Originally Posted By JohnS1 "I like Edwards. I think he's the best person the Dems have got. I don't know why he's not doing better." Part of it is the hypocrisy which so many people seem to dwell on with all candidates whose actions seem to conflict with their statements. He is a multimillionaire, and the money was made as a trial lawyer using emotion and often inaccurate facts to sway juries to award millions because it is the medical profession footing the bill and people see it as a victory of little guy over the system. He talks about the disparity between rich and poor, but you don't see him living a life of piety or giving away his fortune to help those around him. That's one reason I'd never vote for him.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I actually look at the front runners in both parties and think, "Hey, they're competent. I can live with them."<< Even though I have some big differences on various matters with all of them, I can probably live with any of the front runners as well, especially compared to the current administration. Maybe this is what the president meant when he declared himself a uniter? ; )
Originally Posted By HyperTyper I agree that Giuliani is overrated. He is not, in many ways, the candidates Republicans have supported, and that goes way beyond the abortion issue. Hillary's question planting is the tip of the iceberg. Don't expect her to give the media ANY opportunity to ask questions. She will not participate in any event or confrontation that might leave her exposed. The most damaging questions would be about why she defended her husband despite his abominable behavior towards women. She, like the National Organization for Women, talk about helping women and ending discrimination, but they look the other way when liberal politicians like Bill Clinton fool around, grope, harrass and even rape (okay, allegedly). We have credible allegations of absolutely abominable behavior, far worse than Clarence Thomas ever faced, and yet Hillary and company think she owes no one any explanation for her blindly defending her husband and his presidency. What a shallow, hollow human being. Expect her to avoid the truth about her husband's behavior and her own at all costs.
Originally Posted By HyperTyper >>> Don't expect her to give the media ANY opportunity to ask questions. I meant to type "challenging questions." Of course, Hillary will be answering a number of handpicked, carefully-screened questions.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "We have credible allegations of absolutely abominable behavior, far worse than Clarence Thomas ever faced, and yet Hillary and company think she owes no one any explanation for her blindly defending her husband and his presidency. What a shallow, hollow human being. Expect her to avoid the truth about her husband's behavior and her own at all costs." Far worse than Thomas? That's amatter of opinion. I doubt Anita Hill agrees. But hey, don't let that stop you from insulting Clinton for sticking by her husband. Granted, many people wouldn't stay, but none of us are privy to their pesonal talks, but don't let that get in the way of an opportunity to call her shallow and hollow.
Originally Posted By jonvn "The most damaging questions would be about why she defended her husband despite his abominable behavior towards women." Because he's her husband, and it's not the least bit damaging. "Bill Clinton fool around, grope, harrass and even rape (okay, allegedly)." Uh, right. Now he's a rapist. This has now fallen into the realm of nonsense.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 "Uh, right. Now he's a rapist. This has now fallen into the realm of nonsense." Clearly you haven't ever read the charges made by credible women - not bimbos - during the Clinton terms in office. Very convincing evidence from what I have read, not nonsense at all.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I meant to type "challenging questions." Of course, Hillary will be answering a number of handpicked, carefully-screened questions." You did of course read the part that says all candidates plant questions, she just got caught?
Originally Posted By jonvn "Clearly you haven't ever read the charges made by credible women " Clearly, I don't think they are the least bit credible.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>What a shallow, hollow human being. Expect her to avoid the truth about her husband's behavior and her own at all costs.<< What a kind, Christian thing to say from someone who's supporting Mitt Romney because of his religion. Of course, Hillary did the Christian thing by forgiving her husband and staying with him. But don't let that get in the way of everyone's rabid, irrational hatred of her. Apparently conservatives know, they just KNOW she's only staying because it's a marriage of convenience. But what else do you expect from people so arrogant they'll tell you what God is all about, what he believes, and what he wants from all of us. If you're that arrogant, then what's to stop someone from telling us other people's motivations?
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Uh, right. Now he's a rapist. This has now fallen into the realm of nonsense.<< He raped them all (with the woodland critters in tow [obligatory South Park reference]) just before murdering Vince Foster and dumping his body. Didn't ya know?
Originally Posted By ecdc Yup. There was so much evidence for it that Ken Starr brought criminal charges against the Clintons after years of investigations. What? That didn't happen? Instead the only charge they could bring was lying about an affair he had after Starr spent millions of tax payer dollars? Oh. I mean, that monster! Who lies about an affair? What kind of a scumbag would actually lie to his wife about an affair? Then surely during impeachment Clinton had approval ratings in the toilet and Congressional Republicans were through the roof. Right? Hello?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <A stunt like this should automatically disqualify a candidate for the most powerful spot on earth based on poor character irrespective of one's stellar resume, formal stances on the issues, attributes or talents for leadership...> By those standards, then, all of them are "automatically disqualified," because according to the article, they all do it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <And herein lies the misconception about Guiliani. He wasn't that great of a mayor. New Yorkers weren't that enthralled with him.> Boy howdy. That's putting it mildly.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <He talks about the disparity between rich and poor, but you don't see him living a life of piety or giving away his fortune to help those around him. That's one reason I'd never vote for him.> Neither did FDR, but he did legitimately help the poor of the nation during the Depression. I don't think one is a requirement for the other. Don't mind me, everybody - I'm still pining for Vilsack.
