I wish I'd been there

rw wrote in news:sW56g.735$Ae1.548
@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:

However, she's way, way down on my list of
preferences, mainly because she's cynically moved to the right to
position herself for the race.


She's down on my list just because I think she's too divisive a character
to be electable. I could be wrong, as the talking heads have been saying
that the 35 year old waitresses making $20000 a year will turn out for her
in droves.

I can tell you she's been a pretty good Senator from the upstate NY point
of view. I could give two ****s about her left/right position, and some
silly ass flag burning bill. Hell, I could even vote for certain
Republicans under certain situations.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 4...
rw wrote in news:sW56g.735$Ae1.548
@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:

However, she's way, way down on my list of
preferences, mainly because she's cynically moved to the right to
position herself for the race.


She's down on my list just because I think she's too divisive a character
to be electable. I could be wrong, as the talking heads have been saying
that the 35 year old waitresses making $20000 a year will turn out for her
in droves.

I can tell you she's been a pretty good Senator from the upstate NY point
of view. I could give two ****s about her left/right position, and some
silly ass flag burning bill. Hell, I could even vote for certain
Republicans under certain situations.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

If she is nominated by the Dems, you can figure another 4 years of neo-con
control!

Op

"Opie" wrote in
:

If she is nominated by the Dems, you can figure another 4 years of
neo-con control!

Op



Not every republican is a neo-con. Let's say Guliani wins. Personally, I
think there are some real problems with him, in that many of his "quality
of life" law enforcement issues may have had some real problems with civil
liberties, and I think he might lean toward Ramboism during war. But, he
can get things done, he's fairly fiscally responsible, and the Christian
Conservatives would be essentially out of the loop. Do you consider him a
neo-con? I would have though McCain would be a reasonable candidate, as
well, but I've lost a ton of respect for him in recent months.

I think even Republicans realize that the current level of partisanism is
doing bad things to our country. I also think that the current admin has
been trying to keep things this way, for God knows what reason. If the
Republicans don't choose wisely, they could hand over the White House keys,
even to a Hillary. BTW, I can even understand the vitriolic hatred of
Kerry more than I can understand the knee jerk reaction to Hillary.

In any case, thank God for term limits. This thread started off by calling
for a rally behind the Pres to show the world something. I think the most
positive thing we can show the world at this point is how quickly a strong
representative democracy can recover from this train wreck of an
Administration.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
"Opie" wrote in
:

If she is nominated by the Dems, you can figure another 4 years of
neo-con control!

Op



Not every republican is a neo-con. Let's say Guliani wins. Personally, I
think there are some real problems with him, in that many of his "quality
of life" law enforcement issues may have had some real problems with civil
liberties, and I think he might lean toward Ramboism during war. But, he
can get things done, he's fairly fiscally responsible, and the Christian
Conservatives would be essentially out of the loop. Do you consider him a
neo-con? I would have though McCain would be a reasonable candidate, as
well, but I've lost a ton of respect for him in recent months.


I meant exactly what I said. If Hillary is the Dems candidate, then we can
look forward to another four years so neo-con control. The Republicans
won't pick a relative moderate to run against her. Karl Rove will trot out
and beat the drums for some neo-con religious fanatic to combat the
homo-loving, anti-christian elites.

Rooty ain't goin' nowhere. And neither is Hillary. McCain's a has been.

Op


I think even Republicans realize that the current level of partisanism is
doing bad things to our country. I also think that the current admin has
been trying to keep things this way, for God knows what reason. If the
Republicans don't choose wisely, they could hand over the White House
keys,
even to a Hillary. BTW, I can even understand the vitriolic hatred of
Kerry more than I can understand the knee jerk reaction to Hillary.

In any case, thank God for term limits. This thread started off by
calling
for a rally behind the Pres to show the world something. I think the most
positive thing we can show the world at this point is how quickly a strong
representative democracy can recover from this train wreck of an
Administration.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

In article , says...

"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 4...
I can tell you she's been a pretty good Senator from the upstate NY point
of view. I could give two ****s about her left/right position, and some
silly ass flag burning bill. Hell, I could even vote for certain
Republicans under certain situations.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

If she is nominated by the Dems, you can figure another 4 years of neo-con
control!

Op

I'm pondering changing my voter registration to Democrat (from not
affiliated with any party) just to try to get the Dems to run somebody
decent. They have to realize that they are going to get stomped on
if they run Hillary. Right?
- Ken

Opie wrote:

If she is nominated by the Dems, you can figure another 4 years of neo-con
control!

Especially if Nader runs again.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

"rw" wrote in message
nk.net...
Opie wrote:

If she is nominated by the Dems, you can figure another 4 years of
neo-con
control!

Especially if Nader runs again.

Get you a good mirror and a decent set of forceps, and pull that Nader bug
out of your swollen ass!

If the Dems want to shout themselves in the head--again--they should go
ahead and nominate Hillary. I certainly won't vote for her, and I'm far
from a Republican. I'm registered "Unaffiliated."

the Dems will lose fro the same reasons that they lost the last two
times--they ain't got no decent candidates to run up against an electorate
that can be led around by bible thumping, security scare fanatics!

Go ahead Putz, get her nominated.

Op

"Mr. Opus McDopus" wrote in news:qo96g.9777
:

I certainly won't vote for her,

May I ask why?

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

wrote in message
...
In article , says...

"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 4...
I can tell you she's been a pretty good Senator from the upstate NY
point
of view. I could give two ****s about her left/right position, and
some
silly ass flag burning bill. Hell, I could even vote for certain
Republicans under certain situations.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

If she is nominated by the Dems, you can figure another 4 years of
neo-con
control!

Op

I'm pondering changing my voter registration to Democrat (from not
affiliated with any party) just to try to get the Dems to run somebody
decent. They have to realize that they are going to get stomped on
if they run Hillary. Right?
- Ken

Do it. Hopefully it will be someone with some executive and leadership
experiences. Considering who the R likelies are right now, and R control of
the Congress and the judiciary, I could consider voting for Hillary (without
joy) as a vote against the "One party State." RWs list is plausible.

Dave

"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
May I ask why?


I can't answer for Op, but will state clearly that I will not ever vote for
her, as I feel she is an unprincipled, power hungry, shallow
politician(using "politician" here as a perjorative). Literally, I would
refuse to vote for her, even if she ran against Santorum, and I am a
lifelong Democrat.
Tom