I wish I'd been there

Scott Seidman wrote:
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.


hilary will never win the south. we democrats must find a better
candidate with national appeal. i think we have a chance if we can find
a decent, moderate candidate who is telegenic. g i've (shudder, mea
culpa) voted for a republican...once...long ago when democrats ruled
congress. i can't see that happening again in the remainder of my
years...under any situations.

jeff

Scott Seidman wrote:

"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)!


imo, the mass of the public...the electorate...responds on a superficial
basis at the polls. if all were as thoughtful, rational, and equitable
as you (and many others who write here) in evaluating candidates,
perhaps hillary would have a chance. perception becomes reality for too
many voters...and for them, perception is no more than a knee-jerk
reaction to a brilliantly-positioned and manipulative 20 second sound
bite. most knees jerk pretty quickly at the thought of hillary's candidacy.

....and, the ph, she was certainly injured in service to her country.
....still, i admit i was stunned when she succeeded in getting elected in
new york, so who am i to question her national aspirations? but, new
york is a unique population as compared to most of the country, eh?

jeff

"jeff" wrote in message

if all were as thoughtful, rational, and equitable
as you (and many others who write here) in evaluating candidates,
perhaps hillary would have a chance. perception becomes reality for too
many voters...


I might tend to agree....but, what is HRC if not yet another in a string of
Dem candidates who merely play to a shallow impression of what the polls
tell them?? They haven't even proven too savvy at that. Frankly, I have damn
near throttled my in-laws and other supposed Dem heavy-hitters when they
touted first Gore(personality of a block of wood, similar speaking
presentation), then Kerry
(good hair, hardly intelligent or deep, and I never could fathom where
anyone sees otherwise) . Despite his personal issues, Bill Clinton has more
brains, and legitimate people skills than both of them, and his, um, spouse,
put together.....which is why, were he permitted, he could win any election
anywhere, anytime, to this day.
That fact ****es Republicans off to no end, which is another point I
enjoyg. The job of President is a leadership position, and the Dems have
not been putting forth leadership material, nor presenting any cohesive
notion of governance other than "we aren't Republicans", which, while a good
start, just sounds kind of empty for 4 months of heavy campaigning. It IS no
wonder they keep losing, I just hope the next election proves
different......
Tom

Mr. Opus McDopus wrote:

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

Mr. Opus McDopus wrote:

"rw" wrote in message
hlink.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



odd how opinions of others get formed and expressed here.

but, i have absolutely no hesitation in saying that i do not think you
are correct in your assessment of rw. imo, he's not a putz or a silly
twit or any other derogatory name he has been called on this
newsgroup...nor is he like dave or anyone else on this planet. from my
personal interaction with him, and from my assessment of his writings
here, he is quite unique, thoughtful, engaging, capable, and worthy of
respect...whether you agree with his opinions or not. while on
occasions, he gets drawn into or initiates some of the disorder, many
other thoughtful and unique people are equally culpable. i don't agree
with many things said here by folks who i consider to be friends... i
frequently (and, admittedly, silently) disagree with the methods of
expression more than the underlying concepts being expressed.

and, btw, i am recovering just fine from my snakebite and from the u.c.
trek...the kentucky bourbon is excellent balm. (twitch, twitch)

jeff

In article ,
says...
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?


Republicans are the only ones who seriously think Hillary is going
to be the Democratic nominee. Most Democrats don't really consider
her as the potential nominee at all. It's strange. In the last
election, all the right-wing bobbleheads were obsessing over Hillary's
campaign for president, even though she wasn't actually running then,
either. Remember the ideal the Wes Clark was a "stalking horse" for
Hillary, whatever the hell that meant?

Kevin

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

Mr. Opus McDopus wrote:

"rw" wrote in message
hlink.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?

Q.E.D.

You have your button and I can push it anytime I want to.

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

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

Mr. Opus McDopus wrote:

"rw" wrote in message
hlink.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?

Q.E.D.

You have your button and I can push it anytime I want to.

That you have nothing better to do with your life than to "push" some
supposed buttons is quite telling. That you make false statements
concerning the previous political elections, and then can't/won't respond to
rebuttals proves just how shallow your political knowledge is!

Push away Stevie, it's very entertaining.

Op

"jeff" wrote in message
news:Yxc6g.10095$9c6.2027@dukeread11...
Mr. Opus McDopus wrote:

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

Mr. Opus McDopus wrote:

"rw" wrote in message
hlink.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 ca
n'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



odd how opinions of others get formed and expressed here.

but, i have absolutely no hesitation in saying that i do not think you
are correct in your assessment of rw. imo, he's not a putz or a silly
twit or any other derogatory name he has been called on this
newsgroup...nor is he like dave or anyone else on this planet. from my
personal interaction with him, and from my assessment of his writings
here, he is quite unique, thoughtful, engaging, capable, and worthy of
respect...

Yes, but that's the thing about opinions, they vary widely and wildly, in
many cases.

I respectflly agree t odisagree, with you, on this matter.

whether you agree with his opinions or not. while on
occasions, he gets drawn into or initiates some of the disorder, many
other thoughtful and unique people are equally culpable.

Guilty myself.

i don't agree
with many things said here by folks who i consider to be friends... i
frequently (and, admittedly, silently) disagree with the methods of
expression more than the underlying concepts being expressed.

Same here.

and, btw, i am recovering just fine from my snakebite and from the u.c.
trek...the kentucky bourbon is excellent balm. (twitch, twitch)

It WAS a good time! thanks for the Eastern Camaraderie

Op

jeff

Opie wrote:

Push away Stevie, it's very entertaining.

Ralph Nader.

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

"rw" wrote in message
k.net...

...You have your button and I can push it anytime I want to.

Hee, hee, hee.

Wolfgang