I am just livid over her joking on Leno!!!!!
She has no sensitivity towards those that actually do come under real sniper or any other fire serving their country. To think that she sees herself as ready to be Commander an Chief shows just how out of touch she is to what the people in the armed services need in a Commander and Chief.Those serving right now under fire must be angry and most certainly if she were their Commander and Chief right now would be in a low morale state.
Once again I must point out that there have been people who have served or not served that have claimed to have come under fire as in Viet Nam and never were even in counrty. They have been PROSECUTED AND GIVEN SENTENCES FOR THEIR OFFENCE. I was ouraged by the swiftboater's attacks on Kerry and questioning if he deserved his medals, the people behind it were Bush people, Kerry was in country. Bush who I doubt very much with his personality is forgotten could come up with no one that knew he was in Alabama finishing his tour.
Those same people would have a ball with this one from Hillary.
For all Hillary's women supporter's; I ask you to really think about this, especially those that have members of their family or friends of family that have served under fire do you really want someone that lies about something so Honorable to be their Commander in Chief? I do believe that this country is ready for a women President; but certainly not this one.
As a Veteran; I want all those who are serving under fire today to understand that we who have also served our country with Honor are feeling not only outrage but embrassed by Hillary behavior on this, Thank You for being there for your country.

Hillary don't care abount none of us.Small states dont' matter,joke about sniper fire,Lie about sniper fire,Lie about NAFT,and accept her husband for over 30 years for cheating.

Maybe we should all "chill out" about Mark Penn's dealing with Colombia. Could be that he's just one of those vendors being stiffed by the Clinton campaign and needs the cash.

Hillary's appearance on Leno once again proves the old adage that there is no limit to poor taste.

Let's see is the MSM pick this up.  For a better analysis, see today and yesterday's entries at www.ruralvotes.com/thefield  

C A, Tuscaloosa, AL
Very well said.  I was alarmed when it became almost scary to voice your opinion against the Bush administration during the first term becuase you were viewed as unpatriotic.  As for Iraq, showing our soldiers coming home in caksets, and the color guard escorting them was a sign of respect during VietNam, under this administration we are told its a sign of disrespect.  Just a few more months!

Its become painfully obvious that Senator Clinton, her husband, their daughter, and her entire campaign believe that they play by a different set of rules.  That is, when they play by the rules.  This attitude of being able to do or say anything because they're entitled to the office is disturbing, and their fanatic belief that they MUST do so because they think they are so right, so destined, so much smarter than everyone else is troubling.  Their history of winning by any means necessary and their pathological need for power do not bode well for America should she become president.  When President Clinton feuded with a Democratic Congress during his presidency, it paved the way for the loss of Congress and the election of George Bush.  Should Senator Clinton head the Democratic ticket in November, woe be to the down-ticket candidates.  Not John McCain nor ANY Republican candidate could so energize Republicans and right-leaning independents to go to the polls as would a Clinton nomination.  

Hillary is relying on Penn's advice about deciding if it makes sense to agree to terms for Bilateral free trade with Colombia. So, essentially, Penn is locking in a pay day from Bursen Marsteller for swaying Hillary to agree to a bi-lateral agreement with Columbia. If I understand correctly a bi-lateral free trade agreement is when countries agree on favorable terms of trade. For example, if you trade with us we will lower tarriffs for you. Explain to me why Hillary is against the bi-lateral agreement in this case? In an economical sense, anything aiding in the occurrence of trade is in the best interest of both parties. Economics 101 teaches you that trade can improve both parties. Trading is not a zero sum game because if country A can produce widgets cheaper and more efficiently than country b then why would country b try to produce widgets? Here is a real world example. Country C(Columbia) could produce a product like cocaine and then trade with country A(America) for its widgets. So, Columbia trades cocaine for our widgets and we both benefit because, in the end, it costs each of us less to get what we need. Some other benefits include the following: America benefits - We kill of all the cocaine sniffing morons in our country who drain our tax dollars (although some will argue this is wall streets coffee). Columbia benefits from widgets and I will leave it to you to figure out how. Widgets can probably get you high somehow. But back to the question, Why is Hillary opposed to the bilateral agreement with Columbia? - Do they really have nothing useful for us?  Bush would say something like this and I believe he gets it right; " Trade is good for all involved. I promote free trade and will never deter trading with Columbia and trading with Columbia would benefit all of us so why would I be against something like that."      

There are 9 or 10 OBamabots filled with hate for Hillary that post negative garbage over and over on every MSNBC post. You people need to get a life!!!

That is how she will laugh off USA if giving the chance as she press hard like a bee pircing to sting

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