View Story | 707 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
... she wants us to vote for her based on that experience, so it is relevant.
Suppose I wanted you to hire me as a lawyer, and you asked me why. And I said, "Because I give Markos very good advice, and that gave me good experience," and you said, "Okay, what advice?" And I tell you that I'm sorry, but I can't share that with you.
Did you love NN08 in Austin? Join us in Pittsburgh in 2009!
by Adam B on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 09:04:35 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
High profile job.
You, sir, are a like a Hitler burrito, wrapped in a Mao fajita, with low-sodium Stalin sauce.| Strategy08.
by turneresq on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 09:06:40 PM PDT
divulge private conversations you've had with your wife?
"Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow." -- Albert Einstein
by KnowVox on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 09:06:45 PM PDT
Because these are workplace conversations, more or less.
by Adam B on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 09:08:08 PM PDT
is a workplace? Was Kenneth Starr also one of your law professors?
by KnowVox on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 09:21:22 PM PDT
One Million Strong --- Join up!
by psericks on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 09:27:22 PM PDT
other. They talk. Arguing that these conversations are required to be divulged because they're "business-related" is humorous.
by KnowVox on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 09:33:32 PM PDT
And her take was that Gore had to take a backseat to Hillary on virtually everything.
In other words, Hillary was the Vice-President and Bill's chief advisor.
Unofficially. So yes, they had many a private discussion. She was his partner.
by emmabrody on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 10:33:09 PM PDT
Nobody elected her to anything before her run for the Senate.
Al Gore was elected and she was shoving him aside and putting herself in his job?
This is acceptable how?
My choices: 1. Obama. 1. Edwards. ... 9,999,999. Hillary.
by blue vertigo on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 04:06:16 AM PDT
telling readers that Sally Bedell Smith's take on the matter was that Hillary was deeply involved.
Clinton should have respected and gone to Gore, instead.
by emmabrody on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:46:46 AM PDT
Sorry for the misread. Note the timestamp.
by blue vertigo on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:38:40 PM PDT
by emmabrody on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 07:56:53 PM PDT
although it was clear that Hillary's office was given substantially more deference than a First Lady generally would be. I recall the article making it clear that foreign policy was Gore's portfolio, along with some other areas that I can't recall, by written agreement between him and the President.
by Mother of Zeus on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:30:06 AM PDT
is available on line: White House Civil War by Sally Bedell Smith, from the November 2007 issue of Vanity Fair.
key quote:
Bill and Hillary's joint decision-making at the beginning of his presidency was as overt as it would ever be in the White House. "He would say, 'Hillary thinks this. What do you think?'" said White House counsel Bernard Nussbaum. "They really were a partnership. She was the absolutely necessary person he had to have to bounce things up against, and he was that for her. I sensed a tremendous need for each other. They didn't have to see each other, but they would talk continually every day." In deference to her continuing role as Bill's "closer," staff members called Hillary "the Supreme Court." "We would always say, 'Has the Supreme Court been consulted?'" recalled Dee Dee Myers, the president's press secretary for two years, now a V.F. contributing editor. Whenever Bill said, "Let me think about it," aides knew he intended to call Hillary. Gore was the one most affected by Bill's reliance on his wife. It was a given in the White House, as Chief of Staff Mack McLarty said, that everyone would "just have to get used to" the fact that Hillary, along with Bill and Gore, had to "sign off on big decisions." But having what Clinton domestic-policy adviser Bruce Reed called "three forces to be reckoned with" added yet another layer of perplexity and rivalry to the West Wing, where advisers and Cabinet officers knew they could lobby either the First Lady or the vice president to reverse decisions by the president. David Gergen, counselor to the president in 1993 and 1994, called the "three-headed system" a "rolling disaster."
Bill and Hillary's joint decision-making at the beginning of his presidency was as overt as it would ever be in the White House. "He would say, 'Hillary thinks this. What do you think?'" said White House counsel Bernard Nussbaum. "They really were a partnership. She was the absolutely necessary person he had to have to bounce things up against, and he was that for her. I sensed a tremendous need for each other. They didn't have to see each other, but they would talk continually every day." In deference to her continuing role as Bill's "closer," staff members called Hillary "the Supreme Court." "We would always say, 'Has the Supreme Court been consulted?'" recalled Dee Dee Myers, the president's press secretary for two years, now a V.F. contributing editor. Whenever Bill said, "Let me think about it," aides knew he intended to call Hillary.
Gore was the one most affected by Bill's reliance on his wife. It was a given in the White House, as Chief of Staff Mack McLarty said, that everyone would "just have to get used to" the fact that Hillary, along with Bill and Gore, had to "sign off on big decisions." But having what Clinton domestic-policy adviser Bruce Reed called "three forces to be reckoned with" added yet another layer of perplexity and rivalry to the West Wing, where advisers and Cabinet officers knew they could lobby either the First Lady or the vice president to reverse decisions by the president. David Gergen, counselor to the president in 1993 and 1994, called the "three-headed system" a "rolling disaster."
The whole thing is worth reading.
Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.
by TrueBlueMajority on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 08:44:47 AM PDT
are we to assume Bill breached national security by having detailed conversations with her?
Or that her 'advice' was based upon incomplete information and thus of dubious merit?
Hint: neither one helps your candidate.
by blue vertigo on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 04:08:00 AM PDT
have the experience that should make voters prefer you over candidate B is that you had important conversations about policy with your spouse, then it is not ridiculous.
by Mother of Zeus on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:28:12 AM PDT
a spouse, that would be fine, but she doesn't. She claims she was functioning in a uniquely important way, and then refuses to provide any evidence of that.
"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security." -Ben Franklin
by leevank on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:56:30 AM PDT
If the bedroom confidentiality is sacrosanct, then Senator Clinton must also respect that, yes? In that case it is inappropriate to claim this 'forbidden territoy' on her resume.
Bus since candidate Clinton makes apoint of touting her "experience" then it is 100% valid to examine these claims.
You you make a political claim, you take the good with the bad. You don't just get credit for the good, and no criticism about the bad.
Psst! Don't panic
by Quicklund on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:12:42 AM PDT
If she's providing the President with advice, and wants to be elected President based on that advice, we ought to know what it was.
by Adam B on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 09:30:39 PM PDT
do you want to see the semen stains on her clothing, too? LOL
by KnowVox on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 09:36:39 PM PDT
You can't claim that Hillary gained experience by being married to Bill Clinton, then claim that a critical review of that advice is off limits, and then insult another commenter by comparing him to Kenneth Star for daring to question HRC's experience.
God, who gave man scabies, also gave him hands to scratch them.
by ivorybill on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:56:33 AM PDT
s/he can. Why can she? Because s/he has a posse of buddies who will uprate whatever she says.
John McCain, 100 years in Iraq "fine with me"
by taylormattd on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:10:30 PM PDT
I don't really think it matters, now.
If you won't pray in our schools, we won't think in your churches.
by BlueInARedState on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:28:50 PM PDT
shit.
by taylormattd on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:41:54 PM PDT
That unit was not making a sincere contribution here. I'd like to think that a higher power stepped in and nuked in response to the extreme contempt that one had for the rataings system and community moderation. Prolly the autoban, though.
by MajorFlaw on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:51:26 PM PDT
way KnowVox was autobanned. Only two hidden comments over the last two weeks.
by taylormattd on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:57:04 PM PDT
Very reassuring.
by MajorFlaw on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:18:54 PM PDT
I think I may have figured it out, but only time will tell.
I thought about a week or so ago that cometman had been banned. Check out this thread and his gift subscription page.
It appears, however, that he is still posting, but can no longer rate.
I would venture a guess that the "no gift subscription" message can either mean (1) a person is banned; or (2) a person no longer has the ability to rate.
by taylormattd on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:29:35 PM PDT
reports of my demise have been greatly exaggerated.
But it's nice to know so many people are still thinking about me.
Happy Holidays!
"The meek shall inherit nothing" - F. Zappa
by cometman on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:38:33 PM PDT
I wasn't in that original thread. I was bringing this up as an example. It's pretty clear the "no gift subscription" page doesn't only mean the user has been banned given that you are still commenting. If you don't mind - am I correct that you can no longer rate?
by taylormattd on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:43:10 PM PDT
Your call.
by MajorFlaw on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:44:55 PM PDT
I don't think it was a shot or a callout. After all, I was the one who mentioned his username . . .
by taylormattd on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:45:36 PM PDT
On point, I've been feeling for a while that yanking people's ratings ability is the most grossly under utilized tool available. RB got nuked fifteen minutes after stupid asshole's ratings ability got yanked. We could solve a whole bunch more problems that way. Really.
by MajorFlaw on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:48:26 PM PDT
but since I've never thrown a donut before it doesn't really affect me all that much.
I would have appreciated it however if one of the admins had bothered to let me know they were going take away my ability to recommend comments, as I suspect those who complained about my recommendations were not exactly presenting both sides of the argument and I was given no chance to respond. Oh well, so it goes.
by cometman on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:51:51 PM PDT
I suspect those who complained about my recommendations were not exactly presenting both sides of the argument and I was given no chance to respond.
It never occurred to you that whomever yanked your ratings ability based his/her decision on the evidence rather than the pleadings? How convenient. Poor you.
by MajorFlaw on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:59:20 PM PDT
they do have email accounts.
by taylormattd on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:01:29 PM PDT
tech support since I wasn't sure if I had somehow changed my preferences accidentally. I mentioned that if my preferences had been changed deliberately without my prior knowledge that I would appreciate a response. So far noone has seen fit to reply and frankly I really don't care to make a huge deal about it.
by cometman on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:09:02 PM PDT
support goes to ct. It would be an admin or kos that pulled your ratings ability.
But really, we all know this happened because you frequently uprated comments. I mean, it's not like you deny you've recommended many comments out of hidden comments, right?
by taylormattd on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:13:24 PM PDT
recommending some comments that had been hidden, however if one were to take a percentage, I think they would find that an extremely small percentage of the hidden comments bear a recommendation from me, probably far less than 1%.
I'm not trying to be accusatory here, but I did notice several days ago that some diarist who we both agreed with, judging by the fact that we both recommended the same comments, threw out one which said Fucking white people' or something to that effect. It had three donuts on it and I felt that if someone had said 'Fucking black people' they would probably gotten a serious reprimand and I felt it should stay hidden even though I understood the diarist's sentiment. You actually took that one out of the hidden comments with an uprating, and then a few other people joined in as well. To me, this meant that the community did not think it deserved to be hidden despite the fact that it had a few donuts already. However, when I have done something similar I have been excoriated for it.
I'm not trying to say you were wrong to recommend it, I'd just like to see some consistency applied.
by cometman on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:26:31 PM PDT
whether a comment should or should not be uprated is always in the eye of the beholder.
I think I remember the comment to which you refer, and if I'm not mistaken it was written in response to god knows how many concern troll diaries and comments by white people insisting there is nothing racist about the clinton campaign implying (without any reason or evidence) that a black man was a drug dealer. And if I'm also recalling properly, there were more recommends than TRs, and the TRs were from members the Clinton crew, some of whom have now lost the ability to rate because they were serial upraters of shitty comments.
So that's the rub. The question is not whether uprating comments out of hidden comments is proper. Of course it is proper - if the comment shouldn't have been TRed in the first place. The question is whether a user has a history of recommending shitty or trollish comments out of hidden comments.
Obviously you believe the comments you rescued shouldn't have been hidden, but many, many, many people, including the admins apparently, disagreed.
by taylormattd on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:41:57 PM PDT
and that is fine as they are the ones who run the site, but I don't think many many other users did. A few took offense and in fact another comment of yours from a week or so ago which mentioned me actually gave a pretty good list of those who were offended...;) Some of those who took offense have even taken to following me(and other users as well) around in unrelated diaries in an attempt to provoke, which is supposedly against the site rules, but noone has seen fit to do anything about that, and frankly I don't care enough to complain to any admins.
Anyhow, I appreciate the civil discussion. I'm usually pretty good when people don't go out of their way to push my buttons and I'd have recced your comments if I could...;)
by cometman on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:59:06 PM PDT
So, you took a look around and decided that this was a good time for you to take a shot at taylormattd? Smart move, asshole.
by MajorFlaw on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:44:09 PM PDT
going on you got confused there for a moment.
It was actually taylormattd who mentioned my name despite the fact that I had not previously been participating in this thread, however as I am able to overcome the problems I have had with some in the past, I did not take his initial mention of my name as a 'callout' and am happy to respond to his queries regarding my current status here.
by cometman on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:01:01 PM PDT
Now that you won't be able to regularly irritate with buttheaded uprates perhaps we'll find a way to get along. Stranger things have happened--although not recently, to be truthful.
by MajorFlaw on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:03:48 PM PDT
for abusive upratings.
About fucking time.
by blue vertigo on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:24:09 PM PDT
Look who KV's last 27 uprates were for...
Get to know John McCain.
by sbdenmon on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:04:06 PM PDT
Just posted to me and is back to the old hate again.
by blue vertigo on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 08:14:18 PM PDT
It appears that his/her ability to rate comments was yanked; I was merely pointing out where his/her final ratings were. Just find it interesting, that's all...
by sbdenmon on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 08:03:45 AM PDT
Good catch.
We have become what they fear.
by tecampbell on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:23:17 PM PDT
creature has risen from the supposed dead.
by blue vertigo on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 08:26:09 PM PDT
is still here. Somehow.
I thought the no gift subscription thing meant the person was tossed out like garbage.
I don't get it. Terrible shame.
by blue vertigo on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 08:25:13 PM PDT
posting in hidden comments. LOL
by KnowVox on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:11:59 PM PDT
gratuitous uprates thrown your way in every pro-Hillary diary from the usual cadre of losers.
But you haven't given any ratings since 12/25.
We could ask an admin to settle the mystery for us. But I think there's no need.
by blue vertigo on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 04:18:33 AM PDT
Bon chance!
by KnowVox on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 06:55:14 AM PDT
I recommend his diary for your consideration.
by blue vertigo on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 10:09:34 AM PDT
You have been identified based on your past actions as one of the abusers of which Kos speaks.
http://www.dailykos.com/...
by KnowVox on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 10:48:20 AM PDT
allegation. From a Hillary Supporter. What a surprise - not.
I have ratings ability. When I get doughnuts replenished, they will be used.
And you?
by blue vertigo on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 11:05:24 AM PDT
Here it is: TRed for the callout and for being an asshole.
by MajorFlaw on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 09:15:34 PM PDT
How did that happen? (My God, it's a Christmas miracle...)
Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar. Edward R. Murrow
by Pager on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:21:42 PM PDT
well, we'll see. I'm not sure what it really means. See this comment.
by taylormattd on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:32:02 PM PDT
I'm betting it's the ratings or his lack to do so, which frankly works just fine by me.
by Pager on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:35:00 PM PDT
KnowVox's subsciption page means they are no longer here. The comment on my page is slightly different and obviously I am still here.
Frankly I was beginning to wonder why people who recommend every single nasty comment from Clinton supporters are still here while someone like myself who has never thrown a donut in my entire time here and has recommended perhaps .1 % of hidden comments gets called out.
by cometman on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:46:09 PM PDT
You know I was talking about Vox, not you, right? Just to be clear.
by Pager on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:57:33 PM PDT
about Vox. Glad to see you here too.
by cometman on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:16:01 PM PDT
are greatly exaggerated.
by KnowVox on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 07:25:11 PM PDT
by blue vertigo on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 08:32:12 PM PDT
An 8 year Clinton presidency will sure seem like it to you! LMAO!
by KnowVox on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:14:26 PM PDT
an 8 year Obama or Edwards presidency would open your eyes.
Or cause you to move from the US.
We can take up a collection.
by blue vertigo on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 04:06:52 AM PDT
I would work diligently for the campaign of ANY Democrat.
That separates the wheat from the chaff on this site.
by KnowVox on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 06:53:37 AM PDT
you to vanish, implode or sulk yourself to death when she doesn't get the nomination.
I'll have popcorn.
by blue vertigo on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 08:18:33 AM PDT
looks the same to me. What am I not reading right?
by Pager on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:59:39 PM PDT
Vox page says 'No longer able to receive gift subscriptions'. Mine said something to the effect that I can't receive the gift subscription but that I could still receive a regular subscription. Maybe it depends on whether you are looking at someone else's page or your own.
by cometman on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:14:43 PM PDT
for both your page and KnowVox's page.
When a person looks at their own gift subscription page, however, that person sees a different message.
by taylormattd on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:04:57 PM PDT
by cometman on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:14:56 PM PDT
by blue vertigo on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:23:11 PM PDT
It is back. And slinging the same filth.
by blue vertigo on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 08:24:09 PM PDT
I guess the "gift subscription" is not an absolute way of knowing about bannings.
by BlueInARedState on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 08:36:05 PM PDT
No surprise seeing these three uprate this garbage.
by Shem on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:45:23 PM PDT
Or....not.
by blue vertigo on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 06:15:02 PM PDT
The SEVENTY troll ratings you earned this month might be a clue.
Or...not.
by KnowVox on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 07:31:19 PM PDT
And how many times are you going to spam this?
And again, how many were from Hillary supporters such as yourself?
And how many times have you uprated garbage?
by blue vertigo on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 08:13:10 PM PDT
You might want to answer those questions yourself.
by KnowVox on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 08:16:04 PM PDT
you cannot be given a gift subscription, which is the hallmark of someone banned?
Or have your ratings ability been yanked?
by blue vertigo on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 08:23:42 PM PDT
to give me a gift subscription, but I respectfully decline your offer. Thanks anyway. ;-)
by KnowVox on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 08:27:41 PM PDT
to give you anything, except maybe plague.
But you didn't answer my questions. You've got the hallmark of one purged from our community by an admin, and yet you are here.
Must be like cometman - no ratings ability.
C'mon give me a TR, just for the plague comment. You know you want to.
by blue vertigo on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 08:30:02 PM PDT
I think the SEVENTEEN troll ratings you received for telling supporters of one of our most progressive candidates they could all go to hell was sufficient.
by KnowVox on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:06:56 PM PDT
you just can't get that old troll-rating tool up, can you?
Must be real hell for you not to be able to uprate some filth or throw a doughnut.
Heh.
by blue vertigo on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:10:18 PM PDT
so far this month, I only threw 2 your way. Time for you to stalk the other 68 bakers.
by KnowVox on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:58:24 PM PDT
is due to excessive TRs thrown by Hillary supporters.
Like yourself.
Thought we were rid of you. Oh well. Fuck off anyway.
by blue vertigo on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 04:07:51 AM PDT
is due to your excessive trollish behavior.
by KnowVox on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 06:57:05 AM PDT
2 doughnuts will hide something. More are unnecessary.
17 = Hillary supporters piling on with hate.
by blue vertigo on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 08:17:13 AM PDT
No hate, and not just HRC supporters. It's SEVENTY people here over the past month telling you that your remarks are trollish.
by KnowVox on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 09:00:11 AM PDT
You stick with your fantasy and whatever gratification you get from it, and I'll stick with my knowledge that I was ganged up on by Hillary supporters - because that's what the facts bear out.
And would you fuck off already like you were told?
by blue vertigo on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 10:07:47 AM PDT
And you know it.
by KnowVox on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 10:37:47 AM PDT
nauseating that you would ever think of using the words 'gang bang' and 'darling' in the same sentence, especially so when addressing a woman that you have targetted with hate.
I will thank you to not address me with rape imagery or any term of affection again.
The facts are there for any to examine as they choose. Should anyone care to look carefully,they would find that the same pro-Hillary people repeatedly gave me troll ratings, and sometimes did so when the comment was already hidden.
You look like the fool and liar you are.
by blue vertigo on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 10:56:27 AM PDT
"gang," "fantasy," "gratification," and "fuck."
You've earned the troll ratings you received -- from the supporters of ALL candidates across the board.
by KnowVox on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 11:07:32 AM PDT
of your comment as misogynistic and quasi-threatening.
by blue vertigo on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 11:14:07 AM PDT
that you've richly deserved the SEVENTY+ troll ratings you've received this past month.
by KnowVox on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 11:24:50 AM PDT
Hillary 2008 - Flying Monkey Squadron 283
by campskunk on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 06:08:21 AM PDT
"You have no right to know what I privately told my husband about policy matters, but you should elect me because of the content of those conversations."
Is this supposed to make any sense at all?
by leevank on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 06:00:12 AM PDT
why some decades ago people had problems with dual career marriages where there could be conflicts of interest. She is one helluva lot more than WJC's spouse and always has been.
by Heart of the Rockies on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 10:17:08 PM PDT
Clearly, some today, even on this allegedly progressive blog, still have problems with such partnerships.
"Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon
by Cream City on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:05:08 AM PDT
It's not a matter of being progressive or not.
by Heart of the Rockies on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:25:04 PM PDT
by Cream City on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 12:04:39 AM PDT
Between that and what we're talking about here.
by turneresq on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 09:09:54 PM PDT
She says that's where her "experience" comes from.
Voters have a right to know the specifics. What did she advise Bill to do? Was she right? Was she wrong? How can we judge if she won't tell us?
If she weren't running on it, I'd agree that it would be irrelevant. She's the one who made it an issue.
May your entire existence be one sensuous, frolic-filled experience lived in defiance of care.
by Fonsia on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:39:56 AM PDT
For one thing, the focus group data is still being reviewed.
Hillary has no intention of being tied to a policy decision that has the possibility of turning away a potential voter.
Face it, this campaign is the real Hill. What you see is what you get. Insubstantial, non-committed, illusory, poll-driven, undefined, and sketchy on facts. In fact, if anyone dares cite a fact connected to Hillary, she sends her robots out to the various blogs to attack the authors as runnning a Hate-filled campaign against her.
What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.
by agnostic on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:29:46 AM PDT
"This is not our America and we need to take it back." John Edwards.
by mcmom on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 08:15:42 AM PDT
Hillary is "experienced" because she was married to Bill and thus must have given him advice. Even though she didnt have the security clearance that would allow him to give her the information she needed to advise him. Thus any advice she gave him would not be based on accurate information. And she cannot reveal her "experience" because what she told her husband is none of our business...
The mental loops you people go through in order to worship your goddess.
I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever TJ
by cdreid on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:43:56 AM PDT
clearance is odd to me, unless this is the usual practice with all presidential spouses. If so, the article should have stated that fact. I always read the "whys" of articles, pros and cons on all the candidates. Just because I support Edwards does not mean I want to see distortions or incomplete facts in articles about the other candidates. Leave that to the Rethugs.
by mcmom on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 08:13:35 AM PDT
information and could not be disclosed by an attorney . .
by alba on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 11:44:55 PM PDT
So, it's up to Bill.
by Adam B on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 06:29:03 AM PDT
you could NOT divulge the advice you gave to Markos. Lawyer-client privilege, hello? I wouldn't hire a loose-lipped lawyer in a billion years. Tell me about your experience, sure, but not the actual advice you gave to Markos.
by Montague on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 06:59:58 AM PDT
And in this case, the client (the President) has no reason not to waive it, does he?
by Adam B on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 07:15:08 AM PDT
My response was about the bad analogy that was offered. If you're going to go after a candidate with a shiv, at least be accurate. The hatred of Hillary around this site is really revolting. I like all our Dem candidates. All of them have good points to recommend them. I'm not into demonization of decent people.
by Montague on
