View Story | 1003 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
for a progressive woman president in the near future!
Head to Heading Left, BlogTalkRadio's progressive radio site!
by thereisnospoon on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:34:35 AM PDT
President Barbara Boxer!
She's one of my heroes.
"It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion." Oscar Wilde, 1891
by MichiganGirl on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:38:17 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
i'd work my ass off for Barbara Boxer.
And I'm really, really hoping Darcy Burner runs for president one day. She's a natural and a truly remarkable person.
by thereisnospoon on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:41:14 AM PDT
Boxer in 2016!
John McCain hates children.
by discocarp on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:45:52 AM PDT
She is one of those dreaded SF liberals. Enjoy having her as a Senator because that is as high an elected position as she can attain.
Go Barack !
by mattinjersey on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:06:12 AM PDT
Plus, she turns 68 this year. Our first woman prez will likely be someone who's perceived as being more moderate than her.
Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?
by RFK Lives on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:34:02 AM PDT
be elected s/he would have to be a Republican..
by audiored on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:48:23 AM PDT
"Don't be a janitor on the Death Star!" - Grey Lady Bast (change @ for AT to email)
by bellatrys on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:31:37 AM PDT
I was at the Capitol building with my high school AP government class about 10 years ago, and I ran into Senator Boxer in the underground capitol "subway" system. Even though I wasn't a constituent, and I am sure she had better things to worry about, she talked to me for about 5 minutes on the subway ride about policy and upcoming votes. It was one of the coolest experiences ever. Sorry for the offtopicness of this reply, but the conversation just reminded me of that moment for the first time in a long while.
My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington. -Barack Obama
by WahooMatt on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:08:49 AM PDT
I love her too, but think she might scare a lot a voters because she's too outspoken, which I like, but many I found out do not, e.g. John Edwards.
by santamonicadem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:22:27 AM PDT
seriously now.
John McCain graduated in the lowest 1% of his Naval Academy class.
by glutz78 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:33:15 AM PDT
You can add to #2--ignoring the importance of the Grassroots. I don't think she thought enough of us to post on DailyKos.
Maybe she was trying to run away from the Liberal label to paint a more moderate picture of herself.I don't believe she was ever a true liberal.She doesn't have the conscience for it.Sorry.
I am a white women, Appilacian.She never connected to me.I gave her a chance.I thought she would be the nominee.
Too many years in Washington playing politics and not really living among the people.She has to learn things second hand how tuff things are.She seemed more like a pretender or panderer.It wouldn't have mattered if she were black.
If she was serious about health care she could have linked up with Cooper (D) in 1994 and pushed through a universal health care bill that would have been supported by both sides.We would all be better off for it and I would look up to her today.
So lets put this to bed.
by lindalrs on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:52:23 PM PDT
posted here?
Don't sell out John! Damn, too late, lost another to the dark side!
by ichibon on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:40:45 PM PDT
Nice. Lindalrs is right. Obama never dissed the activist branch of the party. In many respects, Clinton lost this election because she was completely unaware of how much things have changed as a result of the internet. She didn't learn the lesson of Dean's ability to raise money from grass roots, online contributions and believed that she could do it with donations from big corporate lobbyists. No democratic politician can afford to alienate this group of people any longer.
by Philoguy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:49:45 PM PDT
Is your servility so inset that you view anyone opposing "the great leader" as evil?
Maybe you should take a valium. Step back and consider why you're so ridiculously invested in this person you've never met. And why you hate this other person you've never met so so badly despite presumably claiming the same ideology.
I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever TJ
by cdreid on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:28:45 PM PDT
maybe one time, a long, long time ago. But I'm used to double standards from you people.
by ichibon on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:40:34 PM PDT
...not the point of lindarls who just emphasized Hillary's lack of grassroots movement. It doesn't matter if it's in Daily Kos or HuffPo or LJ or whatever. It's not just about blogging and you know it. Quit grasping for straws and see the point as what it is. Obama trumps Hillary when it comes to grassroots movement.
by Firecrawler09 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:07:00 PM PDT
by ichibon on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:37:03 PM PDT
...or you just desperately want the last word in this?
Fine, have at it. Doesn't change the fact that your question has no relevance to the point at hand.
by Firecrawler09 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:43:58 PM PDT
Wow.
Seriously. Prozac isnt that expensive. I hear a lot of KKK and Neonazi members have been cured of irrational stereotyping hatred have been cured by its use...
When you begin to stereotype people in order to hate them and ignore all evidence that contradicts your delusion you're far down the path of mental illness my friend.
by cdreid on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:56:03 PM PDT
Self-defeating "too liberal" meme -- especially for anyone to the right of, say, Kucinich or Bernie Sanders. (Though I'd enthusiastically vote for President Sanders; not so much Kucinich.) Especially by 2016 a lot of things will have changed.
That being said, considering she'll be 74 (but, judging by her present appearance a very young, Edwards-esque 74...I had thought she was still in her fifties) is probably close to a deal breaker -- though women do live longer than men. Also, though I love her, she might not be the most charismatic nominee.
Forward to Yesterday -- Reactionary aesthetics and liberal politics (in that order)
by LABobsterofAnaheim on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:34:52 AM PDT
ability whatsoever. I don't mind his ideology so very much--(I don't particularly care for the "politics of confrontation that he favors) but he was just awful as mayor of Cleveland. I think that brings up another point. It is not enough to be in tune with the people politically--which, of course, Obama is--he quite correctly read the mood of the people. Part of that is because he actually listens to people--he makes a point of it.
Further, the Chief Executive, must, in fact, be an excellent manager which Obama has obviously done an excellent job in that capacity during this campaign. Someone might object that his team was responsible, but that is the province of a really good manager--knowing who to select for what job and then bringing our harmony between them so that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
by Wings Like Eagles on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:39:26 AM PDT
Kucinich is very much in tune with most rank and file liberals and democrats, but in practice there's a much further left vibe to his campaign and most of his supporters range from radical to mildly insane. I'd vote for him for congress or the senate in a flash, but I think we'll have Gay Muslim President before we have a Vegan Nerd president -- not that there' anything wrong with being a Vegan nerd, of course. Maybe if Kucinich went lacto....
by LABobsterofAnaheim on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:50:38 PM PDT
and run all over the country to campaign for bernie. One smart mofo
by Djo on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:10:56 PM PDT
in 2012 or 2016. Things are changing. Just think about the fact that Barack Obama is now the most electable candidate running for president. Who knows how that will effect our perceptions of "electability" in the future.
Declaration of Authority
by sunflight on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:37:43 AM PDT
A few months ago McCain was shouting that there should never be a timetable to end Iraq. Now he saying that "the war will be won" (we all know that this is an occupation, not a war) and all combat troops should be out by 2013, which is a giant step to the left and a flip-flop.
But, it's just pandering. He sees that the majority wants this and he is pandering to them.
Barack insinuates that victory in Iraq can be easily be won if the circumstances that trigger victory are attainable and clear and not grandiose and vague. Barack questions the current administration's definition of victory and asks why can't the status quo, after a draw-down, be something less than where Bush puts the bar which is not attainable considering the length of the occupation.
Barack has a great gift of being able to talk nuances of policy in plain language. This is both intellectually stimulating and satisfying.
I think McCain has latched onto the attainable goals meme and will change his speeches to reflect that without really understanding the direction he is going.
The fault with McCain is that he doesn't get it right the first time, and he can't seem to stand firm on one position. He is stuck in the spin cycle. (I call him "Weathervane McCain".)
This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected.
by Batbird on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:53:15 AM PDT
He swings with the wing. That is much different from a flip-flopper because the wind of opinion can change quickly and Weathervane McCain just wants to pander to whatever group he might be addressing at the time. If he were a flip-flopper, it implies that he has changed from a firm stand in one direction and now has changed to a firm stand in another direction. If you can't remember what your stand was, then all you can do is swing with the breeze.
Weathervane McCain He spins with the winds
Maybe if we can attach a generator to him, we can become the Green Weathervane Machine
"War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength", George Orwell, "1984" -7.63 -5.95
by dangoch on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:16:09 AM PDT
Let's get this phrase out into the public consciousness ASAP!
Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.Give to Populista's Obamathon 2.0!
by TrueBlueMajority on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:26:56 AM PDT
The first time it was written:
McVain spins with the wing.
And of course McBush/Mcflipper/McVane definitely spins with the right wingers who run the repub. party- are even the wing nuts ready to get out of Iraq? Oh wait, just "fewer troops than now and we'll declare victory"- so of course Weathervane McVain has really just said nothing once again.
by MD patriot on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:31:32 PM PDT
observation! Just words, Senator Clinton? Those words seem mighty powerful!
by Philoguy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:51:18 PM PDT
ya have to admit. :o)
A ship adrift in a sea of rhetoric & recycled clichés.
by Terre on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:09:02 AM PDT
by TrueBlueMajority on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:25:35 AM PDT
Just saying.
Brilliantly blessed are those who walk with courage through the depths of the own fear, for they will Love from the bottom of their heart.
by Craig Hickman on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:06:36 AM PDT
Seriously, anyone who can release something like the Responsible Plan and get Congressional traction on it without even being in office is a formidable talent, and she's a solid progressive.
I'd canvass the soles off my shoes for her.
No laws but Liberty. No king but Conscience.
by oldjohnbrown on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:26:21 AM PDT
but first she's gotta do something about her hair. ;)
The bigger the headache, the bigger the pill.
by Dr Funkenstein on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:37:16 AM PDT
I liked it! And when did we start electing members of Congress based on their hair????
by victoria2dc on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:16:28 AM PDT
I think both are still in their 30s. And both have fine hair. :)
... we will remember that there is something happening in America; that we are not as divided as our politics suggests - Barack Obama
by Red State Rebel on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:04:28 AM PDT
I have a crush on Darcy (including that sassy goddamn haircut), but Kleeb needs some serious image help for November. I was watching his victory speech the other night on local TV...his haircut looks way too farm, but more importantly, he wears no makeup even when he knows he's going to be on camera, so his complexion flaws show up and he shines with sweat.
Meanwhile, Johanns came on looking like the meticulously-manicured career politician he is, all made up and wearing an expensive tailored suit.
Now, I'm not saying that all that surface stuff is going to have any effect on my vote, but if you're going to run for the US Senate, you absolutely have to look like you have your shit together, not like you just came in out of the field to eat a big slab of ham for "dinner" (that's what they call lunch out west in Kleeb country :) ).
-5.88, -6.00 When the ELGIs are defeated, the GWOT is over. -- Richard Clarke
by Porfiry on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:50:40 AM PDT
don't go changing, Scott!
ain't nothing like the real thing!
by TrueBlueMajority on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:28:17 AM PDT
and Schweitzer can hold press conferences in jeans with his dog at his side, Kleeb has nothing to worry about.
This is the West, after all.
by oldjohnbrown on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:32:36 PM PDT
not trying to rip on the guy, I voted for him and donated to his campaign and will probably work for him this fall. But if he's going to appeal to the money conservatives in this state, he is indeed going to have to change at least a little. All the ConAgra and Cargill and First National of Omaha and Mutual of Omaha assholes who wield power here are never going to vote for a sweaty farm boy. That's all. The goldenrod Marlboro Man picture is cute and all, but he needs to look like that and better, all the time.
If you think that looks don't matter at all to the average low-info voter, ask yourself why Obama's hair never grows.
by Porfiry on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:35:37 PM PDT
by ichibon on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:43:01 PM PDT
Since I've never seen Washington or Jefferson without a wig, it's hard to say about them.
Wasn't John Quincy Adams partially bald, like less hair than Ben Franklin bald? And since male pattern baldness usually runs in the family, John Adams was probably balding. Martin Van Buren was bald. Lincoln had a receding hairline. William Taft had a tonsure. FDR's hair thinned over four terms; Truman's and LBJ's over one and a half. Post-war, Ike's hair was pretty thin, and he probably wore a hair piece. Ditto for Nixon. Gerald Ford was going bald as Veep, and his hair got greyer and thinner as President.
So, our last bald president was Gerald Ford.
by pfeffermuse on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:48:06 PM PDT
by pfeffermuse on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:56:11 PM PDT
Although I forgot to put that in my question. The fact is, a bald or obese person would have a difficult time trying to become president now, and a known tobacco user would probably not win either. Which is the main reason Obama quit sucking on cigarettes, in public, anyway, but there are indications he's still a closet smoker, as an ex smoker, I can recognise a person that is not getting their fix, and he sometimes shows classic symptoms of withdrawal.
by ichibon on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:09:19 PM PDT
As you said, you didn't put that into your question. Which only moves the president back by one anyway, Richard Nixon; he had a receding hairline and probably wore a hair piece.
The last obese president, I guess, was Taft, He and my great-grandfather were good friends, and based on the pictures I have of them together, they both are candidates for lap-band surgery.
Huckabee dropped over a hundred pounds before putting his hat in the ring.
I think someone who's bald/balding would have a better chance of being elected president than someone obese. While there's still some stigma attached to baldness, there've been a lot of sexy bald men over the past twenty years.
But since JFK, charisma and being photogenic have been made, unfortunately, into one of the major criteria for selecting a president.
And Obama's nicotine fix worries me far less than the dry drunk currently occupying the oval office.
by pfeffermuse on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:54:26 AM PDT
but find out more here.
Wikipedia says she's 37. I've spoken with her briefly, you know, just a casual intro. I know a party insider who's helping to manage her campaign in Pierce County very well. He and I are delegates the Central Labor Council.
I get mailings from her for support and invites to functions being a Precinct Committee Officer. But I vote in the 9th Congressional District and she is running in the 8th District against an incumbant Republican, Dave Reichert. I do send her money though, and will support her any way I can.
She is something special and you need sungalsses to stand in her glow. The Washinton State Democratic Party is blessed to have such talented women - her, Governor Gregiore, Senator Murray, Senator Cantwell.
by Batbird on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:25:42 AM PDT
my money would be on Gov. Chris Gregoire. She' got terrific administrative experience -- she's been Attorney General, Director of the Dept. of Ecology and now Governor. Yes, her last election was ugly, but it was also run by the Mickey Mouse Club.
by sja on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:03:14 AM PDT
but she pisses off a lot of people in WA.
She made me angry the other day when she posted here, but I was too irritated to make a coherent comment.
Basically, she was bragging about all the jobs she brought to WA, but I've been unemployed for over a year. The jobs that are available are either minimum wage service industry type, designed for entry-level employees, or too specialized and awarded in an unfair way. The entry-level salaries are in no way adequate to live in the Seattle area, but the execs make six figures.
Microsoft still forces people to be contractors with a break in service after 365 days. The employment agencies work with them to keep the potential hiring pool small. Boeing hires based on who you know. The money needs to be spread around to more businesses besides the chosen few.
It's a closed shop with questionable access.
If that's how she does business, I don't like it.
by Brooke In Seattle on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:07:34 PM PDT
Here's another WA resident saying Gregoire would probably lose her own state in a GE if she ran. I could never bring myself to Vote for an insurance mogul like Rossi, but I am NOT thrilled at all about giving her my vote
by Djo on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:15:52 PM PDT
It would have to be slim pickings before I would vote for her (it's not about gender).
She went for the strategic play rather than the constitutional play and she is damaged goods as far as I'm concerned.
Impeachment - It's not just for blow jobs anymore
by Leftcenterlibertarian on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:18:35 AM PDT
Sound like you should vote for Cynthia McKinney in November, then.
A true progressive with more experience than Obama: Cynthia McKinney for President
by green in brooklyn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:24:43 AM PDT
Someone holds someone accountable, and you infer that they're some nutjob.
sweet!
There is no avant garde. There are only people who are a little late. --Edgar Varese
by thepdxbikerboy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:53:52 AM PDT
That is also not about gender. Or race.
As someone who grew up in the 60s, my mother taught me that people are people. Race and gender are not defining characteristics.
My mom was a feminist. I'm a post feminist male. The best boss I ever had in corporate America was a woman. She wasn't a good boss BECAUSE she was a woman... she was a good boss (and female).
I think looking at people's values and integrity is far more important than race or gender or religion.
Re: Cynthia - probably not. Bad year for protest votes. The Supreme Court and Constitution are both at death's door... time for some no nonsense leadership.
by Leftcenterlibertarian on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:59:53 AM PDT
how about if you vote in your own primary and leave Democrats to decide the Democratic nomination, thx.
by Loquatrix on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:59:56 AM PDT
It describes an ideology that can be on either the left or right side of the political spectrum. There are plenty of leftist libertarians in the Democratic Party. Thank you for playing.
"If America leads a blessed life, then why did God put all of our oil under people who hate us?" -- Jon Stewart. -8.38, -6.67
by stridergambit on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:05:31 AM PDT
and she is very, very pro Obama and volunteering for him. She also loved Kerry and Edwards in 04.
She differs from me and progressives on just a few issues but mostly we are in agreement especially on foreign policy and civil liberties, equal rights and so on..but we differ on immigration and domestic policy sometimes.
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. Martin Luther King Jr.
by wishingwell on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:51:11 AM PDT
the debate for libertarians and why I would never support one is their corporatist platform. Their free-market platform is the same economic polices that were introduced by Pinochet in Chile, and the juntas that violently overthrew governments in South America. Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, and Brazil suffered greatly under this economy and are just now recovering from the juntas in the 1970s.
This is the economy of Milton Friedman that the neo-liberal Bush administration is moving us toward. If you want more privatization of your schools, Social Security, Medicare, and all the "commons" like the fire department, then vote libertarian. They talk like it is the best thing since peanut butter, but it is a very dangerous economic system. Read The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein.
by Batbird on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:40:45 AM PDT
have some things right (civil liberties, support for the Constitution) but are waaaay offbase in some of their positions. It is neither prudent nor effective to privatize everything. We have had far too many services privatized. The traditional government services worked well--why did we allow them to be messed with? I strenuously object to safety services being privatized--especially the police. They need to think of themselves as public servants, not boss-pleasers. That could be fraught with peril--just as our little Blackwater army has been a disaster in Iraq. We need to demand that the private warriors be gone from Iraq immediately. Sorry if that cuts into Erik Prince's profits. Ditto for these new "private spies" that are snooping on the FBI and the DoJ. What's up with that? Sounds like Tinfoil Hat time.
by Wings Like Eagles on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:44:03 PM PDT
One (flawed) aspect of libertarianism that gets a lot of play is unrestrained trade and largely unregulated everything. I think this is simplistic.
It is often explained that a corporation wouldn't do anything that in the end would hurt their long term image because that wouldn't be profitable. The flaw in this argument (that we see realized over and over) is that there are plenty of opportunities to "take the money and run" so some regulation is necessary - Can you say "mortgage crisis"?
The appealing part of Libertarianism is the reminder that taxation is the empowerment of people with weapons (government) to take your property, by force if you are uncooperative, for the common good. As a consequence, Libertarians are pickier than some about what is an appropriate use of tax revenue, and like to explore what exactly is meant by "common good".
Libertarians are also pretty big on personal responsibility (you made the mess, you clean it up) which makes for some challenging balancing of perspectives on policy issues. For example, I believe you should have the freedom NOT to wear a motorcycle helmet (I don't think it's a wise choice, but it should be YOURS if you are an adult). If you bust your head open as a result of your choice, I'm hesitant to pay your medical bills.
See... For the record, I don't completely agree with the Libertarians either. Big problem is trying to encapsulate a broad spectrum of complex views and values in a handful of labels like "Republican", "Democrat", "Liberal", "Moderate", "Conservative" etc.
Thanks for the support. Thanks for the dialog.
by Leftcenterlibertarian on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:57:16 PM PDT
In your world I don't get a voice in the election?
I'm actually a citizen of California, where we have an open primary and I am allowed to voice an opinion. The two party system hasn't been COMPLETELY codified in statue yet.
To answer your question in detail, Libertarianism is a philosophy, not just a party, and I embrace many aspects of that philosophy. Since I identify more with the principles and ideals of the Dems, I registered as a Dem recently
Contrary to the media view, this isn't supposed to be a team sport, a contest between Red and Blue. It is supposed to be a contest between different ideologies and specific leaders. As a citizen, I get a voice. The specifics of my choice for Barack Obama are discussed here. (I'm not a troll that is trying to crash your party... I'm a fellow citizen trying to have a voice).
Hope that doesn't offend you much.
by Leftcenterlibertarian on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:42:55 PM PDT
began with a guy you've probably heard of.
Thomas Jefferson.
He was the first democrat.
Every tenant of true libertarianism (rather than the disguised anarcho-republicanism preached by the libertarian party) is based in his works. As is the bill of rights of our constitution.
by cdreid on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:31:31 PM PDT
You're thinking of Nancy Pelosi. Please don't tarnish Sen. Barbara Boxer with that same brush, thanks. In fact, Boxer was the one who said impeachment SHOULD BE ON THE TABLE.
How to debunk the Right's lies on global warming
by BruinKid on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:09:23 AM PDT
Apologies to Ms Boxer.
by Leftcenterlibertarian on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:59:19 PM PDT
to her is that I think she has the potential to go all the way at some point. She'll have a few years to build a good base of support, and she'll still be plenty young enough to run even if she had to hold out til 2020 or 2024 (assuming Obama's VP runs in 2016). But it would be great if she could make the move in 2016. :-)
Now, go spread some peace, love and understanding. Use force if necessary. - Phil N DeBlanc
by lineatus on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:19:59 AM PDT
I listen to wingnut radio so you don't have to!
by Sharon on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:07:58 AM PDT
Barbara Boxer!!
and great diary thereisnospoon! Captures our thinking exactly as we were discussing why NOT hrc and came up with all those reasons. Especially the DLC, and legacy presidencies.
Eyes on the Prize - JedReport
by juslikagrzly on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:37:35 AM PDT
on that one, too.
White woman over 50 for OBAMA!! (Endorsed 6/07)
by nolalily on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:38:21 AM PDT
And, unlike Sen. Clinton, she would be a candidate for the office not by virtue of being a former First Lady (I would add that in column 2), but on her own merits.
"I wouldn't trade one stupid decision / for another five years of life." -- LCD Soundsystem
by tomjones on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:38:21 AM PDT
just like the rest of us.
IIRC, she campaigned for Joe LIEberman in the CT general election in 2006 against the Dem nominee, Ned Whatsisname ("Flanders" is the only name coming to me at the moment and I know that ain't it).
I've admired her for years, don't get me wrong. But she's been on the wrong side of the ideological divide more than once herself.
Having said that -- I'd take her over Hillary Clinton any day of the week.
Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. -- teacherken
by Mehitabel9 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:04:23 AM PDT
Gimmie a break with that HR.
John McCain: Like Hope, But Different.
by malharden on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:11:28 AM PDT
Clearly, I offended somebody's delicate sensibilities.
Maybe I shoulda said "unmentionables" instead.
:-P
by Mehitabel9 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:13:15 AM PDT
now we'll see if you're right. :-)
If seniority equated to good judgment, John McCain would be appointed president.
by Juan4All on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:32:58 AM PDT
That makes me feel all tingley!
"America did not invent human rights. In a very real sense, it is the other way around. Human rights invented America." -Jimmy Carter
by Bulldawg on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:52:50 AM PDT
"We've always taken care of you; why do you want to leave home?" And America's the girl taking Barack Obama's arm: "But Mom I love him!"-Mort Sahl
by carpediva on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:38:43 AM PDT
when I was young and single!