P.M. on Friday and Monday. For Saturday and Sunday, open the polls at 8:00 A.M. and close at 5:00 P.M. This would allow those who might otherwise not be able to find time to vote, to go down and fill out their ballot. There should a complusory ban on "Exit Polling." and no results of any of the polls would be made public until Tuesday Election Day.

Election Day itself would a mandatory National Holiday. At a pre-arranged time argeed up by all interested parties, the results of the Election would be made public.

The right to challenge the election results would be also be made public. Any voting irregularities would be automatically challenged, and if need be a re-vote could be taken.

************
Some very good points! ----- Mandatory voting is a bad idea. It takes our freedom of choice away from us. I think a very strict crackdown on voter fraud needs to be put in place before the 08 elections. It is doubtful that it will happen under the present administration since, in my opinion, that is how Bush got elected twice.

[tt]

yes

As long as they have not given up their U.S. Citizenship YES. Just because a person is living oveseas does not mean they are still not Citizens of the U.S. Citizens of Foreign Countries living in the U.S. vote in the elections held in their native country, why should the U.S. be any different?

[Shiane]

It's interesting to see how uneducated you think the majority of non voters are. Does anyone really believe people would just vote for a name. Perhaps the parties might be forced to make their agenda more simplified for the common man or use smaller words on billboards.

One man one vote...I'm not even that fussed about women being eligable to vote

LOL yeah the day we women got the right to vote is the day we got to have an opinion. Damn hindsight is 20-20 for sure! :D

Honestly though, you would be so shocked to see how many people vote strictly based on party lines. They will vote Dem just to get the Rep out and vice versa.

It would interesting to see a box on the ballot for NONE OF THE ABOVE lol. There have been many times I would have liked to checked that box.:whee:

[Wil]

Nope...not today...it's too nice a day...

[spare_change]

Democrats: Party of the ‘rich’

For years, Democrats have labeled Republicans the “party of the rich.” But as it turns out—and as is often the case with the Left—their rhetoric doesn’t match the reality. A study done by the Heritage Foundation using IRS data found that (a) more than half of the nation’s richest households are in states where Democrats hold both Senate seats, and (b) Democrats control most of the nation’s richest congressional districts.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s California district, for example, boasts 43,700 “rich” households, while House Republican Leader John Boehner’s Ohio district has only 7,000 households with equivalent wealth. What’s more, even in Republican states, Democrats tend to control the wealthier areas.

This may explain the conundrum that’s hit the Democrat presidential candidates in defining who is “rich” and, by Democrat default, “taxable.” Senators Clinton and Obama squabbled over this during the recent Democrat debate in Las Vegas. Obama suggested he might support raising the $97,500 “upper-class” income limit on the Social Security payroll tax, but Clinton argued she is unwilling to “fix the problems of Social Security on the backs of middle-class families.” Of course, in Clinton’s New York, some typically middle-class jobs pay more than $100,000—to families that would not consider themselves “rich.” The “rich Democrat” demographics could also explain Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s sudden tabling of a recent proposal to tax multi-millionaire hedge-fund managers.

With the Demos’ talk of taxing the rich, the prospect apparently is less appealing when the “rich” are in their own backyard. Which raises the question: Are Democrats truly after the “equality” that they claim? Or are they simply after votes?

[oldandnaked]

Now that Oprah Winfrey has endorsed and is openly campaigning for Obama will it hurt Hillary's chance of being nominated?

Will her power of influence, particularly over her audience of middle aged women, have the same weight in promoting a presidential candidate as it does a book or product sales?

[code20]

yeah but it sucks she will be the next president, I wish I women would win but not her

[tt]

yeah but it sucks she will be the next president, I wish I women would win but not her

Not to rain on your parade dude, but it is NOT written in stone that Hilary will be the President. I for wish people would stop saying that. She is slipping the polls, Obama is rising and while Edwards is holding fast, he still is in a very strong third place.

She is in fact the one Dem that the Republicans want to run, because they know they can beat her. Go to google and enter "Anybody but Hilary." or "Anbody but Hilary in '08". and see how many sites there are. There are a great many people who will, should she be the Democratic Candidate would go to the polls and when they vote, they will not be for a Republican, but against Hilary.

Hilary has by no stretch of the imagination, a sure and certain lock on the nomination. If you don't want her (I know I don't) then go out work to the candidate of your choice (I am).

[Iwantutowantme]

Not to rain on your parade dude, but it is NOT written in stone that Hilary will be the President. I for wish people would stop saying that. She is slipping the polls, Obama is rising and while Edwards is holding fast, he still is in a very strong third place.

She is in fact the one Dem that the Republicans want to run, because they know they can beat her. Go to google and enter "Anybody but Hilary." or "Anbody but Hilary in '08". and see how many sites there are. There are a great many people who will, should she be the Democratic Candidate would go to the polls and when they vote, they will not be for a Republican, but against Hilary.

Hilary has by no stretch of the imagination, a sure and certain lock on the nomination. If you don't want her (I know I don't) then go out work to the candidate of your choice (I am).

*******

I have also been working for my choice. Even though he doesnt have all the same convicitions I do, his ideals are the closest to what I want. No man is perfect. Or woman. I hope Hillary doesnt become the Democratic candidate.

[tt]

*******

I have also been working for my choice. Even though he doesnt have all the same convicitions I do, his ideals are the closest to what I want. No man is perfect. Or woman. I hope Hillary doesnt become the Democratic candidate.

I just get tired off all the people saying "It's gonna be Hilary." She knows she will lose, don't doubt that. The Republicans want to run against her because they know she will lose. She is to strident, to loud, to smug and full of herself to be any real challenge to whom ever the Republicans will put up.

She might have had a lock a few months ago, but as the primaries draw closer, the people are looking at her and they do not like what they see. Hilary is more of Republican Lite than Democrat. I know there are folks out there who would vote straight party regardless, but with what is at stake right now, a vote for Hilary is a vote for more of the same.

[Chuck037]

NO one good to vote!

[tt]

NO one good to vote!

And that is the shame of it!!

[Pebbles]

I was just watching a programme on telly(during my break) and they were stating that Hillary Clinton had already spend something like 54 Million Dollars on her Presidental campaign!! I am somewhat surprised by the British media coverage.. of what goes on in the States. Everyday there is much coverage on the Presidental canidates.