Who Should Get the Dem Nom?

Hillary really isn't as scary and horrible as everyone seems to think she is. When one looks at her actual record and views, it's not too bad if you can excuse her habit of trying to appeal to every demographic at once (but then again, what politician* doesn't do that).

*: i.e. politician with any chance in hell of getting ahead

I like Obama as well, although I often have trouble figuring out what the difference between electing him and elect Hillary is. There's enough latent sexism and racism in this nation still to give either one of them problems.

Edwards: He's got a nice face, but he already had (and blew) his chance 4 years ago. No thanks.

Gravel's got a few fantastic ideals and a few absolute nutso ones, but he'd be bearable.

My choice? Give me Gore. I want an intellectual back in the white house.

How ya doing, buddy?

Quote:

I'm really hoping that Hillary and/or Barack Hussein Obama get the nod cause there's no way in hell either of them will win.

Even though both of them come out quite well compared to all the Republican Front-runners in comparison polls? Even given that polls are never 100% accurate that would hardly support the claim that there's "no way in hell either of them will win".

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

What about her involvement in Whitewater and her history as a corporate lawyer?

Her oh so scandalous 'involvement' that never even resulted in criminal charges much less a conviction?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Quote:

The Clinton Administration has been one of the more shadiest of recent history

......what? Have you paid attention to ANYTHING the current Administration has done? And I'd say Iran-Contra tops anything the Clintons ever did for shadiness.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

That would put Clinton's term at #3 of the last 4 administrations. Hardly "one of the more shadiest" (to use your term).

I was speaking idiomatically.

Perjury about an affair that he should never have had to testify about in the first place since it was none of Congress' business. Let's be honest here: What man WOULDN'T try to lie to avoid telling about an affair?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

(1) Given the divorce rate in this nation, yeah, I'd say that that's pretty much par for the course and not that shady any more.

(2) It's still FAR less shady than things like illegally selling arms to Iran to fund terrorists/insurgents in Central America, wiretapping without warrants, shipping crates of cash to Iraq to mysteriously disappear, letting lobbyists rewrite scientific reports, basing environmental policy off of energy corporation lobbyists, violating the Hatch Act, outing covert CIA agents for political purposes (and obstructing justice by refusing to testify about it), deliberately misrepresenting evidence to justify invasions of sovereign nations, failing to include war spending in the national budget to 'balance' it and repeatedly requesting hundreds of billions in 'emergency appropriations' (worst accounting ever), piles of no-bid contracts to defense companies, torturing, revoking habeus corpus, and alleged vote suppression.

FELIPE NO

Would they? The religious bloc is already pissed at them and fragmenting, the war nuts are few and far between, and the libertarians aren't at all pleased with them either. We'll see what happens when it happens.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?