Lookie here...hillaryclinton.com

Why is Hillary "polarizing"?  Because Sean Insahannity or El Lushbo says she is polarizing?  I say IT IS THEM THAT ARE POLARIZING, not Clinton.

Clinton is simply a solid Democrat and there is nothing polarizing about that.

Desperate- As a liberal you should prepare for the eventuality that as president, Ron Paul would take every available step to remove the  government from having any effect on our lives. That could mean closing down depts like the IRS, EPA and Dept of Education. Most progressives favor SCHIP, but that goes against Paul's libertarian ideology, so he'd have to veto it. While Paul's adherence to the Constitution, and noninterventionist foreign policy may make a lot of sense, you have to also take into account that he would want to do away with entitlement spending in programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, which all enable vulnerable Americans to lead lives of dignity.

Hillary will smash her Democratic opponents and steel the nomination only to be slapped down by the G-man.  Go Rudy, kill the Beast!

larlex - the problem with your thesis is that the effects of global warming ARE now, they are real, and they will escalate exponentially over the next 20 years.

Dick & Duffus:

Hillary is polarizing and I thank God she is!

Crystal,

Politics is the art of compromise and the art of the possible. When elected officials forget or ignor that, they get low approval ratings and general distain among the American electorate (does Dubya come to mind?)!!!

Whether or not Clinton and Gore are personal friends is not important. What is important is that either candidate, coming from different perspectives or styles, is what the nation needs after Bush/Cheney and the threats to safety, security, and privacy that will be the Bush/Cheney legacy.

Like many, I doubt Al Gore will enter the 2008 race. The main point in my initial message was that Gore should think seriously about it one more time after Friday, but consider it only if ready to discuss all issues, not just those (like global warming) he has been involved with recently.

Clinton, Gore, Obama, or Edwards would each be far better for the nation, and each of us individually, than Giuliani, Thompson, McCain, or Romney!

While I am not giving an opinion about the health care issue between the U.S. and Canada, these statistics are interesting:

Country  Infant mortality  Life expectancy2  
Canada        4.6               80.3
United States 6.4               78.0

The United States had one of the highest mortality rates in the West. Some South Americn countries were higher, a couple of Eastern European countries were higher.
The lowest life expectancy at 39.5 years was Zimbabwe.

<<Didn't he get his a-- handed to him by Hillary in a Senate race already? >>

RudyG got sick and had to withdraw from the race.  Prostate cancer.  Hillary got a gimme win to grab her Senate seat.  She won't be so fortunate this time around.  Her amble a-- will be haned to her this time.
Melvin, NY (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 11:22 AM)

Melvin speaks the truth.

What ever canidate is chosen has choice as to how he or she will serve the people and the people need to get what ever information that they feel will give them a better insite and perspective to make an informed choice. Thinking with the heart and feeling with the mind will help us all to make the best choice we can , God or Universe or what ever you call your Higher Power is in the details.

Much Love,Light,Laughter, Joy and Peace

Ghina

What ever canidate is chosen has choice as to how he or she will serve the people and the people need to get what ever information that they feel will give them a better insite and perspective to make an informed choice. Thinking with the heart and feeling with the mind will help us all to make the best choice we can , God or Universe or what ever you call your Higher Power is in the details.

Much Love,Light,Laughter, Joy and Peace

Ghina

larlex- The international scientific community has come to a consensus about global warming. The rest of the world-excluding countries like China and Iran have acknowledged it is real and are taking steps to deal with it. Of course the president of Iran still thinks the holocaust was an exaggeration and that homosexuality doesn't exist either. That puts you in good company, doesn't it? Even President Bush, after years of suppressing US government scientists, now admits he believes in it (as he did in 2000 before his generous corporate donors induced him to take the denial position)

Carrie---"It is MY vote, to do with as I choose.  If I choose to support a candidate because he has a knack for picking out great ties, that is my right."

You are absolutely right but I am not here to persuade you one way or the other, but I would hope that I can bring light to issues that are overlooked in someone's uninformed decision to vote for a candidate. You have the right to do what you want but if I know that if you flick a switch, we both will die, then I am going to do everything in my power to convince/stop you from flicking the switch. Your vote is just as important as mine and I am just saying that I hope it would be one based on knowing the issues, knowing the candidate's and opponents stance on issues, and know how they have acted in the past. As I will continue to say, at the end of the day we all will sink or swam together!!

Van-You can't have it both ways. Really, if Obama says how his point of view is different from Hillary, how is that attacking her, he is just stating facts. "I like green, she likes orange" that is not attacking her, I mean really that strategy is one of the reasons why I don't support Hillary, things like that is ridiculous, they just want him to not say how his plans/ideas are better than hers.

People are acting as if Gore has a lock on the Nobel Peace Prize...but as much as I would like to see him win one, I think the Buddhist Monks of Burma are more deserving of it and awarding them the prize might help their cause tremendously. What's going on in Burma is something the world should support and get involved in. If the Burmese monks are awarded the prize, that's not to say that Gore won't ever get it. After all Jimmy Carter was nominated for years before he finally got his in 2002. Last year's winner, Muhammad Yunnus (sp?) has been doing microlending for at least a decade before getting the award. Global warming isn't going to go away anytime soon. So, if not this year, perhaps the next or some future date. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the committee went with the Buddhist monks to send a message to the military junta that rules Burma. Some say that the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize to Aung San Suu Kyi has probably saved her life from being killed by the regime all these years.

Unfortunately, if Gore is passed over this year in favour of the monks, I can hear the gloating on the right, especially by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, who had his own organization nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize. Of course, there's no chance in hell that he'd ever win one but we'll never hear the end of it if Gore doesn't win this year.

I doubt Al Gore would endorse Barack Obama as Obama is promoting the devlopment of more nuclear energy as part of his energy plan.  Hillary Clinton won't take nuclear energy off the table, and John Edwards is the only candidate to say absolutely "NO" to the development of more nuclear energy.

Proponents who are now calling Nuclear Power clean are “cherry-picking the data” by conspicuously omitting any mention of plutonium as one of the waste products, produced in quantity, by nuclear power plant reactors.  Prior to 1940, plutonium occurred naturally only in trace amounts in the immediate vicinity of naturally decaying uranium.  Within 20 years of Nuclear Power Proliferation, plutonium existed in quantities of hundreds of tons on the planet.

According to the "Handbook of Chemistry and Physics", a massive compendium of much of the known data for the elements and chemical compounds, "The maximum permissible body burden, or the amount that can be maintained indefinitely in an adult without producing significant body injury, is 0.06 micrograms (.0000021 oz).  Plutonium (Pu), therefore, is one of the most dangerous poisons known."  Also worth noting is that the half-life of Pu (time for half the mass to disintegrate) is 24,360 years.

And all this refers only to chemical and radiological toxicity.  This does not include the significant fact that Plutonium can also be made to reach a critical mass as demonstrated by the Nagasaki bomb which was Plutonium based (Hiroshima was a Uranium based bomb).

No containment method, including burying in mountains, even if we assume no breech, such as earthquakes or other explosions, can be expected to last for more than a few centuries before leeching out into the environment.

“Contrary to the claims of its proponents, nuclear power is not only tremendously expensive, but also very dirty and highly dangerous — producing thousands of tons of long-lived radioactive waste each year, for which there exists no permanent storage facility”. ~ Physicians for Social Responsibility (http://www.psr.org)

Nuclear Power is most assuredly not a clean energy alternative.

pat, huntington, ny--> larlex --> the problem with your thesis is that the effects of global warming ARE now, they are real, and they will escalate exponentially over the next 20 years.


You know this how?  You know that man can change this how?  You know that, 30 years ago, "scientists" predicted a global COOLING.  You know that for the last 2 years "scientists" predicted record numbers of CAT4 and CAT5 hurricanes.  Where are these hurricanes?  How can "scientists" who cannot even get it right for the short term, be trusted for getting it right for the long term?  If Hillary, Al, or Bingo-Brain for that matter, gets into office, what will they do to "stop" global warming?  How will we know that what they are doing is working?  How long will it take?  How much will it cost?  Who will pay?

If you are honest, you will answer "I don't know" to each of these questions.  Any one that says they have answers other then that to these questions is either ignorant or is lying.  And if you answer "I don't know" to these questions, then why are all these politicans telling us they know how to "fix" a problem that we don't even know exists?

What, nobody wants to discuss McCain's health care plan, first among the Republican candidates?  My thought --  what is it Republicans who propose tax credits as the solution to everything? Does McCain realize or even care that the poor do not pay taxes and therefore a tax credit will do diddly-squat to help them pay for health insurance? Is he writing off 25% of America as being unworthy of health care? What is the chance that the other Republican candidates will have a better plan or any plan?  

Although I don't think Gore wants to be part of this messy,dirty election coming up---nor would he want to fix the messy, dirty state of the country and world The Emperor Chimp has left us---I'd like to see him rise up and claim tha presidency that was stolen from him in '00.  If Gore ran, Hilarity would be in SERIOUS doo-doo!! So would Julie the Gigolo.

This would seem to be a major departure from his stated strategy. What does this change represent? How will it affect the race? While it is sure to make some of Obama's supporters happy, it is a double-edged sword that can cut both ways


Back to disagreeing again...I like this position better (smile)

Pointing out policy differences is very different from personal attacks.  If he had wanted to do personal attacks...when she called him niave, he could of said Naive is believing that your husband isn't sleeping with a White House interin when all of the evidence pointed to the contary and when he had a history of doing just that.... instead he ponted to their policy differences with voting for the war( Republicans won't be as nice). Bad Judgement goes way back, professional and personal.

Big difference.  The politics of 'Hope'...I hope that the American people wake up

"It never changes with these lefty loosers."


Yes, they are too "loose," but you're no "looser"! u r smrt n thay r dum!

Al Gore has come out of the shadows as a reincarnated private citizen with a cause and a message. Outside the political arena, Al has rallied the world and the US around the Global Warming problem. Voters, including myself,love a front runner with a message and a mission that includes facts and the voices of the scientific community. After attending his movie, "An inconvenient Truth", and learning of his nomination for the Noble Peace Prize for his efforts, I am convinced that Al Gore has come of age and is prepared to lead the US into a time of global uncertainty. Taking a hiatus from politics, Al took his political shower and I believe is clean of the DC influence peddlers so many of the candidates have been exposed too. I equate Al Gore joining the Democratic race to "Big Poppy"-Dave Ortiz coming to the plate and hitting the winning home run, and like the Red Sox, the US and the world become winners.      

Al Gore polls at 10 - 15% when he runs around telling anyone who will listen that he ISN'T GOING TO RUN.  If he were to announce a candidacy it would completely change the primary math for all of the top tier Dems.  I don't hold out much hope for a Gore candidacy (although he is my prefered choice if I were in charge of the world) but if he gets in, watch out!

If Hillary wins the nomination I won't be voting unless there is a good third party candidate.

She voted for the dang war and just recently she voted in naming the guard in Iran as terrorists. What the heck, trying to get them even more angry with the US?

I support our troops and I want the candidates to support them as well. Supporting the troops means BRING THEM HOME NOW!

Quit funding the war that isn't solving anything. The US is an occupier in a country that doesn't want to be occupied. Can't blame them there.

Bush has so many countries hating the US now it's pathetic.

We need someone good in office, not Clinton.

Al Gore knows that he will remain popular ONLY as long as he doesn't run for office again, because then his faults would also be laid bare.

The sad part with Hillary is that it would be terrible for the country to have both Presidents Clinton impeached!

Hillary will beat the girl out of Rudy, and its going to be a landslide. Most republicans are starting to feel this happening already. Thats why they are sounding so desparate. Too bad repubs, you're going to lose. THE ABSOLUTE worst thing that can happen to a repub. LOSE!!!!

I am a longtime lurker and occasional poster. I read Jessica's mention about how she would perhaps stay home if Hillary Clinton is the Democratice Nominee. I cannot bring myself to vote for her either. She is a true "carpetbagger" in NY. Frankly I want to know what policies (besides healthcare)she helped shape as First Lady. Right now it's looking like a lot of smoke and mirrors to me. The funny thing is,a  lot of people I know are saying the same thing as me and Jessica...can't vote for Hillary but who else? I really like Obama's hope platform, but hope is build on honesty with where you are currently at and he won't head-on go after her....so I am hoping that Gore can make those arguments for him or even for Edwards.

At the risk of giving Crystal and other Fox News blowhards more attention, I feel like I have to remind  them, and the rest of us, what the world was like before 9/11.  I have heard a growing number of claims that President Clinton’s lack of diligence in pursuing Osama and others in the 1990s is the root cause of all our woes today.  Clearly it is true that Americans have a short attention span, and little regard for history.  Our government’s actions in the Middle East over many decades have had a cumulative effect and cumulative consequences.

Our government was responsible for training, arming and supporting these people long before President Clinton took office.  Regan/Bush knowingly armed and trained Osama.  We as a Nation continue to support our enemies with our continued lust for oil.  But let’s think about where our nations collective psyche was in the 90s.  Does anyone remember the republican outcry when Clinton launched several missile attacks on foreign soil?  They were incensed that he would potentially provoke another sovereign nation to accomplish what was essentially a law enforcement action.  Nobody was encouraging him to contenting launching strikes…NOBODY.  His only mistake was missing.  And really, did HE miss, or did the men on the ground that physically took part in the mission?  I could go on and on, but short attention spans have already caused some readers to move on.

The point I am making is that when Clinton took any offensive actions against enemies, he was criticized and lacked the support to engage in a full scale assault.  Let me also remind those who would question Clinton’s tactics that republicans also said we could not win a war without sending in ground troops.  Even then, republicans were itching for war.  Only in that case it was Bosnia.  What happened there?  Our objectives were met, and we didn’t lose a single American on the ground.  Things in Bosnia are not perfect, but the killing has stopped, and it was all accomplished by a sustained bombing campaign.

Clinton knew that invading Iraq would only empower Iran and destabilize the region and the balance of power.  So did Bush Sr.  When are we going to learn that there are other ways to solve our problems, and war is the last thing the human race needs.  It is not the planet that is in danger, it is the people who are.  

Crystal, you and others can continue to support using force to get what we want while you also support our enemies with your addiction to their oil.  That is the definition of a perpetual war.  Who is REALLY benefiting from this?  If that policy is better than those of Clinton, then why have so many thousands of Americans been killed?  Why have hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and others been killed on top of that?  And why has the gas mileage in most of the new vehicles on the market since 2001 declined so significantly?  Why?  Who benefits?  Who?

We are stuck in it now.  What we need is someone with the intellect and foresight to LEAD us into a better future, not tell us that our problems are to complicated to solve without force.  I for one cannot wait to get back to a Clintonion way of doing things…whether the candidate is Hillary Clinton or Al Gore.  I believe both are well suited for the job.  

Hillary is way smarter than Rudy Tutti, the phoney mafioso man.

To the Self-Rightous, primarily the "I will not vote for Hillary" self-rightous. I remember you from 2000 you voted for Nader or didn't vote. How did that work out.
We have a flawed system that is still better than any other, but this flawed system still requires you to vote and vote as if you have common sense. There is no "Second Coming" perfect person that will ever run for President of the USA. You go to the polls and vote for who you most agree with and who realistically will be voted into office.
As for me I would love to have Gore on the ballot but if he is not there are several canidates I can vote for in the primary and vote for in the general election. And yes that include Hillary, but I am on noones band wagon yet.

Watch them cackle like a punch of chickens.  Oh, how they fear the G-Man.  Obama is a do nothing Liberal and Edwards needs to go back to stealing money from litigants and wait for Rudy to beat down the Queen of Socialism, the forked tough Hillary.  The Goreacle is a false God.

OutWest, very intelligent person. Way to go.

--Larlex-- people who have lived 50 yrs. or more don't think global warming is an issue

Speak for yourself. Plenty of folks over 50 realize the huge catastrophy our planet is facing.

Keep a check on water levels rising, REALLY, more hurricanes as the oceans heat up, REALLY, and more devestating hurricanes, REALLY, more tornadoes--even where they didn't happen-or rarely-before the last 5 yrs, REALLY, check the rising heat waves killing people--HOT where it wasn't HOT before, check the Serious drought in the Southeastern U.S. and elsewhere, REALLY, the number of catastrophic fires increasing every yr, destroying thousands and thousands of acres, REALLY...I am old enough to remember the time we didn't have ANY of these problems of a continuing basis, a growing basis, REALLY.

Even people over 50 are smart enough to see these changes. ummm, WHERE is the polar ice cap going?...over your head?

On another Note:
Sure Romney wants a 2-man fight. Aim more of his $$ in one direction. Doesn't make him a better man for president.

Read Harry Reid's talk to BYU? (Salt Lake Tribune) http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_7138640  About how LDS-Mormons are good OBEDIENT FOLLOWERS, but SOMETIMES THEY FOLLOW THE WRONG PERSON DOWN THE WRONG PATH. THIS would be one of those times. I SURELY hope LDS check out Romney's "values, morals, principles, etc." at http://www.massresistance.org  "The Romney Deception" ('mass'--as in Massachusetts, where Romney has lived and reigned--allbeit just long enough to jump into the prez.race/'resistance'--as in Conservative stance) AND please check Romney's governmental flops, not just his ability to make himself millions--by putting thousands of Americans out of work. Bush/Cheney are excellent money-makers, too. MBA's and Big Bucks do not guarantee governmental leadership.

I will not vote for dumb or dumber.  Not this time.  I want a person of the highest quality for leadership and it isn't HRC. She will lead us to ruination, and I don't want my hands on any part of it.

Oh for Christ sake Crystal, s--- or get off the pot. Please DON'T vote on election day or else you'll be one of those people that hog the voting booth and hold up the line for hours. Whining and sniveling, "oh my! oh woe is me! I can't believe I must choose between Clinton and Giuliani, oh maybe I just will leave and go home, ah ..sniff sniff, oh this is soooo unfair... uh I think I'll write in Nader! No, I just won't vote. Meanwhile there is a line behind Crystal a half mmile long because she can't get off the fence and make a decision.

Hey Dan, the G-man thing again? What are you in jr high? Time to grow up Dan and realize that a WOMAN will beat a man for president of the United States. I know thats tough for you.

Larlex - Gore a phony? Global Warning not an issue?  I just dont get it.  It's scientifically proven. What are you reading that proves otherwise? I would hope that most poeple would feel some responsibility to their children and their grandchildren to get serious about the future of the planet. Are we so selfish that we care about nothing but cheap gasoline.
It is sad that some Americans think that terror is the one and only issue.  It is proof that this shameful administration has brainwashed people for 6 long years into believing that they are the only ones "saving" us from terrorism.  In fact, their inane foreign policy has done nothing but to ensure that we will be facing more terrorism in the future.  
I was there on 9/11 and I can tell you that I feel less safe today than I did the day after the attacks.  All the Republicans have done is waste billions of dollars on a war in Iraq that is fueling hate and distrust, guaranteeing future generations of suicide bombers and 100 years of chaos in the middle east.  You may be right that the Dems dont know how to deal with it, but the Republicans(or at least the administration) have proven that they dont have a clue either.  
I would vote Gore in a heartbeat.  I want a person who can think and reason in the Whitehouse.

I try not to engage in personal insults in these posts, but you folks who flat-out dismiss global warming as a hoax are, simply stated, stupid. If there is a shred of truth to the concerns of a majority of those professionals who study this matter, then we are in deep trouble. A serious enough matter to warrant our attention and investigation, to be sure.

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/hillary_gore/2007/10/10/39785.html

If he runs she losees.

Yes, Gore run, man run!!

Theresa and Shayla, by all means ladies, don't vote.

Hey earth to depsparate, shhhh, lean closer, Hillary is really NOT a hawk but only pretending to be just to get elected....like all the rest of the politicians. Are you shocked?

If someone has a touph time choosing between Hillary and Rudy, I can't believe they know anything about politics.

BB- I know you I am voting for and I know who I am NOT voting for. I review the candidate's stance on the issues, that is all I am saying, I am not on the fence, but I bet the same way I can tell you Clinton's, Obama's and Edwards stance on issues, I can equally tell you Guiliani, Huckabee and Romney stance on the issues b/c for me it is not the PARTY that makes the person, it is the values that the person brings to the party and to what extent their values mimic my own and are in line with my beliefs. So if a devil came dressed up in a suit and didn't stand for anything you was for and said they were a Democrat, and got the nomination, would you vote for them just b/c they are a Democrat?


kurtinct, New Haven, CT-I am strongly against war and I don't have any hatred for Clinton, but he did make some critical mistakes. And you say that he didn't go to war with Iraq b/c of the effect it would have on Iran but his wife surely did authorize the war, so you getting him back in office as the first man doesn't really mean anything?

Dan, go back to school and learn how to spell tongue and a host of other words please. She can't have a forked tough(although she is very tough) and what is a punch of chickens? Typical slow minded republican.

Exactly blue state, and thats only about 30 percent of the voting population will back Rudy. Those folks have already followed their moron, cracked in the head leader off a cliff.

Hey Dan, the G-man thing again? What are you in jr high? Time to grow up Dan and realize that a WOMAN will beat a man for president of the United States. I know thats tough for you.
F StLouis (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 2:20 PM)

Sorry, they won't be holding the polls open late for extra Democratic and illegal votes this time.  F****d in StLouis will have to read the headlines "G-Man captures local votes and wins election"  OH, how they fear him.

Crystal - Awfully presumptuous of you to think you know it all, isn't it?  You don't have the first clue what I know about the issues, or what anyone knows about the issues for that matter, other than the brief glimpses that you see here.  

If you are really concerned about people being uninformed, you are wasting your time on a political blog.  Go out in your community - that's where people are tuned out.  The people who post here actually choose to read political news and views, which puts them way ahead of the pack compared with most people.  

And let me remind you again, simply because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them uninformed.  I don't agree with you, but I am far from uninformed.  I know exactly what I think on every issue that is important to me, and I know which candidates not only most closely match my own thoughts but which candidates I genuinely like.  

my oh my how the right hates the 2000 winner...one thing their boy shrub will never receive is any kind of international award like a nobel prize...he's more likely to receive 20 to life once he doesn't have the protection of the presidency to hide everything...

So our choices for the Democratic party are Obama Bin Laden, Billary, and Bore? No wonder we haven't won an election since our Bilderberger boot licker left office.....

I don't have any hatred for Clinton, but he did make some critical mistakes. And you say that he didn't go to war with Iraq b/c of the effect it would have on Iran but his wife surely did authorize the war, so you getting him back in office as the first man doesn't really mean anything?
Crystal (Time for change) (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 2:47 PM)


So, Bill and Hillary are now one person?

Mike K. Arafat anyone? So much for ''prestige''

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):