I find it so ironic...these Republicans giving kudos and support to Hillary and she and her followers eat it up and what .... the rest of us Dems. are suppose to think they're actually favoring her??? I'm truly sick of hearing from them about how great and electable she is... the same people who trashed them when they were in the White House and would NEVER vote for her in the General Election! These stupid pundits and even more stupid Dems. Like Pat B. and Joe S. etc. ...these people's opinions count??? They're not Dems. Never have been and never will be. How stupid can these Hillary supporters be to believe these guys??? I use to like them, but now the Clinton's suck big time!

Posted at April 27, 2008 3:52 AM in response to Defenders of Machiavellianism Take Note: Your Right to Deplore Swiftboating is Forever Forfeited

Regarding my last comment...I was saying that Clinton helped push through much of the Republican agenda...NAFTA and deregulation. Don't know if my comment was confusing, but it was in response to AJM and Oceankat's lack of knowledge and thinking that some how the Clintons are not the "liberal Republicans" that they suggest Obama is. We don't know yet about Obama, but there's hope.. we have already seen what a Clinton presidency does.

Posted at March 23, 2008 5:32 PM in response to My Story: Emotional Infantilism?

Great post! Thank you Spike and Ann H. Can only say that AJM, you're full of it!
I am around the same age as Spike and Ann H. and have been politically active my entire life as my mother and father were... they even took me to peace marches in Washington, D.C. when I was just a kid. I've been working for political candidates since the mid 60's.
May-be you and readers making comments like you do not realize when they see "liberal Republicans" because Hillary and Bill are truly in that category.
Bill ran on a progressive platform however later when he was elected, he actually adopted much of their agenda, ie. issues like de-regulation and NAFTA. Although most of the Democratic majority in Congress at the time was against NAFTA, it was Bill who helped pushed it through as he did with the telecommunications act, as well. He also cancelled all the investigations regarding Iran-Contra that were still underway when he took the Presidency; letting Daddy Bush and Reagan get away with rewriting history. If the horrific stuff that the Reagan and Bush Administrations had been apart of, been allowed to surface and become public knowledge, we probably wouldn't have lost the Democratic majority that we had in Congress then and most of all Reagan's legacy would have been severely tarnished. Reagan would never be the Saint that he is now considered to be by the vast majority of Americans and I think our political landscape would be a lot different now. It's about time you do some research.
The USA is not a monarchy or suppose to have family dynasties and the idea of a Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton???? presidency is not imspiring to me.
We definitely need new blood!

Posted at March 23, 2008 5:10 PM in response to My Story: Emotional Infantilism?

Yeah right...in your dreams!

Posted at March 23, 2008 4:08 PM in response to Why I can't vote for Hillary

I disagree with Lalo's statements. Andrew has the right take on the Clinton Administration.

The centrist policies of Clinton and him going along with the Republicans on things like deregulation and NAFTA moved our country further to the right. It's a matter of perception. He ran on a populist platform and then moved to the right on so many issues which allowed the public to think that what was once extremely right wing was now actually pretty centrist. The whole septrim was lost. Centrist has been consistently more further and further to the right. Democrats began to act like Republicans... supporting the corporations and not the unions, etc. and the DLC was born!

Also, contrary to Lalo's other premise... at the time Goldwater was running for President, the general opinion was that it was the end of the Republican Party because he had so little support. If it wasn't for LBJ's horrible Vietnam policies Nixon would have never gotten elected with his supposed "secret way to victory" there. Even more sinister was the Republicans use of racism as a political tactic. Realizing that LBJ's civil right's policies were hated by the southern Democrats, the Republicans began their compaign to use Race and change southern Democrats into Republicans... later other issues were born like Roe vs Wade and now there are the value voters and the Christian Right with issues like flag burning, homosexual marriage, etc. After Nixon resigned the country was really angre that Ford pardoned him, but all that is forgotten now and everyone celebrates Ford for doing that now. Carter was very popular almost all the way to his re-election (another fact long forgotten) Reagan was a joke! If it weren't for the Iranian hostage situation which Daddy Bush, head of CIA, took advantage of (too many shenanigans used to go into now...look it up) Carter would have easily won re-election. All of these dealings ...Iran Contra continued during the Reagan Administration and all the guys involved were pardoned, ie., precedent... Nixon's pardon. But the investigations were still going on and Clinton swept it all under the rug when he became President and let these Republicans get away with murder and worse of all they made Reagan out to be a staint. They even began naming things after him before he was dead, ie National Airport now Reagan... nothing named after LBJ with all his civil rights achievements, but I digress... Republican's have been able to rewrite history and they continue to do so. The policies that Clinton adhered to, for one; burying the past are continuing in this Congress today with their refusal to hold impeachment hearings, etc. and the story goes on...

I'm afraid with the way Hillary votes and her centrist positions she will also allow all of this to continue.

Posted at March 23, 2008 3:38 PM in response to Why I can't vote for Hillary

Yes, I have to agree...the statement comparing tricky Dick on integrity and Buchanan on race was truly brilliant.
Do these guys really think anyone would except their opinions as truth, or does the network just hope to influence "the stupids" to believe what they say as gospel?

Posted at March 19, 2008 5:32 PM in response to Scarborough and Blue Collar Votes

Thank you for your comment and explaining to "the not so enlightened writer" of this post the meaning of the Ashley statement.

Posted at March 19, 2008 5:21 PM in response to Obama Fact Check, since he brought it up

I so agree with your comment, ondioline and that of mrdoooo. Scarborough although he attempts at times to be more fair than most right wing pundits, all someone has to do is mention that the Christian right is equally as inflamatory as other groups and he has a shit fit, etc. and the hypocracies of the fair weather reporting of Matthews and Russert... give me a break! To be fair these guys should have played Fallwell, Robinson and Hagee's hate comments, not to mention the value's voters choir singing their version of "God Bless America" with all those big shot Republicans in the audience. This stuff never gets picked up by the main stream media and we all know why.

Posted at March 19, 2008 1:55 PM in response to Scarborough and Blue Collar Votes

I agree in that the media is having a field about this and a speech by Obama would clarify all of this and may be the best this for him to do. It will definitly help put the issue to rest and it will also help his contests in the upcoming primaries and the general if that is where he is heading.

Posted at March 14, 2008 5:13 PM in response to Ferraro and Olbermann and Wright. And Hill and Bill. (Oh my.)

I suppose it's only Jerry Fallwell that was allowed this kind of statement. How about McCain latest endorser/buddy saying Katrina happen because of an upcoming Gay parade. These people get a free pass from the media, but I'm sure this thing with Obama's preacher will just be all over the news over and over again. People like these Pat Robinson types are allowed to get away with this kind of divisive rheteric and go on to represent and endorse candidates all the time. We are killing ourselves in the general election if we continue to make to big a deal of of it.

Posted at March 14, 2008 5:06 PM in response to Ferraro and Olbermann and Wright. And Hill and Bill. (Oh my.)