Comments on: Will Hillary Hurt The Rest Of The Ticket?

Democrats Worry Sen. Clinton Is Too Polarizing For The Party's Success

[horse3farm]

all of that was ignored in a rush to get on board with th inevitable candidate.

Hillary is actually a worse leader than George Bush, who would have made every mistake he made (she voted for each of his stupid mistakes and supported him energetically for example on the Patriot Act and Iraq). - posted by SharnCedar

I didn't vote for Bush..I knew all along it was a big mistake and I was right...you must have followed the hype yourself, so thank you for helping to put him in office.

And I am sick of people saying she voted for the war. You idiots...that was years ago and she voted on the intelligence at hand...which was a lie.

Get real.

[horse3farm]

"And where is this Hillary "experience" that makes her so more qualified to be president? Where is this 'strength'?"
posted by toongal4u

Hillary is a current senator from NY. And yes was the first lady for 8 years. I guess you think she sat in a corner all that time. You appear to be another ignorant commentator on this story. In fact, I will bet none of the people posting on here really know any "facts" about Hillary Clinton. You all say you won't vote for her...but you have no credible reason. Have you read anything about her that is in depth and fact, her life, how she got started? But you all don't care, about her and anyone else. Ditto for any other candidate. I talk to many people who say they hate her...but can't give a legitimate, credible reason. Thank goodness none of you are running.

And to cmp271...you appear to be "too stupid."

[gunownerdan]

I wonder how many millions in Hitlery's bank account came from Wal-Mart and other huge corporations.

[perception5]

People like you are the reason this country is a mess. You neocons want to move us back to the 19th century, where we polluted the world without thought (deny global warming), minorities were kept in their place (racist and anti-woman) and workers were slaves to corporations (against unions).

Posted by Rafterman1 at 01:14 PM : Aug 13, 2007


.......Rafterman1, I always get a good laugh reading your liberal propaganda.

It was the Republican party that gave woman the right to vote in the 1920's.

It was the Republican party that freed the slaves over the objections of white Southern Democrats who tried to spilt from the Union. Thanks to Lincoln we fixed that.

It was your party Rafterman1 that ran the South from the 1860's to the 1960's with an iron fist. Even to the point where you created illgal militias like the KKK. (Robert Byrd was part of the KKK)

It was your party Rafterman1 where nearly 40% of Dems Senators voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Republican Senators, at nearly 90%, voted FOR the act. FYI your hero's dad Al Gore Senior voted against the 1964 Civil Right Act.

Now today in America's "deep blue" cities Black Americans live in proverty and dispair. In deep blue cities like Detroit, with the UAW is present, only 25% of children graduate from High School.

Rafterman1, not sure what your smoking but you need to splash some cold water on your face, put down the NYTimes, and rejoin the real world it's 2007

[gunownerdan]

Hitlery Clinton(or any other filthy rich corporate prostitute) will never be buying my vote.

[perception5]

Including Mormon cult member, Mitt Romney, or listless lying GOPig Rudy Gulliani, or Southern White Trash Fred Thompson? Your ignorance is a giveaway that you're a Southern Bigot.
Posted by ConDumism at 01:19 PM : Aug 13, 2007


.........ConDumism, your liberal intolerant feathers are showing out here today. Do you really think that Americans are going to vote for your party, the Democrats the way that you yourself represent them?

We don't need anymore "hate" in this country.
Try to have a nice day.

[toongal4u]

If Hillary Clinton is the democratic nominee it will be the first time in my voting life that either I will not vote or I will vote -- I can't believe I'm saying this -- Republican. Ugghh!! And where is this Hillary "experience" that makes her so more qualified to be president? Where is this 'strength'? It isn't there. So she was First Lady for 8 years, so what. Then the cooks and maids and butlers and gardners, etc., in the White House are more 'experienced' than her because they're probably still there. They can run. It's all a farce, that 'experience' thing, it's all a brainwash. And besides, she'd only have to call up Barack and ask him what to do next, since all she's done since Obama's campaigning is follow in his footsteps, repeat his words, and steal his 'change' mantra as her own anyway.

[realpatriot1]

Condumism,

You give us southerners way too much credit, we don't have a monopoly on bigots. By the way, what kinf of bigot are you?

[condumism]

Posted by tuckerndfw

I would vote for any Republican, including Bush, before I would vote for Hillary.

Including Mormon cult member, Mitt Romney, or listless lying GOPig Rudy Gulliani, or Southern White Trash Fred Thompson? Your ignorance is a giveaway that you're a Southern Bigot.

[sharncedar]

Hillary "clinton" would be the least experienced president ever elected in the United States since George Washington. She has spent a total of 6 or 7 years in elected office, that includes all levels of government.

Yet the media annointed her as the next president 18 months before the election. This rush to confirm a candidate with a famous name is exactly what happened with George Bush Jr. 18 months out they were putting him out there as the only logical choice, and the media was pushing that fact with its "polls" more than a year before the elections. Thus there was no real primary, ans we never had a chance to see the incomptent clown for who he was - all of the dirty laundry, like the draft dodging, cocaine use, s*xual misadventures, Enron and other illegal insider trading, his failure at each of his business endeavors, all of that was ignored in a rush to get on board with th inevitable candidate.

Hillary is actually a worse leader than George Bush, who would have made every mistake he made (she voted for each of his stupid mistakes and supported him energetically for example on the Patriot Act and Iraq).

Our only hope is not to take the candidates force fed to us as inevitable by the media. How about you slavish unthinking Democrats just try, for once, for all of our sakes.

[rafterman1]

perception5,

People like you are the reason this country is a mess. You neocons want to move us back to the 19th century, where we polluted the world without thought (deny global warming), minorities were kept in their place (racist and anti-woman) and workers were slaves to corporations (against unions).

[condumism]

"Will Hillary hurt the rest of the ticket?" She already has, on her own, even without The GOPig smear machine to manipulate the process. She is too mainstream for most democrats. Seems that she will continue to allow corporate and foreign lobbyists to have unlimited access to the US Congress, which is what keeps America in a State of Fascism, exactly where the Regional Southern GOP Confederate Party wants the USA to be.

[cmp271]

The Democrats are finally waking up to the fact no one is going to vote for this horrible female. Not only is she power crazed she isn't a credible contender. Tht country is tired of the names Clinton and Bush. Obama doesn't stand a chance either. Now that Mitt Romney looks like he is the one for the GOP, none of the Dems really have a chance. This whole entertainment put on via the party has been to go after Bush for our involvement in Iraq. We don't need to have the run up to the election a whole year and a half ahead of time. I am tired of hearing about any of the candidates. All of them can just go home and do the job they were hired for.
I am sick of seeing Hillary in the news, she isn't anybody, and her face she looks like a chipmunk-four years to look at that how gross.

Women are too stupid not to vote for her, after all she is a female too-not this one!!! I wouldn't vote for her if she ran for dog-catcher and then only if she agreed to put her husband in the pound and have him castrated! He still runs around on their "marriage."

[samthetvcat]

"FYI, only two Senators have ever been elected in all of American history. So take out ALL the Senators from either party that's running and in the balance you will find our next president. How's that sound?"
Posted by perception5

That's an interesting point . . . to that I'd say that there's also never been a woman or a black, but the reason they're the 2 front-runners is because Bush fit the Presidential 'prototype' to a T and based on his performance people are now looking for his opposite. But when it comes down to it, even liberals gravitate towards tradition so it'll be interesting to see how this all unfolds when it comes down to it . . . this is all uncharted territory, so who knows. What Bush does excel at is saving face and putting a positive spin on disasters (he's had lots of practice - lol couldn't resist that one) . . . like Dems should beware a last-minute Bush move that pumps up the base and draws independents back into the Republican fold based on the excitement of electing a somebody new from the party, and not feel so confident about the election being a lock because people want change.

[samthetvcat]

"Unlike Crooks, most Democratic leaders agreed to talk frankly about Clinton's political coattails only if they remained anonymous, fearing reprisals from the New York senator's campaign."

Geez, this is what I don't like about Hillary. I totally got what Barack meant when he said Hillary is like Bush - they're both power-hungry and slightly tyrannical. She just went nuts when that movie producer David Geffen came out and said he supported Barack because the Clintons were slimy. And then in the youTube debates, she couldn't think of anything nice to say about Barack and worse went on a crusade the next day attacking his 'naivete' when she was already ahead of him in the polls something like 20 points. Geez . . .

[samthetvcat]

"Democrats need to wise-up; just as in the 90's the GOP was hijacked by the religious right; the Democratic party is being hijacked now by MoveOn.org/DailyKos et al."
Posted by fredgrad2000

I don't think that's accurate at all - if you listen to what people are saying about why they support Hillary it's because she's got more experience than Barack, and doesn't profess to be the voice of the middle-class when she's getting $400 haircuts like Edwards. She also never doubts her judgment like Edwards and her national profile came from aligning with a presidential winner (Billy) rather than a loser (Edwards as Kerry's VP nom in 2004).

If you can name a couple of ideas that came from the think tanks of moveon and dailykos perhaps your theory that they are leading some sort of extreme right-wing movement might seem more realistic.

[jairod]

perception5: You have proven my point. Thank you.

[jairod]

perception5: You have proven my point. Thank you.

[perception5]

the Dems are being just as dumb a decade later in letting the looney left dictate their direction. This will hurt them in a center-right country, Iraq or not - and if Iraq improves within next 18 months, looney left Dem vs moderate Republican, will result in another 4 years of GOP White House control.
Posted by fredgrad2000 at 11:31 AM : Aug 13, 2007

...Dems can't help it. They get most of the funding from these hate groups, mob-run unions, vampire trial lawyers, and enviromentialists who have done a great job at stopping any kind of new Nuclear plants, oil drilling, and other measures that would have kept America from having to buy our energy from overseas.

It's really sad about the Dems....BUT they always have America's corrupt liberal wolfack press who "props" them up every chance they get.

[fredgrad2000]

Democrats need to wise-up; just as in the 90's the GOP was hijacked by the religious right; the Democratic party is being hijacked now by MoveOn.org/DailyKos et al. These organizations are far far far to the left of the American electorate (which is still center to center-right). Democratic party members should be very concerned that in a generic Dem vs GOP 2008 presidential race, the Dem wins by 16 points (due to Iraq of course - without Iraq, who knows); but when their potential candidates face-off against the likely GOP nominees, they lose by a little in as many polls as they win, and they never win by anything near the 16% "generic" win. That's because the current Dem frontrunners are running so hard towards their MoveOn masters and smear merchants (who will "Lieberman" anyone who doesn't move in lock-step with them), that they could just blow this!! A Dem candidate who is viewed as owned by the far left will NOT win in a general election against a moderate Republican. Just as the GOP was dumb to let themselves be hijacked - the Dems are being just as dumb a decade later in letting the looney left dictate their direction. This will hurt them in a center-right country, Iraq or not - and if Iraq improves within next 18 months, looney left Dem vs moderate Republican, will result in another 4 years of GOP White House control.