Hillary Clinton cares nothing for democracy

Number 1 candidate, becomes VP for the Number 2 candidate?

Get. Real.
More than likely state constitution. It was recently taken to court in Michigan. The court said that it was "unconstitutional." Granted, I'm spitting out information that I read elsewhere...

I'm sure if research is done, something would come up. I don't care enough to look it up myself.

the state legislatures...in protest of giving only 4 states Iowa, new hampshire, S. Carolina and Nevada first dibs on influencing the candidates. They made the decision to move their primaries before Super Tuesday - and the DNC warned them repeatedly before they finally voted to move it up anyway that they would be sanctioned if they did so.

Do their state legislators include republicans?
So this is fair to democrats , how?

You having been unsuccessfully been attempting to discredit Sen. Clinton's experience for the simple fact that Obama has no Foreign Policy Experience to speak of.

Every challenge to her experience has been refuted.

Obama has been embellishing his resume from day one. I won't repeat it because you already know...we all know. He has a thin political resume for running for president...running for speaker in Illinois State legislature...sure he has a pretty good resume. Obama has no Foreign Relations, no Foreign Policy and no real National Security Experience to speak of period.

Hillary Clinton has 8 years as First Lady on the other side of Pennsylvania Drive working with one of the best administrations this Nation has ever known. The United States experienced prosperity and surplus under the first Clinton Administrations. As First Lady, Hillary Clinton had first hand knowledge of Domestic and Foreign Policy and she participated in more than any First Lady before her.

8 years having an office in the Executive Office Building...living in the White House? Yeah that trumps state senator from Illinois. next

Now, bring up the Nobel Prize winner and the Dayton Accords again so we can do that again. It would be better to stay off the experience thing. Obama loses everytime. And it just makes you look bad.

That is the point. It's not Obama's fault nor is it Hillary's fault. They happened to be the candidates. It's not the DNC's fault. It's not like the DNC just decided "f you" other states. The candidates agreed to those four sates (Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina) and to the DNC that they would only campaign in those states before February 5, 2008. It's not just the DNC that weighs in on this. It mostly a money issue. Money for the DNC, the candidates and ofcourse the states holding the primary. They set the rules up years ago - before candidates were involved.

When the REPUBLICAN governor of Florida was first approached about a re-vote in February. He said "sure. The DNC can pay for it." The DNC chair refused. He's right - the DNC is not required to put on a million dollar revote from the democratic warchest...that was the point. The Florida governor suggesting the DNC pay for it is a republican and potential McCain VP pick.

The republicans also moved up their date ahead of schedule...and their delegate votes were penalized as well, but they only lost 1/2 of their delegate votes. It really didn't matter because, Florida was a winner take all state for Republicans.

The point is the situation is not a result of Clinton or Obama's actions. They are the candidates, they are vested in those states voting for certain. Yet any time they try to change the rules once the race has started, they want to change by what is more beneficial for their candidate. Hence, Hillary wants the results to stand as is and question why doesn't Obama want a re-vote. There is no way to account that anyone that has already cast a republican ballot in Michigan, would not be allowed to cast a vote in the Michigan Democratic re-vote.

So yes, those republican legislators, created that mess. Though Michigan Governor Granholm is a democrat and their interest in moving up the election was to protest that only 4 states got to determine the nominee early.

Trust there was a lot of drama about the schedule of primaries long before the candidates announced their candidacy.

I will give you this much: Although I agree that Clinton is well within her rights, and within DNC rules, to try to sway pledged delegates, I'm not sure if this is the way to do it. It just comes off as annoying and impersonal, and doesn't meet the reality of the Obama campaign and its supporters which is based off from a lot of grassroots, personal commitment. Telephone calls will work to sway some undecided voters in a primary, but not seasoned delegates to a caucus. So, Hazel, I'll give you that.

Personally, I don't have a problem with Clinton's win at all cost attitudes. THIS IS POLITICS, and the election IS a competition -- use whatever means necessary to win. The Republicans figured this out long ago, and it is one of the reasons at why they are so good at winning national elections. If you think Hillary is playing it rough, wait until you get dozens of conservative PACs running ads against EITHER Democratic candidate -- we haven't even begun to see nasty yet.

Honestly, I do want a president who will do anything it takes to succeed -- be it to win the election, push through tough domestic policy, or play hard ball on the international stage. Obama's intellectualism can be refreshing after 8 years of a president who can barely spell, but we need someone (in my opinion) who can mix intellect with a succeed-at-all-costs attitude.

Remember, Obama is welcome to try to sway HRC delegates, too ... it is an open game, the question is really, how badly do they want to succeed?

My apologies, but the First Lady is a ceremonial position. It's up to the lady in question to establish herself as a true political force, and I need more than the acceptance of a teapot to believe that she has any "experience" as commander-in-chief. Would you want your surgeon's spouse operating on you? This is NOT to say that experience is a deal-breaker, just that her claims are silly. They both have experience in different fields, neither is more or less experienced than the other. They're basically neophytes. The difference is, Hillary has been in the public eye longer than Barack.

I'm not insulting Bill's presidency at all, by the way, he just isn't running for president this time. She is. I want a president who can function without his or her spouse, so when Bill comes up over and over it just leaves me wondering if people are voting for a third term.

By the way, the link above discusses the Prize-winner, but the details regarding the actual meeting, the transcript, the press coverage, etc. are why I added it.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: I cannot in good faith vote for Hillary Clinton. I wouldn't vote for John McCain either. There are two main reasons for this: first, America is going down a scary path of political dynasties. I refuse to vote in favor of blood relation and name recognition taking the place of legitimate candidacy (she is legitimate, but farther down the line... I don't want to see Jenna vs. Chelsea, sorry).

Second, Hillary Clinton is a hypocrite. My mom was very active in Arkansas politics and saw this first hand. During her six(!) years on the board of Wal-Mart, she sat in the corner and allowed anti-union decisions to be made, sexist decisions to be made (which reveals her hypocrisy more than anything else), ageist decisions, the list goes on. Many Wal-Mart employee horror stories have roots in her time on the board. Now she condemns these things? Please!

Again, I'm not undermining her candidacy, this is all fair democracy in action. I hope you all can see the specific points I've brought up here and not take it as a general "I hate Hillary 'cuz she's ugly and stupid!" post.

Unless she succeeds in completely destroying my candidate (shocker! he has TWO black babies!), there's only a small chance she could actually win the nomination at this point.
I've tried to keep my lips sealed 'til now, and I hope you can respect that. I didn't want to degrade the process while the gears were turning.

I posted it earlier...


Federal judge: Michigan's presidential primary law unconstitutional

Gordon Trowbridge / Detroit News Washington Bureau

DETROIT -- A federal judge on Wednesday ruled Michigan's presidential primary law unconstitutional and blocked the state from giving voter lists from the Jan. 15 election to the state's major political parties.
U.S. District Judge Nancy Edmunds agreed with the American Civil Liberties Union, arguing on behalf of several small political parties, that the law's provision giving the list of voters' partisan preference only to the Democratic and Republican parties violated the rights of other parties.
Michigan Democratic Party Chairman Mark Brewer said the ruling may have ended any chances of a new Democratic election to resolve the ongoing dispute over the state's delegation to the Democratic National Convention. The state party, he said, needs the list to ensure that no one who voted in the Republican primary in January votes in any new Democratic contest, as required under the national party's rules.

"If the Michigan Democratic Party cannot get the lists, then our friends at the ACLU may have driven the final nail in the coffin of any re-vote in Michigan," Brewer said.
But Hillary Clinton's campaign argues that the ruling now makes a new election more necessary than ever.
"Michigan will be a key battleground state in November," Clinton campaign manager Maggie Williams said in a written statement. "Disenfranchising Michigan voters today will, in the heat of a general election, provide Senator McCain with a powerful argument to use against the Democratic nominee. We cannot allow this to happen."
Edmunds, the ACLU lawyers who won the case and the state's top election manager all agreed that the ruling had no practical impact on the 2008 presidential campaign. "Nothing I'm going to say or do" affects the results of the Jan. 15 vote, Edmunds said. "That's the political reality."
"That election is on the history books, and it doesn't disappear because the law that created it is off the books," Brewer.
Mitt Romney won the Republican primary, and Hillary Clinton won the Democratic race. The January contest was earlier than allowed by either party; while the rules violation had little real effect on the GOP race, Democrats are still embroiled in a debate over how to treat Michigan.
Michigan Republican Party spokesman Bill Nowling said the ruling has no effect on the party.
"It was never about who had access to the list and who didn't," Nowling said. "It was about Michigan moving up and playing a significant role in the nominating process. The ruling doesn't affect that in our eyes."
Chris Thomas, the state's top election official, said even if the judge had ruled that the list should be made public, the state would have withheld it from release. The law included a "nonseverability clause," which voided the entire statute if any part of it was invalidated by the courts. Under that clause, Thomas said, the state would have kept the list private in order to protect voters' privacy.
You can reach Gordon Trowbridge at (202) 662-8738 or gtrowbridge@detnews.com.

Hillary, you being a first lady is a virtual dwarf to the experience of your husband Bill. He has 8 years as president, you have 8 years of dodging bullets in Bosnia. That amount to nothing compared to Obama's State Senator experience. While Obama was making and breaking laws in Illinois, you were a lobbyist at best, a very strong lobbyist, don't get me wrong...but a lobbyist. Your experience starts at 8 years as a US Senator, which is more than Obama already. No need to embellish it and if you were smart you'd try to make us forget about your 8 years experience of dodging sniper bullets in Bosnia.

This is definitely an area of disagreement, but I see a major portion of the president's job as being a lobbyist of sorts -- using his/her leverage and clout to help his/her party move legislation through the Congress. Certainly the president can be seen as a lobbyist (along with Sec. State) for the US on the world stage.

I am, however, disappointed by HRC's gaffe regarding Bosnia -- it is disheartening, and what makes me think neither candidate on the democratic side is electable. Still, at least she was GOING to be Bosnia on behalf of the US, albeit greeted with daisies rather than daisy bombs. What was Obama doing in the late 90s? State level legislature (and not that well).

you're an idiot, just like our current president. It's a Texas thing I know, isn't your fault.

You mean every challenge to her experience has been refuted as a story, not foreign policy. Yep, you and I agree.

Your convictions are not facts.

Hillary was at a USO for a morale boost. You've seen the videotape.

You can the full scoop of what she did in Northern Ireland here:
You'll learn what role Hume is angling to play by supporting her claims that she was influential in the peace process - lo and behold Hume has an agenda:

"
By SHAWN POGATCHNIK
Associated Press Writer
BELFAST, Northern Ireland (AP) - Hillary Rodham Clinton cites her role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland as one of the top foreign policy credentials of her presidential bid.
Her critics point to an empty, wind-swept Belfast park - which Clinton a decade ago proclaimed would become Northern Ireland's first Catholic-Protestant playground - as evidence that her contribution as peacemaker was more symbolic than substantive.
``She was in charge of christening this wee corner (of the park) as some kind of peace playground. It never made any sense then, and there's nothing there today,'' said Brian Feeney, a Belfast political analyst, author and teacher. ``Everything she did was for the optics.''
Critics say the playground-that-never-was illustrates the wider lack of accomplishment from Clinton's half-dozen visits to Northern Ireland - that they emphasized speechmaking, chiefly to women's groups, leaving no lasting mark.
Clinton twice addressed audiences of schoolchildren at Belfast's Musgrave Park, in September 1998 and May 1999. She declared that Protestant and Catholic youths must learn to play together but needed a safe place to do it - and helped plant a tree on the spot where a special cross-community playground would be created. Belfast did have other parks.
Nearly a decade later, Musgrave Park remains as it was: a well-groomed, rather lonely place sandwiched between a hospital and a highway, where adults jog and walk their dogs amid birdsong and spring flowers. The Belfast group touting the ``Play for Peace Fund'' silently shelved the idea within months although Clinton often referred to the project as an inspiration to a divided world.
Clinton and her campaign aides say her championship of a greater role in the peace process for women on both sides in Northern Ireland's conservative, male-dominated politics made a substantial contribution to the result.
``Women ... were persistent in the process ... (Clinton) came back to Ireland time and time again to be with them, to hear them out, to hear about the progress they were making,'' said Melanne Verveer, a Clinton aide who now works on the campaign.
That's a view supported by the recollections of some U.S. officials involved in the peace process at the time.
Former Democratic Sen. George Mitchell, who brokered the peace accord, recalled Clinton as having ``a sustained interest over a long period of time'' in Northern Ireland's troubles and that she ``became very knowledgeable about the issues and the participants.''
``By virtue of her position, her stature, I think she made a real contribution to encouraging and supporting that phase of the process and the entire process itself,'' said Mitchell, who has remained neutral in the drawn-out struggle between Clinton and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination.
Clinton has described herself as a catalyst for bringing Catholics and Protestants together, even though these activists regularly were meeting each other at many forums by the mid-1990s.
In 1997 she delivered a speech to the University of Ulster that was supposed to inaugurate an annual lecture series honoring a Belfast peace activist, the late Joyce McCartan, whom Clinton briefly met in 1995 during her husband's first of three whirlwind tours of Northern Ireland. The university hosted one more such speech, in 2000, none since.
A political party established in 1996 to promote women in politics, the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition, drew inspiration from Hillary Clinton's words and example. Voters weren't as convinced; the party folded in 2006 after all its candidates lost in two straight elections.
``It's crazy for Hillary to say she played a role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland. ... She seems to be confusing her record with her husband's,'' said Robin Wilson, founder of a Northern Ireland think tank, Democratic Dialogue.
In a December 2007 interview with ABC News, Clinton said: ``In just the last few weeks, the new leaders of the Northern Ireland government, Dr. Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness, made a special effort to see me. Why? Because I helped in that process, not just standing by and witnessing, but actually getting my hands into it, creating opportunities for people on both sides of the sectarian divide to come together.''
Clinton's longtime claims to have played a difference-making role in Northern Ireland attracted no criticism until the buildup to St. Patrick's Day this year. To some ears, her most recent comments have raised a false impression that she helped produce the landmark Good Friday peace accord of 1998.
Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern came to Clinton's defense, meeting with the senator in Washington - and making his first phone call to Obama.
``I think for anyone to try to question the Clintons' huge support (for Ireland) and start trying to nitpick and saying, 'But she wasn't sitting down at the negotiation table' - sure, we know she wasn't sitting down at the negotiation table,'' Ahern said.
After suffering criticism from rival Obama's campaign and Protestant politicians in Northern Ireland, Clinton this month backed off language that suggested she was ever involved in the 22 months of negotiations that preceded the Good Friday pact.
But Clinton still suggests that she wielded a hidden hand over the diplomatic triumph.
``I wasn't sitting at the negotiating table, but the role I played was instrumental,'' she said in a March 13 interview with National Public Radio.
Clinton's campaign has distributed statements backing up her claim from Nobel laureate John Hume, the Catholic intellectual heavyweight of the peace process, who credited her with making ``countless calls and contacts,'' and leaders of Sinn Fein, the party that former President Clinton helped to bring in from the diplomatic cold caused by Irish Republican Army violence.
In Northern Ireland, the endorsements from Hume, Sinn Fein and Ahern are broadly recognized as reflecting Irish Catholics' desire for maximum international sympathy, specifically from the U.S. The retired Hume, in particular, boost his clout by carefully cultivating friendships with U.S. politicians, chiefly Democrats.
For them, a President Hillary Clinton offers the best chance of a return to the pro-Irish policies of her husband, who broke with decades of State Department deference to Britain, an approach resumed under George W. Bush."


I worked a fucking 12-14 hour days throughout that god-damn kosovar/albanian conflict when NATO bombed Serbia and Kosovar refugees fled to Macedonia (SOUTH OF THE FRONT LINE) in another country, Trinity. That's were Hillary's opportunistic mugshot turned up. 1.5 months in to a country south of the war zone, where we controlled the airspace is not a security concern. clothing and feeding refugees that had fled to Macedonia is what the concern was. The UN took care of it, not fucking Hillary Clinton.

I'm fed up with your bs "cliff-notes" on what foreign policy means. Showing up after someone else has done all of the legwork to learn all of the players is not contribution. It's association, but it's not responsibility.

Like my sig says.......If hiLL has experience than yoko ono was a beatle