I wish I'd been there

"Tom Littleton" wrote in
news:2J96g.790$yh.678@trnddc04:


"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



I know many people share that opinion, but I can't for the life of me
figure out where it comes from. There's the whole carpetbagger thing, of
course, and she is obviously ambitious. But, I'm looking for the actions
or votes that sum up to the "unprincipled" part. I mean, Ken Starr had her
under a microscope for years, and couldn't find anything indictable.

"Power Hungry", I can live with. "Shallow" I'm not sure of, but I do know
that Kerry is not shallow and gets tons of abuse piled on him because his
message is complicated.

So, is it a case of "I know it in my bones that she's no good"?--not that
there's anything wrong with that. Obviously, strong feelings get generated
for some reason, I'm just trying to pin this one down a little better,
because it's fairly common, and I just don't follow it.

(This would be a great time to say "She didn't earn her Purple Hearts)!
--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
"Mr. Opus McDopus" wrote in news:qo96g.9777
:

I certainly won't vote for her,

May I ask why?

--
Scott

She too divisive, she is an ego-maniac--IMMHO-, she part of the entrenched
political establishment that has brought us to where we are today, she lusts
for power and she is a Democrat!

Op

"Mr. Opus McDopus" wrote in
:


"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
"Mr. Opus McDopus" wrote in news:qo96g.9777
:

I certainly won't vote for her,

May I ask why?

--
Scott

She too divisive, she is an ego-maniac--IMMHO-, she part of the
entrenched political establishment that has brought us to where we are
today, she lusts for power and she is a Democrat!

Op




I agree with the divisive part. That might be why many people won't vote
for her, or why a Democrat wouldn't vote for her in a primary. Everything
else, though, with the exception of "she", could describe Kerry almost as
well.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
"Mr. Opus McDopus" wrote in
:


"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
"Mr. Opus McDopus" wrote in news:qo96g.9777
:

I certainly won't vote for her,

May I ask why?

--
Scott

She too divisive, she is an ego-maniac--IMMHO-, she part of the
entrenched political establishment that has brought us to where we are
today, she lusts for power and she is a Democrat!

Op




I agree with the divisive part. That might be why many people won't vote
for her, or why a Democrat wouldn't vote for her in a primary. Everything
else, though, with the exception of "she", could describe Kerry almost as
well.


I didn't vote for Kerry either. You might note rw's objections to the way
in which I cast *my* ballot.

Op

--
Scott

Mr. Opus McDopus wrote:
"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.

It fun to see that I can raise your blood pressure as easily as
Fortenberry raises LaCourse's.

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

"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
Everything
else, though, with the exception of "she", could describe Kerry almost as
well.

I don't believe Kerry would never be such a putz as to sponsor anti-flag
burning legislation. I like HRC, I really do; but that idiotic stunt really
soured me on her as a serious candidate. WTF was she thinking?

Joe F.

"rb608" wrote in message
I don't believe Kerry would never be such a putz

Um, that's "ever be such a putz"

David Snedeker wrote:
wrote in message
...
In article , says...
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

I have this nasty habit of actually trying to vote for the best person
(which means
most of my votes have been "wasted"). Picking the lesser of two
weasels makes
me sick. Seriously though, if the Dems can't figure out how to put
forth someone
worth voting for for Pres then I'll vote straight Dem in the
House/Senate just to get
out of this one party hell.

Founding fathers were smart, but they missed that clause. Should have
had
something that raised the bar (55% of the vote?) for the President if
the same
party controls both halves of Congress.
- Ken

"rw" wrote in message
nk.net...
Mr. Opus McDopus wrote:
"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.

It fun to see that I can raise your blood pressure as easily as
Fortenberry raises LaCourse's.

You've got to be kidding, you silly twit. Why on Earth would I get upset
over nonsense?

You are no different from Dave L. You won't consider facts. You rely on
"truthiness." You have never once admitted to the fact that the Dems lost
the two elections, due to their own party's ineffectiveness, lack of ideas,
sedentary policies (both foreign and domestic), adherence to special
interest platforms and ideals that went against the grain of a great portion
of the electorate, acceptance of immoral character (real or imagined by
others--think Monica), and a host of other reasons to which you just can't
bring yourself to face.

Ralph Nader nor any other third, forth, or fifth party candidate, nor those
who voted for them caused the Dems to lose those two most critical
elections. The Dems--read: DNC and party elites including Gore and Kerry--
did it all by their little pea-brained selves.

Love,
Op

Scott Seidman wrote:
SNIP
Everything else, though, with the exception of "she", could describe
Kerry almost as well.

and Kerry looks fat in a pantssuit too.
--
Stan Gula
(there, I said it, and I'm both ashamed and relieved)
(effin' eh, people, lighten up, is it raining *everywhere*?)