dunno, the books didn't seem that damaging to me. the chief revelations that I saw were that the clintons had marital troubles and that bill has wanted to be president for a long time. but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise

I just read the Post piece, and there's no there there.

And check out the authors: John Solomon, and, Anne Kornblut contributed! My very favorite Post writers.

Except for David Broder, of course.

Seriously, you gotta love this piece of reportage:

And it includes a thirdhand report that the Clintons had a secret plan after the 1992 election in which he would have eight years as president and then she would have eight years, although last night a key source disavowed the story.

wapo:
""Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton," by Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr., reports that during her husband's 1992 campaign, a team she oversaw hired a private investigator to undermine Gennifer Flowers "until she is destroyed." Flowers had said publicly that she had an affair with Bill Clinton while he was governor of Arkansas."

Hillary didn't have to go too far to destroy flowers:

CONASON/LYONS (page 25): Musicians and club owners who had worked with Flowers described her as manipulative and dishonest. Her resume falsely proclaimed her a graduate of a fashionable Dallas prep school she’d never attended. It also listed a University of Arkansas nursing degree she’d never earned and membership in a sorority that had never heard of her. Her agent told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that contrary to her claims, Flowers had never opened for comedian Rich Little. A brief gig on the Hee Haw television program had come to a bad end, the agent would later confirm, when Flowers simply vanished for a couple of weeks with a man she’d met in a Las Vegas casino—and then concocted a tale about having been kidnapped. She had never been Miss Teenage America. Even her “twin sister Genevieve” turned out to be purely a figment of Flowers’ imagination.
...
Flowers never produced a single paragraph, valentine, or birthday card as evidence of her twelve-year affair with Clinton; no witness ever came forward who had seen them together. Indeed, she would eventually write an entire book, Passion and Betrayal, without stating a specific time and place where she and her famous lover were together.
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh101503.shtml

And don't forget flowers "murder list." A list of all the people the Clintons killed.

If you forgot just how sick things were back then look through Somerby's archives.

Greg:
"but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise"

I don't know what that means but I hope it's not what I think. The Big Dog wasn't president for 6 months when bobdole launched the first of an endless string of investigations all based on lies. At best most "liberals" stood by and watched and at worst "liberals" invented the biggest sickest lies. Would a rerun of that make you happy Greg? Just asking.

Greg, it's only because we've all been so inured to attacks on Hillary due to the fact that many - but not all - have been irresponsible and ideologically motivated, that you could possibly say what you just said. Imagine if the Post had reported that Obama has had a practice of disposing staffers or other of his lieutenants to pressure people who had said unfavorable things about him to the press to recant their statements. That would be blaring headline news, and rightly so.

Yet today, the Post reported that this kind of subornation of false statements was a standard operating procedure for Hillary (as well as Bill). The most damning example is that Webb Hubbell and Vince Foster had been dispatched to get Betsy Wright (who worked for the Clintons, not the Repbulicans!) to falsely recant a statement she had made to the press. I had not heard that one before. The whole picture is of a woman with the worst kind of situation ethics; "shady behavior is OK if it's to defend ME, because I am one of the GOOD people." This is the kind of self-righteousness that has led W to cross accepted lines in the belief that he represents some greater good. It's dangerous. And for this blog, which is rightly earning a reputation for exposing corruption in an evenhanded way, to ignore it coming from Hillary is problematic to say the least.

The "yawn" staffer you quote deserved a bonus for fooling many folks, including Ben Smith over at Politico, and apparently you, because the power of these two books is that they come from folks with no obvious ideological agenda. Carl Bernstein, for example, has been an unabashed liberal for years. These books will have for more credibility than the Regnery Press crap from a few years ago. The books remind us that Hillary is damaged goods among not only Republicans but the all-important independents. She is about the only major Dem who I can imagine losing in what should be a triumphal year for Dems in 08.

Nice try. But ya really can't pardoy the sick and demented hate filled spew of the 90s.

You are inadvertently adding to the credibility of the Gerth/VanAtta book. Where do you think the dossier on Flowers came from? Duh, the Clintons' private investigators. Don't get me wrong, I have no doubt that Ms. Flowers was of less than stellar moral character. Can you name a single Bill Clinton paramour who was not morally compromised in some way? That's either the kind of person Bill was attracted to, or he realized that this kind of person could not win a credibility contest with a respected Governor/Rhodes Scholar in the event of the person went public.

But while Ms. Flowers probably was a less than fully honest person, I also have ZERO doubt that Bill slept with her repeatedly. Remember Bill's carefully worded denial: "I did not have an eleven-year affair with her. ... WHat she said isn't true." We all knew that that meant the affair was shorter, but that there was an affair. I didn't care anway, since I more or less liked Bill's policy smarts and he was obviously better than either of his Repub opponents. But I can't stand the fact that his personal failings made his presidency less effective from a progressive point of view than if he had been of sound moral character. And Gore would not have needed to win Florida, as he would have won at least one other state he lost, if Bill hadn't been such a polarizing figure by reason of his poor morals.

Many years ago, someone remarked that "for Bill Clinton, women are the spoils of his feminism," meaning that his record of supporting women's rights in the public policy arena won him some leeway for treating them like disposable consumer goods in private. These books are showing that Hillary was a sort of sickening accomplice/enabler, in that she was fully behind the efforts to discredit these women as human beings so that the impression would be that their claims to have slept with Bill were false.

I am sick and tired of the Clintons' psychodrama played out on the public state. It's a distraction from progressivism; it plays into the hands of the enemy; and it's just tiresome. I hope these books do, along with other reporting, cause Dems to rethink their support for Billary.

I am sick and tired of the Clintons' psychodrama played out on the public state. It's a distraction from progressivism; it plays into the hands of the enemy; and it's just tiresome. I hope these books do, along with other reporting, cause Dems to rethink their support for Billary.

You are so "sick and tired of the Clintons' psychodrama" you type 3 large paragraphs of sick and tired Clinton psychodrama. You are so "sick and tired of the Clintons' psychodrama" you hope these books provide even more.

Good Gravy!

Something humans might wanna read starts in the second paragraph:

In the mid-1990s, you see, your liberal journals averted their gaze when Gene Lyons’ Fools for Scandal detailed the loathsome games Gerth played in his original Whitewater “reporting”—the bungled (or dishonest) work which gave the name to an entire era. Nor did they jump on Gerth’s strange conduct when he bungled his Wen Ho Lee reporting—reporting the Times felt forced to retract. The fiery liberals at your liberal journals gave this cosmic loser (and Clinton-hater) a pass. And so he lives to play us again. Indeed, he’s pimped in this morning’s Post. “Hard to dismiss!” Baker says.
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh052507.shtml

Will the Clinton psychodrama stories go away if progressives ignore them? If the answer were "yes," I'd agree with you wholeheartedly. I fear the answer is, "no," because for better or worse, the press eats the stuff up and there is apparently a large market for it.

Something we agree on: Ignoring the psychodrama stories won't make them go away

The stories don't happen by accident. Execs, editors and writers decide they are going to attack a Democrat. When they attack one Democrat they attack all Democrats. As long as Democrats let execs, editors and writers get away with they will continue.

"large market for it"

The stories don't happen by accident. Execs, editors and writers decide they are going to attack a Democrat. When they attack one Democrat they attack all Democrats. As long as Democrats let execs, editors and writers get away with they will continue.

"large market for it"

If by large market you mean anybody that signs up for the conservative book club gets a free copy and any time more than 2 repubs are the same place they hand free copies then yeah.

“If you think the answer to any of the first four questions is "yes," I can't fault you voting for her”

You’re a former deaniac right? Yeah, sure you are. Now you want dean Obama. How about this: For me personally I want accurate information on each candidate. For me personally it’s way too early to decide which dem candidate I’ll vote for.

Still a yawn. I'm sorry, but your outrage seems contrived. It strikes me as more of the false moral posturing which the Republicans are so good at.

I'll only say that Hillary has indeed been lucky in her enemies over the years. They have made up a lot of stuff about her and thereby crowded out criticism coming from saner corners. I know that most Democrats tune out anti-Hillary attacks because of this crowding out effect, and I sincerely hope independents and moderates do as well, because if she gets the nomination I will want her to win. I just foresee a replay of the Kerry debacle, where the Repubs stir up what we might all think is old rehashed stuff, but the attacks stick with voters who don't follow politics as closely as the readers of this blog. The reason they might stick is that, though much of what's been said about Hillary is false, there are accounts from multiple Democrats and progressives who've worked closely with her, including Mark Fabiani and many years ago George Stephanopoulos, that she is deeply cynical and amoral, and out for herself above all else.

Well put, Dajafi. I made the mistake of posting when I was a bit agitated, and your more sober assessment is dead on.

I can assure you I'm no "concern troll." I'm just one person who always votes Democratic and would vote for Hillary if she won the nomination. I have nothing to do with any campaign or any book; but I like to get an independent sense of politicians by refusing to overlook someone's faults just because the other side wrongly accuses her of terrible things. I will admit that I prefer Obama to Hillary and possibly Edwards over Hillary. I don't think that makes me a "concern" troll.

On the subject at hand, it appears that you've accidentally helped make the point that others have made above better than I: Hillary is lucky in her enemies, because they've made so many false charges that the true ones have trouble getting through. I did not in any way suggest I believed the outlandish murder conspiracy claims or any of the other false charges you've helpfully listed. They are crap and I would never listen to Limbaugh and Hannity. They truly are evil. If Carl Bernstein now is up there with those 2 in your pantheon of evil, you've lost me.

I will however confess to believing that Bill Clinton had more than 2 affairs, and I find it quaint and very revealing of you naivete that you think Bill had just two infelidities, Gennifer and Monica. The only other person in the United States of America I can think of who would make that statement is Paul Begala. More importantly, you also ignored my point that I do not give a rat's hair about Bill's infelidities; what does trouble me is that he -- and now apparently with Hillary's active support -- had a habit of strong arming and pressuring people who would speak about this matter in an effort to get them to change their stories. If any Republican were found to have done that, say Giuliani, you and others would -- rightly -- be all over it. Let's not be hypocrites.

The last two elections have been razor close, and my main point is that I'll throw up if on election night in 2008 it's another 51-49 Repub victory, because more than 2 percent of the public was so turned off by the personality of our candidate that they voted for the Repub despite agreeing with our candidate on more issues.

Merits aside, neither of these books are going to have a serious impact poltically. Neither of them are even a one day story, pity for their publishers no doubt.

So what happened to Kerry? He was blindsided by a series of well funded and entirely fabricated attacks.

Ao is it better that Hillary won't be blind-sided since it is already out there, and that much of what will be thrown at her will be the truth? 

So many people distrust and dislike her for exactly the characteristics that these books bring out.  What moderate republian, (which is what we need to join our forces) is going to vote for her?  I can hardly convince myself to do it if she gets the nomination.  

Jan

Well put. This sums my feelings up precisely. And I'm tired of the apologists in the party enabling this psychodrama to have such a good shot at continuing, if the polls are to be believed:

But I can't stand the fact that his personal failings made his presidency less effective from a progressive point of view than if he had been of sound moral character. And Gore would not have needed to win Florida, as he would have won at least one other state he lost, if Bill hadn't been such a polarizing figure by reason of his poor morals.

Many years ago, someone remarked that "for Bill Clinton, women are the spoils of his feminism," meaning that his record of supporting women's rights in the public policy arena won him some leeway for treating them like disposable consumer goods in private. These books are showing that Hillary was a sort of sickening accomplice/enabler, in that she was fully behind the efforts to discredit these women as human beings so that the impression would be that their claims to have slept with Bill were false.

I am sick and tired of the Clintons' psychodrama played out on the public state. It's a distraction from progressivism; it plays into the hands of the enemy; and it's just tiresome. I hope these books do, along with other reporting, cause Dems to rethink their support for Billary.

 Oh, and to those who equate any criticism of Hillary now with the truly bizarro episodes driven by the far Right in the late 90s needs to understand that one can be disturbed by Hillary's baggage without being, well, you know, 'disturbed.' 

Will it be the truth? Was it the truth that she had a lesbian affair with Vince Foster but murdered him to keep him from squealing about the drug trafficking she used to engage in her whitewater business scandal?

Seriously? Hmmm.

Give me a break.

Set aside the hysteria, the rumour, the innuendo, the girls room gossip that guys like RaymondoA seem to live for, what have you got?

Hillary Clinton is pragmatic, she knows how to spin, she treats people who attack her as enemies, she challenges adverse stories above and behind the scenes, that she doesn't stick her neck out, she was progressive when she tried to push health care but not so much now, yadda yadda yadda.

Old news. No discoveries. Everyone knows. No one cares.

All the rumours about Bill Clinton being pants impaired were out there while he was running for office.

It wasn't news. No one cared.

You ask what moderate republican would vote for her?

I ask you what moderate republican, period? What moderate republican? Does such a thing as a moderate republican exist any more? Is there a moderate republican, or are they all just sucking George Bush's knob?

Where are the farking moderate republicans? What were they doing during the military commissions act? The PATRIOT Act? What were moderate Republicans doing when giant tax cuts were given to the rich? When giant deficits were run up? Where were the moderate republicans during Katrina? What were they up to when a raving lunatic like Alito got sent to the Supreme Court? Who heard from moderate republicans when Mark Foley was engaging in homosexual pursuit of underage pages?

I'll tell you where the moderate republicans were. They were marching in lockstep. They were on their knees in front of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, they were unzipping the flies of Jerry Falwell, James Dobson and Pat Robertson? They were spurting all orgiastic over Terry Schiavo.

"Moderate frikking republicans"? Don't make me laugh.

They're nothing but dinner table Nazi's. They're the sort of assholes who are friendly and genial and easygoing enough that you can have them over for dinner and think they're nice guys... but when push comes to shove, there they are in the lynch mob stringing up the poor black gy.

You want to know what defines 'moderate republicans'?

I'll tell you: Bottom line they do what their masters tell them. Always. And they can't exist without a master. Set them free, and they'll just run to the lunatic who shouts angriest for them to slip a collar on.

A 'Moderate Republican' combines the worst aspects and the worst things you can ever say about a Liberal, and they make it worse cause they don't have a farking smidgen of principle behind any of it all.

If you figure on relying on 'moderate republicans' you may as well go home now.

What's a definition of a moderate republican: A liberal, but without the principles.

What's the difference between a moderate republican and an earthworm? An earthworm might some day develop a spine.

What's the difference between a moderate republican and a flatworm? A flatworm has a memory.

Moderate republicans? ptooie!

When I mention "moderate republicans,"  I am talking about those people who don't foam at the mouth when they hear the words, "abortion, or gay marriage" and who consider themselves republican because they believe in fiscal responsibility and small government.

Moderate republicans? ptooie!

You sound the way Tom Delay sounds when he talks about any Democrat.  Is that how you want to sound?  I know you're angry, Valdron.  So am I.  But if we despise every republican we are no better than this bunch that started the K Street Project.  We have to turn things around, in my opinion.

PS.  I hope your little story about Hillary having a lesbian affair with Vince Foster was supposed to be absurd.  It didn't do anything to refute my point that some, some of the crap they are spreading about Hillary is true.  The problem is that with her baggage, it is not very convincing to say, "OK, That is true, but this sentence here; it isn't true at all."  That is the kind of stuff that makes it impossible to maintain credibility.

Jan

I think she is an effective senator

She is an atrocious senator like all Republican Lites. It will be my pleasure to vote against her twice again after she (hopefully) fails to win the nomination for president.

Unlike RaymondA I am fully willing to vote for Republicans. Does anyone here think it was wise of voters in Connecticut to boot Lowell Weicker out and choose Joe Lieberman? I voted once for Sherwood Boehlert because he and Newt were battling each other. Boehlert toyed with the idea once of running in both the Democratic and Republican primaries. He probably would have won both. One memorable Democratic opponent had an interesting cost saving plan for the Defense Department. He proposed mounting nuclear-tipped missiles on commercial airliners. I voted for that novel idea. Never really knew if the fellow was serious.

Those who blindly vote party labels are foolish in my opinion, especially when faced with a corrupt politician like Hillary Clinton.

If the Democratic Party is to stand for anything, it might be best not to vote for Republicans calling themselves Democrats. That way you might get Democrats who will not do Bush's bidding as just happened.

Best, Terry

Oh Val, my val.....I've missed you so....(sigh)

I support her and hope Hilliary wins. I'll be honest and say that, in a world far more perfect, given the choice, I would chose Obama. But, sad as it is, for me, as it too often is, it's about who will win the presidency and sorry, there are too many people in this country, right or wrong, who will not vote for a black man.

It's more important to get one of 'ours' in the White House to start reversing the damage that 8 years of Bush's reign has done. I think that ethically, Obama is a far better candidate, but he hasn't got a chance.

If polarizing means your favorable/unfavorables are close to 50-50, maybe Bill Clinton has not been "polarizing," particularly in recent years. The definition of "polarizing" I have in mind is that a "polarizing" figure motivates and excites the other party's base, so that even if only 35% find the person unfavorable but almost all of those 35 can be motivated to make a contribution or knock on doors by their loathing of the person, that person is polarizing. Gingrich was polarizing, Ted Kennedy twenty years ago was polarizing, W was very polarizing even when his favorable ratings were up in the 60-65 range, and Bill Clinton was and will continue to be polarizing, particularly if he starts making more and more public appearances rather than staying behind the scenes, as he's mostly done. Granted, Bill C is not up there with DeLay, or even W, as a polarizing figure but still he's fairly polarizing, as of course is Hillary herself.

Beyond that, I should say I don't object to those who polarize because they take a strong stand on issues, but Hillary has not been the progressive many hoped she'd be and yet she still polarizes. And that to me is what is truly unfortunate about her candidacy. If we nominate her, we get someone who is less progressive than Obama and yet more polarizing. Why is that the smart thing to do, even if you think -- as many readers of this blog do (and I hope most independents and swing voters do) -- that I'm vastly overstating her and Bill's character weaknesses?

I find it very difficult to believe that Democrats, likely to be presented with a golden opportunity to take the White House in 2008, would squander the party's nomination on Hillary Clinton. Some portion of the Democratic electorate seems temporarily dazzled and incapacitated by the notion of HRC at the helm. I don't understand the source of this mysterious entrancement myself, but I'm fairly confident it will pass. I suspect as the time for actual voting draws closer, many of the Democrats who now think they support Clinton will come to their senses, say "what the hell could I have been thinking" and vote for someone who has at least half a chance of being elected.

There is no way Hillary Clinton can be elected President of the United States in 2008. No way. I think at bottom, everyone knows this.

You've missed an acidic flensing artist?
More's the pity.

You know, on this board, I feel proudest of my reasoned, careful statements, balanced views, considered thought. I take no pride at all in flaying. The fact that I end up doing it is a weakness.

I wish I could be a better person, kinder, more generous and big hearted, rather than all too often a quick mind and a quicker knife.

Will someone explain to me how it could be possible that TWO (2) new books on Hillary have already been published while George Bush's past STILL remains largely unexamined?

Spent a lot of your own time reading biographies of simpletons? Is there anything more anyone of at least average intelligence really wants to know about Dubya's past that hasn't been revealed?

Best, Terry

No Val, I missed your usually eloquent arguments, your quick turn of phrase, your keen intellect and your adeptness at being able to strike at the very heart of the matter at hand without much preamble.

That, and you're funny as hell.

I've been chuckling about this for hours:

Will it be the truth? Was it the truth that she had a lesbian affair with Vince Foster but murdered him to keep him from squealing about the drug trafficking she used to engage in her whitewater business scandal?

It doesn't get much better than that.

You may be correct DanK but I look forward to proving you wrong. One of the reasons that I say this, is that after the first Dem debate, Chris Matthews, the best, I think political analsyst out there,( but certainly no friend to Democrats in the last six years, what with his marvelling how great George Bush looked in a codpiece and his fawning over post-indicment Tom Delay) positively gushed over Hilliary's debate performance and Pat Friggin' Buchanan was so impressed with her that he proclaimed her 'Reaganesque'. And you're still sure she doesn't have a chance?

Are they still with the Republicans?

Then the hell with them. They can take their fare share of responsibility.

If they've come over to the Democrats, then they're merely rats who have deserted a sinking ship. Nothing more. Nothing less.

They're entitled to courtesy, not consideration. Let them repent of their sins, hold their tongues and do what they're told.

Chris Matthews is a mercurial, desultory nutcase whose impressionistic effusions and estimations don't remain consistent from one minute to the next, let alone one day to the next. You might want to check back with him next week.

Buchanan wants Clinton to win the nomination, because he wants a Republican to win the general election and thinks Clinton is the most beatable Democrat from the group of serious contenders. I would keep that in mind every time you hear a top Republican pundit say something nice about any one of the Democratic candidates.

As for the "Reaganesque" label, I can't imagine what Buchanan could be talking about. Buchanan does have a good sense of humor, so are you sure he wasn't joking? There are rather few people in America, even among Clinton's supporters, who get the kind of warm fuzzies from her that Reagan gave his supporters.

Furthermore, Reagan inspired Republicans because he was seen as an avatar of the economic and cultural right, and the apotheosis of a conservative movement that had had grown from a few humble seeds over a quarter of a century and finally blossomed into a mature plant. Nobody thinks Hillary Clinton bears the same relationship to the Democratic left.

What I don't know is why you would actually want her as president when their are other viable candidates from which to choose. But I suppose that could just be a matter of political values. If you want the candidate who mainlines the Aipac view of the Middle East, who is the most likely to lead us into war with Iran, and who is an unreconstructed DLC centrist and corporate whore, be my guest.

It strikes me from some of the discussions here and elsewhere that some of the energy behind Clinton is from those for whom she represents the Revenge of the Clintons: the ultimate thumbing of the nose toward Ken Starr, Henry Hyde and all of the other members of the vast right wing conspiracy.

Well that's a damn stupid way to choose a nominee. I wish these Big Babies for Hillary would stop sucking on their bitter roots, get over their 90's-era pain, get their heads out of ther past, look to the future, and move on.

Actually, the upright chimp lost both elections, but I get your point!

Jan

I don't understand leftists sometimes. What is Hillary? A centrist. A pragmatic politician who came under a disgraceful number of false (almost entirely) and psycho attacks during the '90s. Now a crowd wants to revive all those "Hillary the monster lesbian who's something like Hitler" tales. Hey, progressives: what all Hillary-bashers say about her is derived from their hatred of women, or of Democrats, or liberals, or progressives.

I remain to be persuaded -- actually only a nudge or two -- that the Dems should go all the way and run a black man for president. (I know, a politically gifted black man, and if not now, when.) Every time I see self-styled "progressives" make common cause with Matthews, or any of a dozen of the big press whores who never could say a decent thing about either Clinton, and the psychos who wrote the book about Hillary murdering Vince Foster, you don't look progressive, and you don't get my vote. You just look like another bunch of bitter, twisted people who don't understand a damn thing.

It would be much better for you if you agreed, yes, Hillary is being demonized -- that's solidarity, folks, and it's true -- and then sit back and watch the crazies make their bombing runs. Is that too Machiavellian for you? I'd call it real politics. If Obama or Edwards wins the nomination, it'd better be on the basis of his positive platform, not piling on with the "Clintons are monsters" crazy people.

Well pardon me while I get my smelling salts.!

I'm curious though Dan K; since 'demon-spawn' Hillary seems to be an entirely unsuitable candidate, who would you and CVille Dem support?
I'd be delighted to hear your picks and the reasons for them And I'd also be more than happy to spell out reasons why I think your candidates won't win, in my own muddled, 'straw for brains' way of course.

I have to say one thing for Gennifer Flowers because it's true and nobody else says it for her.

I saw her sing in a bar in New Orleans, pre-Katrina.

She's good.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Tonto's panning fool's gold with, Val, I'm afraid. I wonder is she even know's he's Canadian, which makes his rants on everything from our health care system to elections a little bizarre.

I agree with you, Jan. Here's how a Hillary/Rudy election will go down. Conservatives will find the idea of Hillary in the White House far more loathsome than embracing Rudy's social liberalism. Rudy, on the other hand, will appeal to independents and even disaffected Democrats who will vote for him. It will be interesting to see who can carry NY, but I suspect the Democratic machine there is just too strong for Rudy to breach.

Agreed.

Raymond A,

Kudos to you for a valient effort in trying to illustrate your points and defend your arguments. But you want a candidate who would not be a 'polarizing figure'? Tell you what, we could friggin' reanimate and bring George Washington back to life and run him for president but as long as he was running on the Democratic ticket, he would still be a 'polarizing' figure.

I have a sister-in-law whose a Republican. Now, very nice lady, believes in all sorts of 'christian' ideals, is pro-choice, pro-gay rights, all that sort of thing, but she despises the Democratic Party. She can't even talk about Democrats without doing so through clenched teeth. She thinks Bill and Hillary Clinton are evil incarnate. (as you can imagine, we tend to avoid the topic of politics)

God knows our base is partisan but that's the nature and mindset of the Republican beast today. A non-polarizing candidate is non-existent, I'm afraid.

I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings.  What set me off was your statement that all I had to do was give you the name of a candidate (or a potential one) and you would then pick that person apart.  You said that without knowing who I would pick.  That made me think it wasn't worth the trouble.

Why should you assume I would back someone who is a bad choice?  You were insulting me, and I answered back.  Why would I give you a name when you have announced your intention to tell me (not even knowing what that name is) what is wrong with my choice?

Let's call a truce, and agree to disagree.  You think Hillary is wonderful.  I don't.  Plenty of people agree with you (most of them wealthy, with much to gain from backing her, or why would they give so much to install her in office?); I don't.  I am a yellow-dog Democrat, and I don't like her.  How in the world can she win a general election?

Anyway, I simply disagree with you; I don't think you are stupid or anything, but if I did I might say something like:  "Tell me why you like Hillary and I will procede to tell you all the ways you are wrong."  Get it?  It was your dismissive attitude toward anything that I might say.

Self-deprecating remarks don't go along with the challanging way you respond to other posters (except your boyfriend, Valdron, LOL!)  BTW, re another remark of yours:  although Jan can be a name for male or female, I am female!

So, truce?

Jan

P U !

Jan

Jan,

Oh, I knew that you were of the 'fairer sex', it was obvious from your first response to me. That and, "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned"...(yuck, yuck) I'm really glad we got any misunderstandings cleared up though and thanks so much for your response. (I was actually pretty sure that you thought I was just a nuisance and you were going to respond to 'just piss off' or something so I'm grateful that you're still willing to engage me.

Now, back to the debate. As I was saying, there are probably issues about Hillary that I should inform myself of but, interesting enough, after some thought, just thinking about doing the research feels exhausting to me. It's like so many people here have pointed out; there has been so much written about her, (much of it being crap of course) that like many people, I'd rather just block it all out. It's all just 'scandal fatigue' by now. You're right though, I should inform myself more fully about her before cheerleading for her more.

I'll tell you what I think of the other nominees though. I like each and everyone of them (well, with the exception of Joe Biden I guess, a bit too smarmy)

I've mentioned this before but in a perfect world, I'd vote for Obama. He might very well be an MLK president (and what a great american he was) but even with the nomination, I'd think he'd lose because of his skin color. (Case in point; Bill Bradley for governor here in California in 1982. He was leading in the polls and looked like a sure win, but lost the race because white voters, it turned out, were less than honest to the pollsters; they now call it 'The Bradely Effect') I'm also not sure he's ready for the mantle. Other than the WW II, this might be one of the most trying times for the nation and we need an extremely tough and pragmatic president to lead us through. That being said, times are always a'changin' and he might surprise me. I've 'manned the phones' the last two elections and would be more than happy to make a million calls to encourage support for him.

John Edwards. Now, I'm trying to get over my bias towards him, but here's why I feel the way I do. I like Edwards tremendously. His idea of 'Two Americas' is a conversation we desperately need to have in this country. But I'm convinced, at least so far, that he will be another 'Kerry' nominee. When Ann Coulter made the 'faggot' remark, I felt kinda like, okay John Edwards, 'a nation turns it's lonely eyes to you.' And the first interview I saw him in after the remark, he looked like a 'dear in the headlights'. It's was pretty much 'genteel' after that.

Now I'm a gay man and I was somewhat shocked by Coulter's remark, but hey, it's Coulter, that's par for the course for her. I was completely offended by the audience's reaction though and Edwards should have come out swinging and hard. (if for nothing else than to prove that he wasn't a 'faggot' in the way she meant it.) Not just that she insulted gay men, I don't care I can take it. But that she insulted men, gay and straight and everyone, man or woman who believes in progressive ideas like equality and justice, helping the downtrodden, peace and non-violence, etc., etc., ; all the ideals that hardcore republicans think we are 'pussies' and yes, 'faggots' about. And I think alot of people, even moderate Republicans (I hope Val's not reading this) would have been proud of him for and inspired by him if he had fought back hard, but he didn't. The Democratic nominee this time is going to have to punch back hard against the attacks we all know will be coming from the right; this episode showed me I don't think he's up to the fight.

And lastly, I think Chris Dodd would make a fine president. He probably doesn't have much of a chance though. (and Bill Richardson, fine governor though he might be, has even less chance I think)

(Oh! and Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel! Both 'liberal whackjobs' as far as the Republicans are concerned so they don't have a chance in hell. Hope they both stay up to the very last debate though, love hearing from them both)

Phew, enough said for now. Look forward to your response Jan.

Patrick