Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
David Limbaugh :: Townhall.com Columnist
Hillary's Understandable Contradictions
by David Limbaugh
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Hillary Clinton's many contradictions aren't hard to understand once you realize her need to suppress her natural instincts and policy preferences because they conflict with her lifelong presidential aspirations.

For the most part Hillary is not personally conflicted: She knows precisely what she wants. But her personality characteristics and the circumstances in which she finds herself force her to walk a tightrope between warring constituencies and to project a double-mindedness that is wholly inconsistent with her innate ideological certitude.

These themes were on display this past weekend as Hillary began her presidential campaign in Iowa. From the issue of her gender, to her kaleidoscopic positions on the war, she was trying to thread personal and policy needles to make herself attractive to Midwestern voters without triggering any more blue-state liberal landmines in the process. (Hollywood moguls have already sent her a message by hosting a fundraiser for Barack Obama.)

In the past, Hillary has vacillated between righteous indignation at any expectation that she should be home "baking cookies" and her acquired awareness that she must not go too far and project herself as cold and heartless.

So it was no surprise that in Iowa she reflected a bit of both sides: On the one hand she wore her gender on her sleeve in telling her audience she faced a "double standard" as a female candidate. In the next, shameless breath, she instructed them to look beyond "stories about my clothes and hair" to help her make history.

Similarly, Hillary wants desperately to project a soft, amiable side that is appealing to voters, but she doesn't want to come off as too soft to be chief executive and commander in chief.

Not to worry. She's quite comfortable with bare-knuckles political brawling. In this vein, she mildly criticized John Kerry for not having responded fiercely enough to his Swift boat accusers. "When you're attacked, you have to deck your opponents," she said.

Hillary has labored to cultivate the image that she's open-minded -- kicking off her first New York Senate campaign with a phony "listening tour" and pretending to absorb the people's concerns. Now, with an equally straight face, she says she wants to "chat" with voters and have "one-on-one conversations, just you and me."

Right. Surely even those not majoring in "Hillary Studies" can see she is nothing if not a woman with definite policy preferences and a singular commitment to accomplishing them -- no matter what anyone else thinks or chats.

You might note that Hillary did not come away chastened from the stinging personal defeat of her universal health care ploy. To the contrary, she said, in Iowa, concerning Hillary Care, "I now know what the roadblocks and obstacles are." (I fault her here, by the way, not for her unflinching commitment to socialized medicine -- I'll save that for later -- but for her usual duplicity in disguising it.)

On Iraq, Hillary has long been speaking out of both sides of her mouth. She figured out early on that she would have great difficulty courting a center-right electorate in a general election with the purely antiwar message her liberal base uncompromisingly demands. So she has been back and forth on Iraq -- a hawk with dovish wings -- almost as much as the perpetually double-tongued John Kerry.

For now Hillary seems to have settled -- appropriately -- on the Clintonesque position of taking responsibility for her vote to authorize the war against Iraq, while simultaneously denying responsibility because President Bush "misled Congress and the country on what he was seeking and what he intended to do."

On the broader war on terror, she throws bones to the right, saying, "we must [defend] our country and [deter] those who wish us ill, as they still do." Yet she says we must end "the alienation toward us in the rest of the world," a statement sure to warm the hearts of Jane Fonda and the 12-year-old war protestor who lamented that "the rest of the world sees us as a bully and a liar." Hillary's words should also please John Kerry, who just said on foreign soil that the United States is now considered an "international pariah."

It has yet to be determined, however, whether Hillary subscribes to Kerry's "global test," where we would virtually confer on other nations a veto power over our sovereign decision to go to war.

Though we will continue to see abundant evidence apparently to the contrary between now and November 2008, Hillary knows exactly who she is and what she wants. The open question is: How many naive or uninformed voters can she fool without permanently estranging herself from her natural soulmates on the far left?

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
David Limbaugh, brother of radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, is an expert in law and politics and author of Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read David Limbaugh's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Hillary - simply the best option.
Hillary should not be criticized for her efforts to court both sides of the aisle. Such drifting is necessary if she is to obtain the office of the presidency, and given the fact that such an elevation of the former First Lady will benefit our nation in a multitude of ways, we should in fact applaud whatever tactic she implements so long as it delivers the power that is rightfully hers.

It cannot be disputed that no matter what the issue, Hillary has an answer that will solve the problem in the best way imaginable. Any input other than hers merely results in hindering the proper outcome, and it is silly for us to restrain her efforts to help us. For instance, if we had permitted her to go forward with her health care plans years ago, the nation would now enjoy unlimited, high quality, free health care. Every American citizen would now have the chance to be taken care of medically from cradle to grave with no negative impact on the quality or service. This gift could have been ours if only we had given Hillary the green light to bless us with her exceptional acumen in the areas of medicine and economics. America cries for politicians with such magnificent abilities, yet we reined in the best of them after she formulated an idea that would have saved us all.

Hillary's leadership instincts are as alive today as they were so many years ago. She knows that the war can be handled better, and with her skills there can be no doubt that under her leadership, the Middle east will once again return to the peaceful paradise that it has historically been: the recent Shia-Sunni feud will come to an end as quickly as it started. Hillary will show Iraq, Iran, and Syria how to live in brotherhood with each other and the West, for only she has the foreign policy skills that we so badly need at this crucial time. Every other nation and political group has failed in this regard, so it is time for us to step back and let Hillary quickly cure the ill for us once and for all.

We need Hillary to handle our basic domestic issues as well. Hillary knows that the traditional family structure is outdated, and she wisely directs that the community is best suited for instilling values upon children. Individualism is improper, and it tends to create people that have thought patterns that are outside of the accepted norm. Instead, the community should mold the minds of children in a manner that ensures all thought is in accordance with the accepted standards of everyone. Only in this manner can we meet the simultaneous goals of freedom of speech and protection from undesirable thoughts. By molding minds in the right way, people will be happy with every dictate of government, for they will see nothing wrong in any policy that is adopted. Hillary could proceed with our salvation unhindered by critics because though people would be free to criticize, they simply won't want to. Hillary's wisdom has seen this road to paradise for us, and she can lead us there if we stop resisting.

Hillary has proven herself to be the single best choice for our future leadership. Her every thought is above criticism, her every idea is evidence of her genius, her mannerisms are indicitave of love and caring, her family life is beyond reproach, and her ethics as a lawyer have never been questioned. Hillary outperforms the top economists, outthinks the best scientists, out performs the greatest businessmen, and out loves the kindest mother. We should all be grateful that Hillary has agreed to handle all of our troubles for us. Instead of allowing dissidents to critique this wonderous product of evolution, we should be building monuments to her as she makes the decisions that we need to live our daily lives.


Good Job LD
You got it!! Hillary the Perfect.

Shameless plug
Come over to my blog for a Chat with Hillary when you get the chance.
http://peppermintsplace.townhall.com

LD - You gotta be kidding me!
What a gigantic line of crap.
"Hillary could proceed with our salvation..."
"Hillary out performs the top economists..."
"Hillary has an answer..."
Who has been spoon feeding you this crap? Surely that was all a joke. No one could be that stupid.

bushbaby
LD is a satirist and one of the best.


Oh, thank goodness!
One of the best for sure! I was ready to put LD in the same ranks as tanabear and Kimberly.
Great blog Pep!

The open question is:
"How many naive or uninformed voters can she fool without permanently estranging herself from her natural soulmates on the far left?"

A whole bunch of them. That's what so scary.


"Tehran Kim"
For those that missed it yesterday, I have re-dubbed "Drive-By Kim" to "Tehran Kim", in the spirit of that great friend of Americas WWII enemy, "Tokyo Rose".

Tehran Kim, in a one-on-one debate with either Limbaugh, Hannity or a number of other conservatives, Hillary would be reduced to a quivering bowl of jello followed by a very "Dean-like" screech within mere moments, assuming, of course, that she'd even agree to such a debate that wasn't carefully choreographed with all the "unacceptable" questions purged in advance... much like those "hard-hitting" interviews she endures.

The only thing Hillary has in common with Condi or Mary Cheney is gender (I think), but when it comes to "class", HRC is like elementary school in the summertime... there isn't any class.

Your propaganda doesn't fly here, Tehran Kim. Go find some high school students to indoctrinate. In other words... stay in your league.

Dereliction of Duty
Those who wish to know how HRC will do during a war should read "Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Endangered America's Long-Term National Security". Shrillary is even worse than Bill and this book documents it.

http://www.amazon.com/Dereliction-Duty-Eyewitness-Endangered-Long-Term/dp/0895261405

Gunny, Nee, Kimberly
A reprise of yesterday for all of you who MIGHT be waitng for Kimbat to come out and rebut...

"Screaming Monkey Syndrome" (Kimberly as described by GunnyG)

That is, she arrives...

She screams loudly...

flails about spectacularly...

flings poop in every direction...

and then retires to her cave...

And my poem of understanding the Screaming Monkey Syndrome(by Nee, revised)

See the monkey in the cave,
all night waiting to rant and rave
Will she screech, will she scream
We know she will, but we can dream
See the monkey in the cave,
Oooh to scream and rant and rave!

LD
Too funny. Well done

ALL
PLease check my blog for today's shot into the flaccid food blister of the LEFT!

Also, England now renamed The Nanny State!

LD
Thank goodness, we know you are out there! I was beginning to worry...did you check out any of yesterday's posts? Whew! Good one, today-just perfect.

Kimberley is right
I'm not much of a fan of Hillary but I would happily bet that she would eat Hannity, Coulter, O'Lielly or Limbaugh (and his drugged up brother) for breakfast in a real debate. I also know it's not the be all and end all, but Hannity and Viagraman didn't even make it through university. Even I managed that so I reckon just about anyone can! Hillary's intellect towers over these right wing hacks.

Critical Bill
You ever WATCH Hitlary in a debate. Stiff and informal and she DOES NOT think quickly on her feet.

Hannity would not even work up a sweat breaking her down shotgun style!

BTW, check my blog. I did not know that England is now being renamed The Nanny State located in the North Sea.

Churchill is spinning in his grave.

Critical Bill
If she could, she would in a heartbeat. Problem is she know she can't win a true debate with a chicken, let alone an intelligent adversary.

I read it already...
Hannity couldn't wipe his own backside if Karl Rove didn't tell him how to do it. Did you see that clip of the Fox military pundit, a retired general whose name eludes me, saying that he would back Jim Webb? It didn't quite go according to script and Hannity looked like he had filled his diapers. As for working up a sweat, Sean is carrying a few extra pounds these days, a la Viagraman, so he looks like he's permanently in a sweat.
As for the "Nanny State", British newpapers have been using that phrase for years so it's nothing new. State intervention in cases of obese children whose parents cannot or will not do something about it - fine by me. The taxpayer will foot the bill eventually, and I'd far rather it wasn't because of health problems brought about by obesity, something that can be tackled effectively and harmlessly if done early enough. But parents have to accept responsibility for doing so, and if they don't...

Rich
I'd LOVE to see her debate Hannity on her 1993 Health Care Plan. So bad that it was GIVEN THE DEEP-SIX by all concerned!

Or better still, have Chris Wallace interview her, maybe she'll erupt like Velcro-Fly did. Although he better wear a Kevlar helmet, I heard that Hitlary throws things when she's on a rant.

Critical Bill
How pathetic that you support such bilge.

"State intervention in cases of obese children whose parents cannot or will not do something about it - fine by me. The taxpayer will foot the bill eventually."

Why don't you Brits just give a test to prospective parents and if they don't pass, just forcibly sterilize them? Freaking cut out the middle man and save a few bucks. H*ll, euthanize the old and save even more. O' Brave New World.

Once again, I give a HEARTILY THANK YOU to our FOUNDING FATHERS for booting you limp noodles the H*LL out of here.

BTW, I'm rereading Thomas Paine's "Rights of Man," and YEOW!, he was feeding you Brits your lunch 215 years ago!

Sic Semper Tyrannus

Well our wishes will come true
Because if she is going to run for President next year, which is as good as given, she will have to go on Fox news at some point to reply to Rove's, sorry, Hannity's, questions. It will make interesting viewing for certain. Wow - something we can all look forward to! Common ground found at last...

Critical Bill
I've seen her yammer before. I've seen her squirm during the Whitewater questioning.

I'm just aggravated that she refuses to share her secret for turning 1000.00 USD into 100,000 USD in a mere month with the rest of us.

Elitists...piffle.

Gunny
Yes, I do support it. If it makes people's lives more liveable then I'm all for it. What would you rather be - a 350-pound 20-year old or a 180-pounder? In the longer term it can only be good for the general health of the country which in turn puts less strain on the health service. I'm not in favour of any kind of test for potential parents, but when the taxpayer picks up the tab for irresponsible parenting I'm in favour of anything that might tackle that. However, I am not sure about the exact way this works - but I doubt if we will be building masses of homes for tubby teenagers who have been swiped from their parents.

Critical Bill...
You say Kimberly can outdebate Hannity, Limbaughs and others? Please! Kimberly never comes out to respond to anyone who poses questions to her...she jsut continues on with the ranting.
I say you might have more of a chance at a good showing anyway, against those guys... However,they would still chew you up and spit you out. Sorry!

Critical Bill
That's the joys of socialized medicine amigo. The taxpayers sucks it up!

I figure in another ten years, y'all will be cloning your rugrats and raising them in state-run crèches anyway.

If a parent wants their kids to be fat, want the H*LL business is it of the state's? What happens when someone decides that you reading the Communist manifesto is bad and forbids it?

When you forfeit one right, more will soon follow.

No offense, but I'm glad that you Brits are going down this road so that we have examples of what NOT to do in the future.

Nee
Hint - it wasn't Kimberley I was talking about. It was Hillary Clinton. Take those Republican red contacts out you might be able to understand more... I'd love a crack at Hannity. Any of them. But I'm not up to it and yes they probably would chew me up. No shame in that; I don't get my questions from Karl Rove.

Chillary
There is one thing certain about the junior senator from NY and that is that she will do anything and say anything to elected preseident. I fear that too many people are uninformed about her disingeuousness, nuancing and lying to really scrutinize their vote for president. Remember the lost Whitewater paers that were mysteriously found on the end table in the private quarters of the White house ONE WEEK after the statute of limitations had run out. Also remember the over $30,000. of furniture etc. that she had to return to the White House because they didn't belong to her. This was ot furnish her multi million dollar house in Washington, DC. Is this the kind of person we want as president? I think not...

GunnyG
What parent in their right mind WANTS their children to be obese? If anyone wants that for their children then they are not fit to be parents, full stop. What is most likely to hapen is that those who want help in getting their kids fitter and more healthy will get more of it; those that refuse will get tougher measures. In general the taxpayer picks up the bill everywhere, even in the States. Those who are so obese that they can't work tend to lie in bed at home eating. Is it not the case that the majority of them are living on state benefits too?

Nee, LD, Fredo
EXCELLENT, EXCELLENT, EXCELLENT

Though I must admit LD that your essay 'supporting' the Supreme Anointed One had me going for a few. Then I realized your tongue was firmly in your cheek! Well Done!

does anyone think anymore?
Hitlary - Commander in Chief - are you "kimber-lies" etal ---> INSANE???
Liar in Chief -YES!
KGB in Chief - YES!
"Permission for cheating Granted" Wife - YES!!

But keep her red fingernails away from our ARMY!!!

Be very afraid
It does not matter that Hillary has no redeeming qualities. The MSM love her, they hate conservatives, and they will give her a pass unequal to anything ever seen before.

Kathy
Have you just arrived in the 21st century in a time machine? Many women are able to juggle succesful careers and raising children through sheer hard work and determination. Most do it without neglecting a husband or their children. Your comments belong in the dark ages! No-one attacked her for not having children; if you are referring to Sen Boxer's comments, they were true. She has no direct family on the front line of the war. Fact!

Kathy
You are implying that to get respect through work women should foresake having a family? If I understand what you wrote properly. That Rice should be given extra kudos because she has sacrificed having a family that would otherwise limit her ability to do a good job? What an insult to the thousands of women who have achieved both - I could start reeling off names but there isn't space here... do you really believe that? Hopefully women everywhere will take no notice of you...!

Ya know
it's funny, no one has actually DISPUTED the actual facts of Limbaugh's article....aside from Kimbery of course...




If Hillary is such a great debater,
how come we never see her do so? I would think she would be taking every opportunity to corral some worthy contender.

In fact, she is a bumbling bastion of bromides. Whenever she is posed a direct question, she either freezes or attacks.

As far as I am concerned, I hope she is the Dem candidate. Perhaps she can seal the deal early by selecting Howard Dean as her running mate.


Kathy
Families have emotional issues full stop. I have no idea what the statistics are but I can only comment on my own experience - that my mother's career has never impacted our family in anything other than a positive way. Not just financially, but because it gave my mother something to do once my two brothers and my sister were out of diapers, a sense of purpose and a belief that she has fulfilled her potential. It won't be the same for everyone but I can imagine lots of women who look back upon a life of being a housewife as unfulfilled potential. Just as there are many who are satisfied with that. Rice's dedication to her job is admirable, but to call her a better woman because she didn't raise a family at the same time is just bonkers.

I be lovin' me some LD
LD provides a valuable service here as he encapsulates what the Moonbats really believe but have enough sense not to express publically (because they know they'd get creamed electorally).

Kimberly, on the other hand . . . . She seems to post under the mantra of, "I came, I read, I insulted."

Critical Bill
I appreciate the fact that you will debate. I like that a lot. However, the people you support, like Hillary, hide from it. I realized I really was a conservative through the help of a friend and a relative. They told me to watch the Sunday shows and observe how questions are asked. I noted pointed questions and follow up questions at Gingrich, and open ended, "give me your speech" questions directed at Gore. It led me to realize that I had been pushed toward my beliefs by the MSM.

Hillary has hardly ever been asked a tough question. When Bob Dole, a war hero, was on the Today Show while running for president, Couric asked him some of the meanest, toughest questions imaginable. Hillary was on the next week and was not asked one serious, tough question-this with all kinds of controversy surrounding her.

So yes, we would love to see her debate. Heck, I'd just like to see her asked a tough question, just once! Remember when Lazio asked her to sign her name to something she had promised to do in her campaign? He got beat up for being too harsh on a woman, rather than examing why Hillary couldn't "put up or shut up." There are a multitude of unanswered questions (check the other posts) that have never asked. Then you would see the Hillary that Limbaugh knows is hiding beneath. The shrill, angry, anti-american feminist.

acceptreality
And those questions are normally very mild in comparison to what she could and should be asked. If you have any examples of her going into "hostile territory" for questioning, I would love to see it.

I was so disappointed when she ran for Senate the first time. I thought that finally she would have to answer some tough, direct questions. Didn't happen. All the butt kissing lefties in the press didn't want to get on the do not invite list.

Great job LD
LD - I love your scarcastic humor. Kimberly - get a life.

Cookie
Thank you - but as I said in my first post today, I'm not much of a fan of Hillary despite my defending her here. But just to clarify, you mention a Couric interview with Bob Dole who was then a presidential candidate. That would make it 1996 or even 1995, as Dole ran against Clinton in 1996. If that is the year, then Hillary was not in public office nether had she declared her intention to run for it. She was just the first lady. So why should she be asked the same tough questions in those circumstances as someone who was running for the highest office? There is no reason.
As a Brit, I'm constantly amazed at the lack of debate in American politics. There's plenty by talking heads on television, but much less face to face stuff. Like him or loathe him, Tony Blair faces parliament every week, face to face, in a pure debate situation. American presidents, on the other hand, debate about once or twice a year if that. Bush was signing autographs after his state of the union address...!!! How many live debates has GWB done? Can't be more than five or six, during televised election debates. It's kinda weird - American students grow up debating, but once high office is achieved it's dropped like a hot potato!

My apoligies to LD and Kimberly...
...In the past I have accused Loyal Democrat of being Kimberly.How he got two screen names,I didn't know.

Today,both posted #1 and #2,so obviously I was wrong.But they are BOTH satirists.Get it?

Critical Bill
Stand Corrected...and I was trying to be serious, in any case, no red contacts,either. In any case, as Kimberly spews, she couldn't stand up...I still say you could give a great try, and against Hilary, win. Cheers.

Kathy
You are clearly entering a state of ecstasy given all of the excalamation marks... but your last post completely contradicts your fawningly servile post about Rice. She has decided to forego family and children for the sake of her career. Others have attempted to juggle both and many have succeeded. You write: "Man and woman is the basic and natural way for family to flourish. Husband and wife that respect each other and their children. Society depends upon it. Life demands it. Almighty God created life and designed it. All the careers and jobs in the world will not fullfill it." But at the same time you demand that more women "take notice" of Rice's career. Well, which is it to be? No family and a career, family and a career, or just a family?

CB
However, Bush will go on network and cable shows that are very critical of him on a daily basis. To me, that has become a form of debate in the US. As to Hillary, she had insinuated herself into every aspect of the presidency and the White House. President Clinton even said, famously, "buy on, get one free." So she was much more than a First Lady and relished the role. She can't have it both ways, though she did. If you are part of the mix, then you should be held accountable. Heck, she was responsible for silencing the women Bill had been involved with-the Bimbo Eruption. Of course, the MSM then allowed her to pretend that she had no idea that the Monica stuff could be or was true. Please!!! No conservative would be allowed to get away with such rubbish.

Hillaria is a good thing
I for one am actually glad Hillary is out and running this early, one year before primaries and two years before the election. It gives more time for people to truly learn about her position and true character. Media adoration will only go so far, but eventually she will have a Dean-scream, or a swift boaters moment, or actually try and debate a conservative... and then it will be over. Time can only work against her.

Just one last thought, it isn't just Hillary that won't debate a real conservative, it is most liberals. They are often invited to conservative shows, especially Sean Hannity for the debate segments he has, and they continually refuse to come on. Liberals can't win in the arena of ideas without ad hominem attacks, changing the subject, or ignoring facts. I actually think Kimberly has some testicular fortitude to continually post here so often. Most liberals couldn't take the intellectual onslaught they would receive. I recently did some posting on a liberal counterpart to townhall, and it was nothing but posts saying "hooray for us! Death to the right and Bush!" There was no intelligent discussion, no facts, and no interest.

Keep posting Kimberly, I have no doubt that people see through your shallow arguments and become more conservative with every word you type...

Cookie
Can't agree with you there. How many networks has Bush given a full interview to in recent months? By my reckoning it's one - Fox. Same network that gets access to Cheney. Karl Rove writes the questions, Sean Hannity acts as his mouthpiece. That's the deal. I may be wrong but I don't think Bush goes on hostile networks at all, and certainly not on a daily basis. When Laura Bush is interviewed, it's done in the same way - softball questions, ready prepared answers, and yet she is as close to her husband and his policies as Hillary Clinton ever was. Maybe they just treat the first ladies the same until they officially run for office, and I guess that's how it should be.

Conservative mindreaders
From Hush to Whannity. M-Ann Coulter to D limbuagh..

All like to tell their minions what Hillary is thinking and explaining her motives. How do they know? Silly to even question them considering not one of them knows Hillary personally..Hell they don't he even know her socially yet they KNOW what her motives and can read between the lines. Boy you folks are gullible.. But you already knew that

Liberyboob
Whannity debating folks on his show? Do you even know what a debate is? The format? Point counter point? Whannity asks leading questions disregards valid points and talks over his guests. he then tells the kool aid drinkers he won the debate.. What I love is him having his guests defend other people and then refuses to defend even the most nutball righties.. " Do you condemn what so and so said 30 yrs ago? Or one of my favorites " Can we win militarily in Iraq yes or no?"..when the guest tries to explain that we cannot with military alone he cuts them off.. yes or no.. they then try to get their full answer out and he cuts them off again... He then explains to this minions that libs can't anser a simple yes or no question and then proceeds to say that this shows dems don't support the troops.. freaking hilarious to hear the back slappers call him and feed his ego

Shrillary
Kimberly- I imagine that Rush would be thrilled to have the chance to debate your flip-flopping gutless wonder, any time, any place. There is no way that she would face him, and anyone with half a brain knows it.

Democrat Avenger
Hillary is transparent to anybody who watches politics. She says whatever her focus groups tell her to say; any similarity between her words and what she actually believes is purely coincidental.

I think the most telling and relevant factoid explaining Ms. Clinton's mindset, though, came from Gary Aldrich's book Unlimited Access, when he spied grown men diving for the nearest door whenever HC walked the corridors of the White House. Apparently she insisted that she walk the halls alone, and would end the career of anyone with the audacity to spoil her power-stroll with their presence. Leftists call any Republican who defends the power of the Presidency against incursions from Congress an Imperial President, but Hillary ACTUALLY BELIEVED that she was God Incarnate.

Democrat Avenger,
Yes, debate is point counter-point. That is one reason Hannity does it well, he does not let people change the subject or avoid a question. I love it when he asks a specific question "Do you support a tax increase or not?" and then listening as seasoned politicians and leftists try to say something profound without actually answering the question.

There is the Lincoln Douglass style debate that is used in elections, and then there is focusing on an issue that is used in the arena of ideas. Sure, I'd love to be Hannity's debate coach and let him know a few of the things he could do better to hold a socialist's feet to the fire, but the accusation that leading questions and disregarding valid points is actually more enlightening to the debate than the accusation you intended. If he is doing so, why don't those he debates point it out?

But even if you can get past your Hate Hannity Insanity, remember that there are others out there: Savage, Beck, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc... more often than not the guests they have have to "defend what so and so said 30 years ago..." because that person, who is the subject of whatever debate is going on, won't come to debate directly.

Why else do politicians only allow pre-screened questions on television interviews? They don't want to look bad. And leftists can't compete in the arena of ideas.

Which was my original point.

mike
That would be good - perhaps she would be brave enough to ask him what he was doing taking a bottle of viagra with him to the Dominican Repubilc... but Rush doesn't debate anyone. He's physically incapable of it, like Hannity. He hates giving anyone a chance to reply, talks over them relentlessly and is incapable of listening to replies. Basically it's like trying to have a conversation on equal terms with the school bully. Why should Hillary dignify that obese drug-addled charlatan with a debate?

Critical Bill
Rush is on 3 hours a day, 5 days a week. Liberals get to go to the front of the line and have at him. I've heard him more than willing to discuss himself when the caller could muster a logical argument, but that isn't generally the strong suit of your side. Mrs "I wish I could kill Bill (but I need the jerk)" Clinton, wouldn't have the nerve. She learned her lesson after facing New York's police and fire depts after 9/11.

Hillarycare would be disaster
We all know the "success" of socialized medicine in other countries...the waiting line for life-saving surgeries or treatment, having to see a doctor on a first-come-first-served basis instead of health emergency, and having to settle on just any doctor, eliminating shopping for the doctor that could save your life. So what makes Hillary's new spin on the failed attempt to force government health care on taxpayers' so appealing to the MSM now? Fear. The rising cost of healthcare and insurance premiums makes this attempt all too appealing people that forego the high cost of insurance. But the real reasons behind healthcare and insurance costs are liberal boons that drive them up. Frivolous lawsuits, illegal immigrants, and Medicaid ER visits for mundane illness drive up the cost for everyone, including the working poor not eligible for government benefits.

The best way to make sure all Americans have Health Insurance is to put it in their hands with a stake in their own health management. Private health savings accounts, as well as private retirement savings accounts make sense because the assets that aren't used can be invested into money-making assets later, especially if the account holder starts young. For example, a 25 year-old male non-smoker working on a loading dock for say $14.00 an hour without health insurance. He doesn't have a lot of cash to purchase health insurance, but with his age, he really isn't in bad health and more likely than not, he will continue with good health. So out of every paycheck, he has $25 withdrawn to go into a health savings account for a total of $100 a month (or even better, instead of costing him $25 a week, give him a $25 or more tax break on FICA to put toward his HSA and that wouldn't cost him anything). Granted, that is not a lot of money and if there were any significant health issues, the current state of health care would gobble that up in an instant. Ahh, but this is where it gets interesting.

Health savings accounts will allow the money that is invested to grow at rates that plain savings accounts cannot come close to matching. Most mutual fund-based savings accounts will average 13 percent every year if managed by a reputable account manager, and if the owner of this account is savvy and a risk taker, it may grow by greater amounts or lose as well and will depend on market activity, but again on average, gains are more likely.

Now that the account is now established and allowed to grow, the dockworker can either purchase an individual policy with the $1,200 or continue to let this account grow and use it as needed. In addition, there are several supplemental insurance companies that will pay this worker a wellness benefit and should he need to go to the hospital will pay him X amount of money each day he has to stay in the hospital and is there for set period of time. The supplemental plan will also help his family to stay close to him while in the hospital by paying for mileage to and from the hospital, or pay for a hotel room if the facility is farther than X amount of miles from their home. These policies are generally cheap and usually run less than a few dollars a week. With the wellness benefit being an option (after one year holding the policy), the benefit can often offset the cost of the policy.

And now, with President Bush's proposal to give people a tax break to purchase health insurance, affording it would not be as big an issue as before. How do I know that this type of health savings accounts will work? My Insurance and Risk Management major in college and my a Bachelors of Science and a Bachelors of Business Administration in this field. I also hold a life and health license and have researched several health insurance options available to workers. Democrats are wrong when stating that this policy that Bush is proposing will be another tax burden for the poor and a tax shelter for the rich. The Dems only want to have more control over the individual and make them more dependent on government.


Kathy
Erm, I'll leave you to it my friend it sounds like you are in an altered state right now. Maybe you can come back to me when whatever you have taken wears off. And mike, Rush is a horrible bully towards anyone who he doesn't agree with. He does not deserve anyone taking him seriously, so I'm kinda glad Hillary hasn't been on his show. It legitimises his "style", a style that makes Hannity seem like a pleasant, rational person.

If the MSM Can't Figure Her Out....?
How in the heck is the electorate going to? It's a little late in the game to be worrying about voter disconnect, and preceptions. Since 1992, HRC has been packaged, repackaged, face-lifted, folded, and spindled. She tried the Soccer Mom thing, then after 9/11 the Security Mom. In the 90s she was Michale Corleone, and Catherine The Great, all rolled into one. When Bill got caught in flagrante delicto, she morphed into an Oprahfied victim. Like Bill, she has no center- actually she does have a Center, but must hide it from the rubes until after her coronation.

HRC is and will always remain the unrepentent proto-marxist-feminist of her Welesey days.


Her problem is 2-fold; the electorate is slightly more conservative than they were in the 90s, but her own party has moved farther left. She must appear radical and conservative at the same time. Good Luck.

Cookies
NO WAY IN HADES!!

nitty gritty and cookies
Of course I would - wouldn't give it a moments hesitaton. But then I like liver, kidneys, haggis... so maybe I have a strong enough stomach for it! Funnily enough I was talking about the expression "nitty gritty" on Sunday over lunch with friends. Someone had used the expression in a meeting that this mate of mine was at, but got told not to use it again. Apaarently it was slang for where the slaves were kept on slave ships - so getting down to the "nitty gritty" was the really rough part of the ship reserved for slaves. So there you go...

Shrillery
Rush is discussing the hairy little Socialist right now on his show. Her own words condemn her.
By the way C. Bill, Rush doesn't patronize and he is very fair. He doesn't have to be nice. God knows you guys aren't. Remember some of the vile things your mob said about Condi and Clarence Thomas?

To Lydia
More likely to "toss my cookies" with her.

Fair?
Calling a 13-year old girl a dog, for example? Mocking someone dying of Parkinson's disease? Not patronising? He doesn't know the meaning of it. Ok, he doesn't have to be nice. But fair? You're off your rocker if you think he's fair.

CB
So, just who among the right wing pundits would you be satisfied seeing debate Hitlery? I like Hannity, but he does all of the things that you accuse him of. I don't particularly like his style, either. Rush is large and takes Viagra, so maybe Hillery can find something familiar to like about him, there. O'Rielly is as obnoxious as they come. So maybe one of our esteemed Townhall pundits? One of our bloggers?

The fact is, Hillary will not go on an open debate. I admire the British system, and have often watched it on C-SPAN. It's fascinating. But Hillary would never do it. She can't stand up to the criticism. She can't face it, or answer questions directly.

By the way, folks, I heard that Dick Morris is planning to come out with a movie or series on Hillary. That may make waves in the MSM. They would almost have to cover it, if it caught on.

It's going to be fun!

redhead
As I keep on saying, I'm not that much of a fan of Hillary... so my fantasy debate would have to be Hillary v Coulter, custard pies at the ready, no holds barred. Although that does make me sound like a bit of a sicko, but there's a bit of something for everybody in that matchup don't you think?

If you are going to say it, get it right
C.Bill- this came from jumptheshark.com, one of your ilk- "I forgot one other thing--Rush never called Chelsea a dog--he did however depict David Bonior as a "pit yorkie"--with a great composite picture to match!"

Michael J Fox earned the criticism he received as he acted disingenuously in his portrayal of his "suffering".

Hillary is not a debater
Anyone of those listed would make her look silly and Coulter would eviscerate her!

No, you get it right Mike
"I really never should have called Chelsea a dog" is a quote taken directly from an interview with Rush Limbaugh. So back to you. And Fox "earned" criticism; perhaps, but he didn't "earn" mockery. The two aren't the same.

CB
Any of the right wing pundits could clean Hillary's clock in an open debate if she were brave enough to emerge from her cave shelter, but the most skilled one would have to be Neal Boortz, although Rush and O'Reilly would also have an easy time with her hypocrisy, inconsistency, record, greed, and past criminal behavior. Coulter actually is not that good at verbal debate; her forte is her writing.

Although you're completely off in your comments about Hillary vs the American press, about the blatant liberal bias in most of the American media (just compare the coverage 12 years ago of Gingrich vs the fawning coverage of Pelosi today for graphic proof), and in your tinfoil hat belief that Karl Rove provides talking points to right wing commentators, you are correct that presidential candidates in this country are not subject to real debate among themselves. All the presidential debates are stage- and micro-managed by the candidates' handlers with the willing cooperation of stuffed shirt media types, with the result that the debates end up being beauty contests. In recent history, I can remember only one debate which actually came close to living up to what a debate should be, namely, the Cheney-Lieberman debate in 2000.

debate her?
Hush debate her? Any of you kool aid drinkers ever wonder why the pill popper has NEVER brought on anyone to debate him? He's a soundbite shadow boxer..easy to debate a soundbite you backslappers..

I can prove whannity's a hypocrite
How many times have you Fox News hounds heard Whannity say that when he was young he did stupid things. Said things he shouldn't have said..etc.. He goes on to say he's grown up..... Well seems to me that Mr Whannity likes to go back 30 + years and hold someone to their comments. Rather than give these folks the benefit of the doubt and attritbute diffferent stances today to maturity and experience he would rather hold them a completely different standard he holds himself to.

Seriously...
"When you're attacked, you have to deck your opponents,". Yeah, that's what the previous Clinton administration did in Mogadishu.

Hillary has never faced serious questioning from serious journalists, or serious opposition. She left Arkansas because she knew she couldn't even be elected to the position of dog catcher.

Hillary is nothing but a PhotoShop politician. She's an image that is constantly manipulated and enhanced to project whatever message is appropriate to the current circumstances.
It's just too bad we can't delete the image and put it in the garbage bin of history where it belongs.

Ok Bill
Again from jumptheshark.com- "Regarding the unfortunate situation regarding Chelsea Clinton, of course most did not know what happened after that, or even cared to hear. Rush did not know that the picture of Chelsea was going to be put up on the screen when he spoke of the Clinton's dog. The person responsible for that was fired immediately after the show and Rush personally apologized to the Clinton's. Granted, he was responsible for it since it was his show, but he faced up to this responsibly and did not try to make excuses for it.

As for Michael J Fox, if he had been honest, I believe nothing would have been said.

I also vote for Neal Boortz to debate Little...er, Big Boots. He considers her to be evil incarnate.

Critical Bill
I've got to agree with you on the Hillery vs. Coulter debate. Too bad it wouldn't happen.

Hillery vs. Boortz might be something to be arranged, though.

Critical Bill
The appearance of Tony Blair in front of Parliament is a key component of the Parliamentary form of Government. Public debate is not a key component for the executive in a Constitutional Republic, i.e. the U.S. of A. The decision of a sitting President to hold a press conference or grant an interview is purely their decision. In point of fact, there is no requirement that the President give a State of the Union Address, but rather he (or she) must Report the State of the Union to Congress. If a President desired he could convey the report by email, and satisfy the requirements of the Constitution.

Debates in American Politics really haven't existed since Lincoln vs Douglas. The media does not want to report a debate verbatim, it takes to long, and it doesn't allow the talking heads to display their superior intellect. Ergo, we have glorified press conferences, with scripted answers and limited rebutal.

As for Hillary, she gave up the cloak of first lady when she chaired the Health Care Reform Committee in 1993. From that point forward she interjected herself as a co-president and by alrights should have been questioned with equal intensity if she chose to grant an interview or engage in a press conference.

The complaint made by so many here is that we have a onesided adversarial press. You have made several jabs at Sean Hannity, but if you have actually listened to his show, you know that he takes very hard shots at the current administration when he disagrees with its decisions/direction.

Sorry, in the market place of ideas conservatives have logic and history, where liberal have only hopes and feelings. If Where everHillary is in an unscripted discussion, she loses.

How would HRC Debate The War?
She voted for every deployment, every appropriation to fund the war, and as late as November 2006 she demanded we deploy more soldiers.

Now she says the entire campaign was a fiasco from the start. During the critical years 2003-2005, she silently gave her approval to every move or non-move Bush made. She had available every after action report from CENTCOM, every intel report and PDA from CIA and DIA.What changed?

It would be one thing if she castigated Bush for not fireing CINC CENTCOM and his staff earlier; for not fighting this war instead of "staying the course". That is, she had every right to critique Bush from the Right, not the Left. In war, the only thing that matters is results. You cannot say you were for the war, before you were against it, or say you support the troops but not thier mission. Either you support the war, or you do not. You can support the war and not the strategy, but not say after 4 years that they war you voted and supported isn't worth the fight.

This is exactly what HRC is now trying to do. The Left will not allow her to get away with it, and she knows it. She's trying to pull a Kerry. If the war turned out okay, she'd get accolades from the DLC types for being a hawk; but if things turned out badly (like they are now), she thought she'd be in position to bail. The Far Left never forgave her for her initial support.

John
You are correct; until the mid-20th Century, President's usually wrote out a 5 or 6 page report to Congress. I thought way back in 2001 that the President should restart that tradition. State of the Union Speeches are an entire waste of time- they are normally forgotten within days if not hours.

Hillary's a loser
I'm a liberal academic lifelong Democrat in a very blue state, and I'm convinced that if the Dems nominate Hillary, she is virtually sure to lose. I agree with many of the comments made by in the posts on this column. Hillary will be a terrible candidate, she will turn off lots of voters, and she'll come across as a really unpleasant piece of work in debates.

So, Republicans, have no fear. Be happy. You're gonna keep the Presidency in 08. Mitt will defeat either Hillary or Obama. Then your own problems will begin.

Gestell
They say that the sun NEVER sets where Shrillary is...she SUCKS it down!

Hillary's short term memory
If there's one thing Hillary should do the next time she opens her mouth, is listen to tapes she expressed about Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction. It was OK to recognize there was a terrorist threat when Bill Clinton was in office, because Bill himself spoke of it. Then again, there was no Cindy Sheehan, the antiwar protesters, the anti Americans, with Michael Moore, George Soros, Chris Mathews, Alan Colmes, CNN, or the New York Times on Bill Clinton's back. A Democrat was in office, so all was fine and dandy with the extremist and American haters. Every thing Bill did was overlooked and Hillary overlooked quite a bit herself. The things Hillary speaks of against now, she made speech's for when Bill was President. It seems, Hillary only believes in terrorism when a Democrat President was in office. With President Bush, he's a liar and it's only a figment of his imagination because he's only trying to scare the American people. If Hillary is so concern with getting it right, with the rest of the world, then she's not paying close attention to what the rest of the world is saying. The world knows how the Democrats sat on the fence just complaining about the war in Iraq, President Bush, and our troops. We're called paper tigers now, because we've allowed a party to get in power who could care less about the war in Iraq and National Security. Those countries who say they hated us so much because of President Bush's fail policies, are now saying we can't be trust to honor our commitments because of the Democrats now being in power. I bet Hillary's circle isn't telling her that now. In peace time Democrats can't do that much harm to this country, but in time of terrorist threats and attacks, it's a contradiction to the safety of the American people to have Democrats in power knowing how their alternate reality is getting our troops killed in Iraq and Hillary is the biggest contradiction to everything we hold dear to our hearts. The American way of life.

Redhead
Boortz would devour Hitlery whole.

His debating skills are far far beyond hers. Not to mention that she forgets the pablum that she spews, he tracks it for her!

Despite Your Negative Comments...
The Fact remains former first lady and now HillaryCliton that created history with her being twice elected to the Senate for the State of New York in spite of nearly $20 million spent AGAINST her by the RNC and both of her victories were by LANDSLIDE numbers...

So yeah I'm sitting here reading your & Mr. Limbaugh's petty little criticisms of her that are mostly motivated by envy and jealosy, and I seriously hope that you continue to underestimate Sen. Clinton. She is a lot more formidable than you think. I would make her an even bet to win against any of that particularly weak repub field of candidates.

maverick
Your point about the Eurabians sitting on the fence is correct.

Check my blog for a story on how they're backstabbing us over Iran now AND my steps to pluck the U.S. nipple from the lips of the Eurabians forever.

Maverick: What a ridiculous statement
you said:

"In peace time Democrats can't do that much harm to this country, but in time of terrorist threats and attacks, it's a contradiction to the safety of the American people to have Democrats in power knowing how their alternate reality is getting our troops killed in Iraq and Hillary is the biggest contradiction to everything we hold dear to our hearts. The American way of life."

Well how do you explain what happened at midterms?

If repubs/cons are so good at national security and represent the "american way of life" why did the american public turn over control of congress to them in Nov 2006?

It couldnt have been because of the "great job" Bush and the republicans were doing was it?

rotflmao

Left Angle
Get this through your thick head:

THERE IS NO MANDATE for the Congressional Left (Dems) to do ANYTHING.

The REPUBS were FIRED and the Dems elected by default. There can be no mandate since they ran either on LOCAL issues or on NOTHING at all.

Left Angle
And SIX YEARS of a constant barrage of anti-Bush, anti-Iraq lies from the MSM didn;t have SOME effect?

Please.

Funny how you leftists never reveal the GOOD NEWS? Why? because it destroys your agenda.

Point 1. NY Times reporter jammed for hoping for a GOOD OUTCOME to Iraq.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,248419,00.html

Point 2. The news from IRAQIS NOT the MSM.

http://unix.dfn.org/good_news_iraq.shtml

Dash42: CONTROL is the bottom line...
as is POWER.

Democrats hold the gavel, control the committess, supeona power and the agenda..
Bush is a lame duck and youre trying to paint me a pretty picture of what happened to repubs at midterms after all the smack you werE talking before them?

YOU Need to get that thru YOUR HEAD...

Left Angle
BTW, I guess SIX YEARS of high enlistment/REenlistment/extensions through out the military since 2000 is indicative of the losing war in Iraq huh?

I've been on the remobilization list for the MC since 2004, waiting to be called back. Quite obviously, the Marine Corps ain't hurting for folks. Indeed, Marines that I chatted to THIS VERY WEEKEND past said that they are on a WAITING LIST to go.

Could the MS have been lying all of this time?

Say it ain't so.

Lastly, I point to the NY Slimes running the NON-STORY of Abu Ghraib on the FRONT PAGE for 87 STRAIGHT DAYS! Poor pooor terrorists having to wear panties on their gourds and have mean doggies bark at them. Boo-hoo. They ever find Daniel Pearl's head?

L.A.
"Dash42: CONTROL is the bottom line...
as is POWER.

Democrats hold the gavel, control the committess, supeona power and the agenda..
Bush is a lame duck and youre trying to paint me a pretty picture of what happened to repubs at midterms after all the smack you werE talking before them?
"

Nope - just point out the objective reality regarding the recent election, Republicans were fired for failing in their Constitutional responsibilties. Your first line tells me alot, and explains the goal of the LEFT - POWER.

The majority of Congressional Leftists care not one whit for Constitutional limitations or responsibilities - they are only after personal power.

As to subpoena power: Bring it on!

Gunny: Bush is to blame for his bad
Press because of his strategically ill-concieved venture into Iraq, not to mention his arrogance and stubborn obstinance to "stay the course" on a failed policy ..the whole thing blew up in his face on its own volition.. the press had nothing to do with it. I get so sick of repubs/cons blaming everyone but themselves for their problems. you made the stew, be a MAN and sit in it.

and one other thing...the daily death count of u.s. soldiers and the daily carnage cancel OUT the "good news from Iraq" that youre always touting in the minds of the american public.

Dash: Repubs DONT want POWER?
Get f*ckin real...

bottom line: you dont have POWER or CONTROL anymore...and bush is a lame duck...

so get used to it for the next two years..It's gonna be pure "h*ll for repubs/cons..and quite possibly in 2008 if you and bush keep "stayin the course"" lmao

Gunny: It's called brainwashing...
most grunts resign up because the military is all they know..they cant survive in the civilian world because they are used to being TOLD what to do...if you volunteer to go back to Iraq and get killed for a failed cause..hey that on you buddy...I feel sorry for you.

Hillary and Boortz
The problem with the Clintons is that they are both lawyers by trade, and therefore programmed to lie and feel no remorse for telling them (remember Bill's wanting to know what the definition of is is?). She and her hubby have proven that when the going gets tough, they get mad, huffy, and downright beligerant. If there were ever a good debate set for anyone against either Clinton, their flip-flopping, back-stabbing, evidence tampering, lying under oath (and yes, both of them lied under oath as we all know Bill did and Hillary did too when asked about Rose firm documents, Travelgate, and others), and out and out lying (or convenient non-recollection as has worked for Democrats for years). Hillary has a tendancy to say whatever it is that tickles the ears of her immediate audience and is what they want to hear, but her record shows that she votes what works for her liberal constituants or to her political agenda at the moment and for these reasons, Hillary cannot win a debate with anyone.

When presented with her flip-floppery, backtracking, political diatribe, and her ever constant desire for power, she wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Boortz could eat her for lunch.

But if you really want a debate of hard nosed liars, mean spirited, hateful, and spite-filled chocked full of ill will, put Hillary and Dick Cheney in a room with a moderator. That my friends, would be a debate worth watching. A debate to the death, although Cheney would most likely have a heart attack trying to contain his excitement of chewing up and spitting out a liberal canniver like Hillary.

My biggest problem with Hillary and the Clintons in general is that the reason they are in such high standing is due to the stacks of bodies they are standing on, both literally and the people they screwed to get there.

L.A. read carefully
I never said that repubs don't want power, nor did I imply that. What I did say is that LEFT DEMS are only interested in PERSONAL POWER and that they do NOT care what their Constitutional LIMITS are.

Here is a hint: The Constitution does not exist to limit the power of the citizenry - it exists to LIMIT the power of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

LA Again
Tell me: Is the War on Terror against terrorists as a whole or against Osama/Al Qaeda only?

Dash: lets not go around in circles..
suffice it to say that i disagree with your charge on democrats and i believe what you state could just as easily be said about republicans..

as far as the gwot is concerned i understand what it is and its concept..i just think it's a bunch of exaggerated bs...

i just respectfully agree to disagree with you and people that think like you. lol

agree to disagree
Fine. Please note, however that my comment was directed at Congressional Dems, not the majority of the Party who probably want what they feel is best for America. And by the majority, I am talking about the average joe-citizen type; not those deeply involved in party politics, ya know, the hard-working stiffs...

GWOT exaggerated?
Perhaps, but I have seen women walking around in burkhas in Afghanistan, blue or black only btw. Some of that is residual conditioning from the Taliban, some is fear, and some is piety no doubt. My problem with Islam is that it's more radical practicioners seem to disreagard the value of human will and life. Women are still treated as sub-human property throughout much of it, and that is utterly disgusting.


dash 42: ok fine but...
can you clarify what makes you think that about
congressional dems because the last ten years of repub rule especially in the house was as far as i am concerned a "power grab" at it's utmost..the repub leadership did everything in its power to emasculate the house dems.

Left Angle
Hillary and all of Congress is also to blame for the mess in Iraq. For three years you didn't hear a peep of criticism from her. There were enough Democrats and Left leaning Republicans to issue non-binding resolutions, threaten to withhold funds, etc... It wasn't until November that Hillary began to publically say the war is a disaster (which it is not); this totally contradicts what she said for 3 years.

To Left Angle
HRC spent 36 million dollars on her last campaign in which she really didn't have any competion. I wouldn't try to make any points off of her campaigning style.

LA
I got out of the military after 12 years, and I only regard your opinion of "grunts" as very ignorant. You haven't a clue what the military is about, the people who serve, nor thier dedication to thier vocation. Your ignorance is filled with left wing prejudice that is breathtakingly absurd.

I suppose you also believe that firefighters and para rescuemen only serve for a paycheck, and they could never survive outside of thier service. Yes, a Staff Sergeant is willing to risk his life for 1200 bucks a month, free dental, and PX privleges. Yeah right.


Jp: you know nothing about me...
or what i've done in life or for that matter who I have been involved with..and i will say this.

there are a lot of people in the military that cannot survive in the civilian world because of their "military conditioning". its all they know.
It's structure where practically every move they make is already decided for them and it's not like that in the civilian world. and yes a lot of them are brainwashed. that's not ignorance, its the truth. furthermore as far as that dedication thing...I think more people join the military not thinking they will go to war..they join to learn a job skill, etc. not for "peace justice and the america way"...thata's pure bs.

L.A. Personal Power of
Congressional Dems...

Has to do with their apparent desire both to INCREASE the power of the State and to EXEMPT themselves from it. Stipulated, the Repubs fell into that as well, but their failures have at least had the grace to leave when they became embarassments.

Take a look at Mr. Jefforson (LA) with $90000 in his freezer from an FBI sting op; or Harry Reid (N) with his sweatheart land deals. The Dems are rife with corruption (from Bill on down) and do not seem to give a rats behind what it does to the Country as a whole as long as their precious privilages and perqs are not impacted. As noted, the repubs are not immune.

In sum, its more a projected attitude from them that we are special and important and what we want is the only thing that matters.

As to Repub efforts to 'emmasculate' the Dem opposition: Not really. Just because they did not always do what the Dems wanted does not mean they did not listen to their concerns about issues. Contrast that with Speaker Pelosi's decree that Rep amendments to bills would not be accepted or debated during their first 100 legislative hours. She stated quite clearly, 'we don't care what you have to say; do it our way or else. We also have the votes to defeat any amendment you care to put forth or any bill we don't like, what's the point?'


Um, Kimberly....
The word "asinine" is spelled A-S-I-N-I-N-E.

Thank you.

dash 42: yes exxagerated...
as in rove/bush using the gwot and the supposed
islamofacist threat to "fearmonger" and exploit
it for political gain..

also if you have read in here lately there are were and are actually guys saying stuff like:

"the dems dont take the Islamofascist threat seriously, thats why I'm gonna load up on ammo and guns now that they control congress. The dems wont believe it until they open their doors and the muslim henchment kill them and their families"...

that kinda talk scares me..I'm not talking about the Islamofacists either...it's that people on the right are actually considering such and they are serious about it...it's not only weird its paranoid delusion.

They don't seem to
take the threat seriously. While I don't necessarily agree with the "thats why I'm gonna load up on ammo and guns now that they control congress. The dems wont believe it until they open their doors and the muslim henchment kill them and their families"...bit, I can understand it. The Dems have pushed, whined, and b*&^hed gun control laws through the Congress for many years. I'll leave the Constitutional issues aside for the moment, but the attitude of Congressional Dems and many on the Looney Left seems to be: They won't hurt us, we are the good and bright people who only want to understand them.

For the extremists we are fighting there is but one choice: Surrender to our version of the will of Allah or die.

Their position seems clear to me.

Oh we take the threat seriously..
we just go about our lives and dont obsess over it..thats the worst thing you could do because they want you to live in fear...I believe you can reason with anyone. I dont believe in shoot first and ask questions later.

I dont see much difference between the "extremist" and american imperialism..they have pretty much the same goals to me.

L.A.
You're not inside the beltway are you? Only ask as you seem to be reasonably sane;)

As to reasoning with anyone...that presupposed the other guy is also 'reasonable', and the most extreme of the Islamofascist terrorists don't seem to open to reason.

As to the American Empire...the road to that started many moons ago. Just a question of how benevolent we want it to be. Given over-reaching state control and personal liberty - i'll take liberty, thanks.

Dash42: Oh, I've been called insane.lol
many times...I like to think in and outside the box....you know you can get all abstract and existential, but the world is still governed by
the laws of nature, physics, and common sense.

I think the people who are leading the "extremist" are very intelligent and calculating in their use of violence/fear.
when i say they can "reasoned with" I'm talking more of putting yourself on their level..thats why i say the democrats will fight a smarter and tougher war on terrorist than bush who to me is like a ole style western cowboy..all that mano y mano macho sh*t.. these guys fight like ambush indians, they are sneaky..you deal with them on because own thats terms..because thats all they know..If bush and his generals had used their weapons and tactics in this manner, this war would have been over long ago.

correction:
you deal with them on their own terms...

Left Angle
A ham sandwich could run in NY State as a demo and win. NY State is not a good example to show off her prowess. Why did she and Bill move here? Because they knew she could just show up and win.

Why do I say that? Because NY State elected someone that had been caught with his hand in the till to the tune of $180K to control the money of the state! He was under indictment and he still won over the Republican. So don't go throwing out about how her Royal Thighness is so great...She is VERY cunning and calculating. Traits I want in every President!

The REAL Hillary
Every American, be they Republican or Democrat OWE it to themselves to understand that BOTH the Clintons wrote the book on "dirty politics". It is sad, that Hillary, who was a "leftist radical of the highest order in her days at Wellesley-and
her OWN thesis proves this out".

These two would say, do and destroy Anything, and Anybody who would stand in their path to attain once again, power and money.

You again, owe it to yourself to read the book:

"HELL TO PAY" by the late Barbara Olson-as it will give you the real background, ideology, and who Hillary's mentor Saul Alinsky was, that she emulated in his leftist radical views-Not the least of which is: Destroy Your Detractors At Any Cost- She has followed his thinking for years and made this her mantra. You need to read
this book-I was simply amazed in now really understanding her fierce, rigid drives and how they started in her childhood, and how she pushed
her husband, toward her own goals and desire for power, and together they have fleeced so many-even so called friends who help get them to where
they are today-But, these same friends, were not without the possiblility of "being thrown under the bus, when the Clinton's were finished using them".

The Dems do take it seriously
It's a serious way to get elected for them. That is ALL they care about. I don't have to load up on guns and ammo, I already have plenty.

six pack..I didnt say she was great..
I just said she will be a formidable opponent and isnt to be underestimated..

as a matter of fact you pretty much said the same thing i did in different words..lol

you said:

"She is VERY cunning and calculating. Traits I want in every President!"

Hillary's Thesis...
Another point if I may.

This is the site, that I found the information regarding Hillary and her
thesis while at Wellesley. What makes this scary
is her phoney attempts at pretending she is some kind of "centurist"....this is only to pander for
votes in her quest for power. Go to:

FreeRepublic.com/forum/a38883a222798a.htm

read for yourselves....

Jo
Someone must have leaked that puppy! I had heard that it was kept under lock and key because it was so far to the left.

All
The link does not work but here is where you can read Barbara Olsen's analysis of Hillary's thesis.

http://cassandra2004.blogspot.com/2005/06/hillary-clintons-wellesley-college.html

Her thesis was done in praise of Saul Aulinsky...noted commie class warrior.

Shrillary's Contra-Indications
I would say that more than Hillary's contradictions, we should be considering her contraindications.
.........................................

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/contraindications
contraindication
One entry found for contraindication.
Main Entry: con·tra·in·di·ca·tion
Pronunciation: -"in-d&-'kA-sh&n
Function: noun
: something (as a symptom or condition) that makes a particular treatment or procedure inadvisable
.........................................

http://www.healthline.com/adamcontent/contraindications?utm_term=contraindication&utm_medium=mw&utm_campaign=article
Definition:
A contraindication is a specific situation in which a drug, procedure, or surgery should NOT be used, because it may be harmful to the patient.
..........................................

After carefully considering the facts, I have decided that Shrillary as President is contraindicated.

Limbaugh makes me Pray for Hillary!!!
Wow, way to go! Limbaugh gives us what he thinks are reasons why Hillary should not be president. However, he ends up giving us at least 6 reasons we should PRAY SHE DOES BECOME PRESIDENT.

1) She's quite comfortable with bare-knuckles political brawling. An obvious requirement for anyone wanting to win the nomination and election.

2) She is open minded. I agree. She has shown willingness and ability to work with people she disagrees with as a senator like Newt Gingrich and Lindsay Graham. Sounds like she could get some things done!

3) Has policy preferences and a commitment to accomplishing them. Who would want a president that had no policy preferences or did not care whether they accomplished them or not!!

4) She takes responsibility for her vote to authorize the war against Iraq, while courageously pointing out that President Bush "misled Congress and the country on what he was seeking and what he intended to do." Makes her sound like a stand up gal!! Go Hillary.

5) Says we must defend our country and deter those who wish us ill, as they still do." Who would disagree with that. Way to go Hillary.

6) Says we must end "the alienation toward us in the rest of the world". Of course. Sounds good to me!! Who wants other countries to be alienated towards us. The more friends and allies we have against our enemies the better I say!! Way to go Hillary.

Looks like with opposition like Limbaugh and other fools on TH she will have a great chance. With opposition like this she may not even need my contribution to her campaign, so I will keep on sending them to Joe Biden for a while!!

How stupid conservatives sound saying the oppose her for things that any idiot would agree are good reasons to vote for her!!! Breath taking. I guess I don't have to worry about a republican winning in 2008.

Hillary's thesis
Jo, GunnyG and others can lay off the cr*p about Hillary's thesis being any big issue. It will fizzle out.

This thesis was an analysis of Alinsky and his radical politics. It was apparently not uncritical. She is quoted from it as saying in an appendix that she interviewed him twice and he offered her a job, but she refused. She apparently said:

"His offer of a place in the new Institute was tempting, but after spending a year TRYING TO MAKE SENSE OF HIS INCONSISTENCIES, I need three years of legal rigor." She went to Yale Law School instead. Good Choice.

He is a link to a more moderate and intelligent discussion of the contents of the thesis than the baloney that has appeard so far on this thread.

http://www.centristcoalition.com/blog/archives/002771.html

Supposedly anyone who goes to Wellesley College can read this thesis, but it can't be published.

ho hum

"In the next, shameless breath, she instructed them to look beyond "stories about my clothes and hair" to help her make history."

Help her "make up" history, along the way. It'll be fun. Just you and me, lets have a conversation about socialism. I'll see of Marc Tucker is not too busy on a book tour. - Her campaign bus will have lots of room for baggage.

slacker
Might I suggest an addendum to your posting name?

Something along the lines of "shallow thinking slacker"?

Seriously--save this whole thread and re-read it in about four years. That ought to be enough time for the damage to be done so completely that even you get it.

The entire point of the article is to demonstrate how cunning, venal, disingenous (better look that one up, slack) and yes, shallow Mrs. Clinton actually is. The major concern is how many (I can't think of a nicer way to put this) dunderheads will be fooled by her chicanery. Apparently you are at the head of the line, doing the kumbaya thing with your fellow dunderheads.

It's really unfortunate when a person just won't see the forest for the trees.

Try this: go all the way back to the second post from Loyal Democrat. Read it and try to take it seriously, because that's what dunderheads think.

Then step back and think as if you had some common sense. You'll be amazed.

Good luck.

Slacker
“4) She takes responsibility for her vote to authorize the war against Iraq, while courageously pointing out that President Bush "misled Congress and the country on what he was seeking and what he intended to do." Makes her sound like a stand up gal!! Go Hillary.”

In case you missed it in his speech, Bush took responsibility for his actions, positions, and the mistakes; where Hillary didn’t account for her vote, just blames the pres for misleading her. I wonder how far Chavez or the UN or Iran or Kim can mislead her. Sounds like she got a real mind of her own, uh? Adds to my reasons too, not to mention just getting reelected and jumping on another campaign. What were NY’ers thinking? She’s listening, to voices in her head.

Hillary vs Obama
Honestly, which one would be worse for the USA ?
Hillary is well dressed and coiffed, but Obama looks SO good in a swim suit ! I guess it will be the People's Choice Awards in 2008.

Slacker's take on HRC openmindedness
The definition of a liberal: a person so openminded, their brain falls out. That is the perfect definition of the left's way of thinking. And how stupid liberals sound when supporting a lying, manipulative, back-stabbing, power hungry, flip-flopper such as HRC. To prove my point that she is a flip-flopper, at a town hall meeting in Des Moines, the state capital, on January 27, Clinton said: "I believe we’ve got to take a strong stand on limiting our dependence on foreign oil. And we have a perfect example here in Iowa about how it can work with all of the ethanol that’s being produced here.” Yet as a senator, she voted against ethanol measures 17 times. Here is a rebuttal for your points below.

On point 1: HRC doesn't care about swinging and punching, even if it means giving the U.S. a black eye in the process. It can also be asserted that she is bare knuckle political brawling only to fit her own agenda, not for the progression of the country or even her own party, but only for her own agenda.

Point 2: Hillary and the left are never going to come to the table of bipartisanship, and they do not hide that fact. The first thing the Dems stated when they took office was that they would seek measures to have Bush investigated and impeached. At least Bush ran and attempted to reach accross the aisle in his first election bid and even had success as the Governor of TX, but never was extended the same courtesy as President from the Democrats.

Point 3: I will agree that Hillary has policy preferences and a commitment to accomplishing them. Her policy preferences will be socialized health care, higher taxes, and a lose at all cost military stance, with taxpayer dollars funding it all. The giant sucking sound you'll hear if she is elected president will be the sound of small businesses collapsing under a sea of taxes and the major manufacturers leaving to go operate in other countries. Keep this in mind, corporations do not pay taxes, the people who buy their products do.

Point 4: Bush misled the country to war and she will lead us back is pure BS and in no way that true. The information that Bush had was the same information that Congress had and is the same that the Clinton adminstration had too. She even said in 2003, "I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information, intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, tried to discount the political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision," So she cannot have it both ways. If she voted for the war from the information she had, then she and Bush lied.

Point 5: Hillary did say that we should defend our country, she just didn't say how. She and the left do not have a plan to defend our country and there is no sense in discussing this fact since the left don't think we have a security threat with Islamic Facists.

Point 6: The fact that we are alienated from the world is not because of our war, president, or our prosperity in the U.S. but our refusal to bow down to be apologists the European ideal of society. I don't know what we can do about that, but if Hillary is elected president, she will do her part to make us a nation of socialists and will be closer to making us on par to be a European apologist and a get-along-at-all-cost society. There are too many rednecks here in the south to let that happen.

To address what was said in here earlier by Left Angle and the reason Islamic Fascists are down on the U.S. They want to kill Americans and Westerners not because of Christians, Bush, and our policies, it's because of the "cultural left" as the cause of 9/11. In an article about the book "The Enemy at Home, The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11," radical Muslims want to kill Americans and Westerners because the secular-progressive left, with its focus on glorifying what most of the world's traditional societies view a s depravity and atheism, has provoked a backlash among traditional Muslims who see their religious and moral values threatened by an aggressive, immoral, and anti-religious crusade by America. That is why Radical Muslims want to kill Americans.

How about a truthful Reconning ?
Whether its here, under editorials, newspapers really..any place, that you have a debate, I can't believe there are so many people so uninformed, so unintelligent, so liberally tainted and defensive regarding thier candidates and ideology that they will stare you straight in the face with literally nothing to stand on, but think they are winning.
Lets get real, shall we. I'm an independant. No, not the party, it simply means by my definition that I believe in doing what's right for America. So your "idea's", Ideology, emotions and propoganda on BOTH sides do not sway me. What does ? Reality, facts, science, proof. Maybe background on how a person use to be... and if they have ever changed. You know...those things that give proof of where we are, where we've been, and where we are headed. You may go on and on about Hilary, but the facts of what she said, did and her Ideology are out there, yet the left seems to blur the facts and have a short memory While the right uses them to pounce on each and everyones head. And what does the left expect ? They gave the world so many moments of shame in history yet they have yet to be held accountable for most. YES...that nasty "A" word liberals do not like to hear...from my experience. What of the Liberally motivated Berkley bastards that protested...as was thier right, but to the point of involvement that they demoralized our own troops, treated them shamefully when they returned and conveniently forgot the carnage left in Veitnam when we pulled out early due to thier supposed valiant efforts ? No matter how far back you go in history, I can't claim the republicans have done everything right, but I have personally been keeping score with many of the high profile things appearing to the public and I have to admit, the liberals are standing in quicksand. They've been responsible for most of the catastrophies that have disrupted the American people, and not in a good way. I doubt a republican could have passed an illegal vehicle registration tax like Grey Davis did in California.
I recall an article once written that proclaimed being Liberal meant never having to appoligize. And that is the root of the problem. You have a group (generally) of emotionally charged people, too lazy to find the facts or listen to BOTH sides of an issue, before they jump on the band wagon, join the crowd and march against what they "feel" is right. History doesn't seem to matter, facts, statistics or even common sense seem to go right out the window. And at the end of the day, when thy've affected an outcome, they pat each other on the back, regardless as to how many people's live's they inconvenienced or hurt, no matter how much they've muddied up the waters to see the truth, no matter even if they didn't actually accomplish anything in a positive way. They don't want to know the truth, they don't want to be told they are wrong, they think thier "intentions" are justified regardless of the outcome.
Sure, as i've said before, the republicans are no saint, but until they mess up as bad as the Liberals have, There is no comparison. This war was justified, it was led regarding a nation that had commited terrorist acts on thier own people, and neighbors. You are not the president, you are not the cabinet members, you are not privy to the details nor should you be. America never won a war by going to the American public to make a thumbs up / thumbs down decision. It was made by a leader of our country that you hired. Bush is damned if he does and Damned if he doesn't. The liberal whiner will complain if a nuke goes off in his back yard crying that there wasn't enough done, and if nothing happens, it isn't all because people didn't try, yet the average liberally minded person will then whine about thier civil rights.
So put away the slogans, the excuses, the picking out of one or 2 lines out of context that someone quotes. The FACT is that Liberals don't have that good of a track record, so why would anyone take you serious ? Conservatives might not have brought about a tremendous economy but they have rarely brought about a problem that messed America up as much in the last 30 years that i've experienced. This prolonged war not going our way is the first real ammunition in a long time, personally I think we shouldn't have stayed as long as we have, but we were justified to go in. But out of sight out of mind right ? click...turn off the channel talking about starving kids in africa and you won't know about it, you won't have to feel bad. Unil you can "know" all that happened in Iraq the country, then you have a right to form a realistic opinion, and if all that was happening there isn't enough to make you think it was necessary, You obviously don't have truth on your side of the issue.
Getting back to the debate, I'll admit, I don't know much about Baraca, and if it becomes an issue for me to know, i'll go find the info myself and not assume anything. As for Hilary, well, yes, I do believe America is ready for a woman president, but Not her. We have hired presidents to do the work of the people. Not all, but some have shown to be quite immoral and lacking in standards AFTER they were in office. That is beyond our control, whether it be a republican or a democrat, but we do not, as a nation, hire people for the job that we know ahead of time are lacking. Hilary was side by side with Bill, she was either involved or she turned a blind eye, either way, she was there, she was ever so slightly involved. The first womaon president will no doubtedly go into the history books, please let it be a good choice that we make history with, not someone besmirched with corruption, shadey dealings or 2 faced behaviour.

If You Don't Stand FOR Something
You'll fall for anything. Cancellary herself said she was tricked into voting for the war. What else will she be tricked into doing if she is running the whole show (and it will be a show)Most all we hear from any lib is what others are doing wrong, especially in answer to criticism of themselves. When are we going to hear what they can do to make life better in America.

Pitbull
She is with him in the hope that will swing some traditionally right wing married people to vote her way.
If she is the first woman elected president, she will probably, after her re-election is assured, be the first to divorce in office as well.

xpressit, you gotta be kidding...
Bush took responsibility only after every other sane person in this country realized Iraq was (dare I say it) a quagmire and disaster.

Right up until the election he was crowing about how we were winning, the only alternative to what he was doing was cut and run, rummy was the best SOD ever and had his job for the rest of Bush's term.

Now Bush is all about new strategy and tactics, we are losing, hand wringing, just give me a few more troops, lets try this last bullet in the gun.

Is that what you mean by "Bush took responsibility for his actions, positions, and the mistakes?"

What a load of cr*p.

Wheeliguy, you rebut nothing
Point 1: You're not rebutting anything, just saying you disagree with and dislike her. I am sure you are so closed minded that you would disagree with her if she asserted the sun will rise tomorrow.

Point 2: You are just plain wrong when you say Hillary does not work in a bipartisan fashion. She has worked tirelessly on common issues and concerns with Lindsay Graham, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and others. If you don't know this you truly underestimate her. For example:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7142420/

If people like you, Limbaugh and other conservatives keep underestimating her I might as well stop supporting Biden for president because her elecition is a sure thing.

Point 3: Thank you for agreeing with me. I am right on all the other points, too. Just think about it and do a little resarch on your own rather than just echoing brainless commentators like Limbaugh.

Point 4: Bush even had some idiots in this country thinking Saddam had something to do with 9/11. So of course he misled the country to war. He and Cheney cherry picked intelligence and pushed that flawed intelligence to Congress. Heck he had me supporting the war for a year. Now Bush admits he made mistakes. Hillary admits she made a mistake voting for the war. She's just being honest (like Bush).

Point 5: Thank you for agreeing with me that Hillary wants to defend our country. She will explain how over the months leading up to her election.

Point 6: You make it sound like rednecks are all stupid. They aren't. A lot of them will end up voting democratic. Happened in Virginia (Jim Webb won). Happened in Pennsylvania (Rick Santorum lost). Happened in Ohio (Sherrod Brown won). Gosh... its happening all over.

Your argument about why Islamic fanatics want to kill Americans is drivel. They don't want to kill just liberals. The don't care whether you are a democrat, a republican, believe in god or an atheist. They still want to kill Americans because they think it helps their cause to establish islamic states in the middle east and countries with muslim majorities.

Debate
I don't think Hannity is good at debating. I like Rich Lowery (sp) and Ann Coulter would do well against anybody. Now, why should Hilary debate a pundit at all anyway? The best debate would be with another politico on the right who is a good debater. There are quite a few good choices, Mitt Romney would be one good choice.

Labyrinth

Hey. Give us a break and do a little paragraphing on your post. It is too difficult to read as it is.

Thanks

slacker

I guess you have never read one of the many books written about HRC in the past four years by people who know her and researched her as she really is.

There is a boatload of writings available on virtually every bookshelf in America with her true story. The citations is them are verifible and offer positive evidence it would be the biggest mistake in American political history to give her the responsibility of conducting the domestic and international affairs of this country.

The MSM favors HRC because she is of the same "school" as the journalism students where she acquire her education. It is THEY who drive her campaign and they support her because she does what they want her to say and do.

There is nothing new about her ideas. She is merely rehashing the same old diatribe liberals have been expounding for the past 40 years. Because so many writers and commentators are also of the same liberal persuasion, it only sounds like she has support. Middle America will not buy into her pap.

Isn't just about time to
place Kimberly on ignore?

Remember, please don't feed the trolls!

Hiznibbz
Yeah, but it can be fun to shred her stupid posts. Like a cat to catnip...

Sonny
C'Mon amigo, you KNOW that libs NEVER research factual material. The fact that Barbara Olsen (RIP) thoroughly researched and then outed the REAL Hitlary in her books.

http://www.conservativebookclub.com

has all of her stuff and more.

BTW, all, check my blog for your very OWN liberal repellent kit.

sonny, I don't read garbage
Most of the books conservatives love to read and cite about Hillary Clinton look like muck raking hack jobs and diatribes about her personality or supposed crimes that they claim there is tons of evidence for. In reality, it turns out no prosecutor or legal team any where has ever gotten enough evidence to indict her for anything. And everyone knows (as we see in the Libby trial) a determined prosecutor can "indict a ham sandwich."

So spare me the "she is a horrible person" baloney. I can accept you or anyone else disagrees with a policy or two. But lay off the ad hominem attacks, they don't prove anything.

Its too early to say whether her campaign will be the juggernaut everyone assumes it will be. However, conservatives downplay her ability to win elections at their peril. It wasn't all that long ago she was running for senator in NY for the first time and the conventional wisdom was NY state, which outside the NYC area is quite rural and conservative, would never accept her. Now a few years later she is a very popular senator who was re-elected easily.

Hillary rewrites...
Those of you who defend the devious Hillary, should WANT her to reveal her thesis, since you think so much of her. She, in turn, has always said what a good job she had done as well in Arkansas, etc.

So SHOULDN'T THE PUBLIC KNOW ABOUT HER THOUGHTS AND WRITINGS OF HER TIME AT WELLESLEY, INCLUDING HER TIME 'BEHIND THE SCENES' IN ARKANSAS - PLAYING the Co-governor, as she did Co-President to Bill in D.C.?

After all, weren't the Libs the ones who went after George Allen, for a "College Remark he supposedly made then"? Doesn't the SAME APPLY TO HILLARY-AND WHY ARE YOU ONLY INTERESTED IN OUTING INFORMATION WITH REGARD TO GOP MEMBERS?


Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.