Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 260

• 0%

  Aidenag8 months ago

  Seems Hillary isnt willing to give the same level of disclosure to the voters that Barack is... Should have expected this. Especially with her new strategy of trying to paint Obama as the "Establishment" candidate. If she disclosed her tax returns that entire strategy would belly flop instantly.

  Reply

  46 Replies

  • 0%

    mesodude8 months ago

    I'm just stunned this is still a story of burning interest to cons when Bushco is spying on them, making secret deals with the energy corps, hiding millions of e-mails, billions in stolen Iraq occupation money and lord knows what else, It's like right wingers live in a parallel universe. Did any of them hold Chimp to these standards prior to voting for him TWICE? The answer is HELL NO.

    Reply

    26 Replies

    • 0%

      dunkirk8 months ago

      WHen you have had 8 years in complete control of the government and you have absolutely NOTHING to point to as a success and most people are worse off now then when you took office you start pointing to the other candidates and hope no one looks to see that that your cupboard is bare.

      Reply

      3 Replies

      • 0%

        MajJohn8 months ago

        Bush isn't running.

        Reply

        2 Replies

        • 0%

          mesodude8 months ago

          "Bush isn't running."

          --Mercifully no but last time I checked he was *still* CIC which means that he's *still* running this country and what he is doing and has done for the last 8 years is *still* consequential. Are we supposed to give him a free pass and forget all of his lies and deception just because he's only got a handful of months left in his administration? If so, you can't possibly be serious. Anyway, it's not 1992 either and you people are still flailing about trying to destroy the Clintons so...

          Reply
        • 0%

          dunkirk8 months ago

          Bush was an independent? Oh no wait Bush was a REPUBLICAN whos policies ( or lack of ) was wholeheartedly endorsed by the REPUBLICANS. HOW interesting that suddenly the very group that was standing so solidly behind the Dumya is now trying to put as much distance between him and them as possible. ROFLMAO.

          Reply
    • 0%

      abntv8 months ago

      I would think that this story would be of more interest to Dems. They are the ones she is "coning"

      Reply

      3 Replies

      • HomeGManComment removed: User banned.
      • 0%

        joey-evans8 months ago

        "coning" ?

        Does that have anything to do with the Coneheads? Or are you conning us all with your posts?

        Just wondering?

        JOEY EVANS

        Reply
      • 0%

        mesodude8 months ago

        No. Dems were "coned" by Joe Lieberman (and thank God he didn't get elected VP). We know who Hillary is.

        Reply
    • 0%

      1-2-Oscar8 months ago

      Still mired in the politics of the past, mesodude?

      I'll share a closely-guarded secret with you, if you promise you won't tell anyone.

      (Pssst--Aidenag isn't a "right winger).

      Reply

      10 Replies

      • 0%

        mesodude8 months ago

        "Still mired in the politics of the past, mesodude?

        --Um, Bush is the *current* President. This story is basically a continuation of the right wing's sad, wasteful persecution of Hillary Clinton from the 90s so I don't follow your meaning.

        "(Pssst--Aidenag isn't a "right winger)."

        --Psssst...I didn't accuse Aidenag of being a con but the rest of the cons are sure out in force buzzing around this story like flies around you-know-what. Regardless, my point has gone unchallenged. Why is this issue a matter of such interest to *anyone* when there is a LAUNDRY list of crap Bush and the GOP have been hiding from the American public?

        Reply

        9 Replies

        • 0%

          Skeptic8 months ago

          Bush is not running. Ms. Clinton is. Please try to follow the point of the story without letting hatred of Bush color your comments.

          Reply

          3 Replies

          • 0%

            mesodude8 months ago

            "Bush is not running."

            --Lather, rinse, and repeat... You cons sure think in lockstep, don't you? The issue is hypocrisy. I'll let you know when I'm confused about the point of the story. Thanks.

            Reply

            2 Replies

            • 0%

              bobo-in-texas8 months ago

              That BDS really has control of you life, doesn't it?

              Reply

              1 Reply

              • 0%

                IcCaRus8 months ago

                no more than taking potshots at Bill Clinton over a decade after the fact controls cons lives

                Reply
        • 0%

          questionseverything8 months ago

          meso, hillarys refusal to release her income tax numbers points out the huge dif in the dem candidates...obamas campaign is about open,honest govt...thats always been the "change" we r supporting...hillary by nature seems to be terribly secretive....if we replace bush with hillary we will once again have a candidate that thinks what happens in our nations capital is none of our business

          we dont need a corporate dem to replace a corp repub

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 0%

            mesodude8 months ago

            "obamas campaign is about open,honest govt..."

            --and everyone who runs for President does so because he or she wants to help people and make a difference...blah blah blah...how naive are you? You don't know *anything* about Barack Obama. Yet. And you won't find out what you don't know until and unless he gets the nomination because the media isn't raking him over the coals the way they are doing Hillary.

            "if we replace bush with hillary we will once again have a candidate that thinks what happens in our nations capital is none of our business"

            --The problem is, Americans collectively can't seem to make up their minds what's their "business" and what isn't. Are extramarital affairs our business? Are millions of missing e-mails our business? Apparently it depends on who you ask. Bush and Hillary Clinton are nothing alike at all.

            Reply
        • 0%

          1-2-Oscar8 months ago

          "--Um, Bush is the *current* President. This story is basically a continuation of the right wing's sad, wasteful persecution of Hillary Clinton from the 90s so I don't follow your meaning."

          The people calling for disclosure of the Clinton's income are NOT "right wingers" continuing their "sad, wasteful persecution of Hillary Clinton from the 90s." They are supporters of her Democratic rival, a Senator whose voting record is markedly to the left of Sen. Clinton. Your failure to admit that Sen. Clinton is under fire from members of her own party lies at the core of your failure to "follow my meaning."

          Bush's "laundry list" is not relevant. The Democratic Party must choose a candidate, and some people want to know if Sen. Clinton will be vulnerable to Republican charges of official corruption BEFORE they nominate her.

          Do you "follow my meaning" now?

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 0%

            mesodude8 months ago

            " Your failure to admit that Sen. Clinton is under fire from members of her own party lies at the core of your failure to "follow my meaning."

            So she's under fire from those on the left also. There.Are ya happy now? Now back to my point... When are those on the left going to put Obama under the microscope? Like I said elsewhere, I don't recall anywhere near this level of interest or judgementalism about Bush or Cheney's finances when they were running for office.

            Reply
        • 0%

          1-2-Oscar8 months ago

          Frankly, I had not anticipated that you would be so dense. It must be worse than I had thought.

          Reply
    • 0%

      GLee8 months ago

      Mess, Dude....... 'Bushco' is not in the running here. He's old news and even he knows that. Thing is, Hillary is now taking a 'back-seat' to B.Hussien Obama and if she behaves, he may offer her a 'left hand' seat. Hillary is scarred and inexperienced. Obama is 'clean' and inexperienced but is claiming to be some sort of 'New World Order'. Go figure? Although I am conservative, I am interested in hearing the facts as to what his true 'platform' is about. You know, the real facts. Not just some 'new found' man who has the young people fascinated with his 'nothingness'.

      Reply

      4 Replies

      • 0%

        mesodude8 months ago

        "Mess, Dude....... 'Bushco' is not in the running here. He's old news and even he knows that. "

        --Please don't even TRY this, GLEE. The only reason this story is here is because people are digging back into ancient history to tap into their stores of hatred for the Clintons. Last time I checked, Bush was still the President and there are still a lot of unanswered questions regarding matters that are affecting our country TODAY (and into the future). As much as some people would like to forget they were idiotic enough to elect this sleazy, murderous thug for President twice, intelligent Americans aren't going to allow the GOP to get off the hook that easily. The idea that Bush is "old news" is positively SCHIZOID. What the hell are you smoking, dude?!

        Reply

        3 Replies

        • 0%

          Nixie8 months ago

          "The only reason this story is here is because people are digging back into ancient history to tap into their stores of hatred for the Clintons."

          So what was it that made the Dems go back to Bush's National Guard duty, his college transcripts, etc, during his run for President...? Oh yeah, because that's what we do when someone runs for public office, especially President. We dig up every body, we open all the closets to reveal every skeleton, we lift up every rug. You can't deflect attention away from Hillary by pretending this in-depth probing of her past is something new. Every candidate goes through it. The problem is, Hillary has more to hide than most.

          Reply

          2 Replies

          • AlphaGnosisComment removed: User banned.
          • 0%

            Jaydee408 months ago

            The thing about the shrub was the writing for the present calamity was on the wall and many Americans ignored it. Lets hope they are smarter this time. Last time they knowingly elected a spoiled brain dead junky, do they elect a self serving look at me yes girl this time?

            Reply
    • 0%

      DropkickaLib8 months ago

      Nice smokescreen! Issue ducked!

      Reply
    • 0%

      DropkickaLib8 months ago

      20,000,000 Dubai dollars says you're wrong!

      Reply
  • 0%

    nostalgia8 months ago

    LOL Aidenag

    Mesodude thinks you voted for Bush twice!

    Mesodude fails to understand anyone who stands on priciple

    He's strictly a party line person

    That's why he also fails to comprehend why many conservatives refuse to vote for McCain

    Reply

    5 Replies

    • 0%

      mesodude8 months ago

      "That's why he also fails to comprehend why many conservatives refuse to vote for McCain"

      --No. What I fail to comprehend is that ANYONE with a brain could actually be contemplating putting another Republican in the White House considering the actions of Bush and the GOP over the last decade. I don't understand why Hillary's tax records are keeping anyone up at night when Bush and the GOP are voting against the interests of the American people with impunity TODAY. It really does boggle my mind.

      Reply

      4 Replies

      • 0%

        nostalgia8 months ago

        You are a party loyalist to the core!

        Party line ABOVE principle

        If you believe anyone politician is above intense scrutiny, you are part of what is wrong in this country

        There are Republicans I would vote for and those that I wouldn't vote for if they were the only person on the ballot

        The same goes for the Democrats

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          mesodude8 months ago

          If I were arguing that Hillary's tax records were irrelevant, you might have a point but I'm not doing that. What I'm saying is that our/the media's priorities are out of whack. Our current President hasn't come clean on numerous occasions and the ramifications have negatively impacted us throughout this entire administration.

          Reply
      • 0%

        MajJohn8 months ago

        You don't have much to boggle.

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          mesodude8 months ago

          You take that BACK! ;-(

          Reply
  • 0%

    JoseMadre8 months ago

    They are both "establishment" and are both corrupt, just like Rudy and Huckabee. The only decent people running were McCain, Paul, Brownback, Edwards, Dennis and Gravel.

    Reply

    4 Replies

    • 0%

      mesodude8 months ago

      "They are both "establishment" and are both corrupt, just like Rudy and Huckabee. The only decent people running were McCain, Paul, Brownback, Edwards, Dennis and Gravel."

      --You do know that before McCain became a nominee he praised Hillary Clinton and said she'd make a great President, right?

      Reply

      3 Replies

      • 0%

        Nixie8 months ago

        More proof that he's senile and unfit to lead.

        Reply

        2 Replies

        • 0%

          ybdogsct8 months ago

          JOSEMADRE:

          "The only decent people running were McCain, Paul, Brownback, Edwards, Dennis and Gravel."

          MESO:

          "You do know that before McCain became a nominee he praised Hillary Clinton and said she'd make a great President, right?"

          Not only that, but JOSEMADRE also conveniently ignores McCain's role as one of the Keating Five in the 1980s collapse of loan and savings institutions.

          http://www.nationalreview.com/contributors/levi...

          "McCain was one of the "Keating Five" senators. He was investigated by the Senate Select Committee on Ethics in 1991 regarding the acceptance of favors from Lincoln Savings & Loan Association and its owner, Charles H. Keating, Jr. The issue was whether McCain and the other senators used their official positions to attempt to pressure Federal Home Loan Bank Board officials to go easy on the troubled institution. Eventually Lincoln went bust, costing depositors and taxpayers millions."

          Reply
        • 0%

          IcCaRus8 months ago

          then theres the Keating 5 thing as well

          damn ydb beat me to it. lol

          Reply
  • 0%

    coreyspring8 months ago

    Personally I'd like to see disclosure from everyone - who is pulling whose strings, ya know?

    Reply

    7 Replies

    • 0%

      LeftTurn8 months ago

      Disclosure?? lol

      Ok I think it's time we ALL learned a little secret, all politicians on both sides are controlled by the same bankers (Illuminati, Free Masons, call them what you will), and the politicians in turn, for what amounts to more or less gobs of money, help control the ultimate money making machine on capitol hill, the FED. The secret is they literally work for the same bankers, because bankers are smart, they know they need both sides so you can't lose, it's cheap but you always win.

      I wonder if many of you know about Bilderberg group and there meetings, it's where "foreign" dignitaries meet in private with others around the world and discuss issues, like which country needs to be attacked and for what reasons, where plans are made concerning our nations wealth and resources, and where it will be spent and even who will get the job to spend it...

      Reply

      6 Replies

      • 0%

        LeftTurn8 months ago

        Cont.

        The only problem is we have a law that states we can not meet with foreign anything in private and discuss public outcome issues, such as the nation's economy or national sovereignty, so why is this still a problem?

        Because these people have been, or are currently "Builderbergers"...

        John Rockefeller

        Bush Sr.

        Blair

        Both Clintons

        Carter

        Bush Jr.

        Kerry

        Edwards

        Obama

        and that's not counting all of the foreign financiers and the like, and Rockefeller runs the show, like every other committee he has founded, it's just mind boggling.

        This is why Ron Paul will never get elected, because he's against the FED, despite the good amount of money he did raise, it still won't compete with the mountains of cash these other political henchmen get from their financiers, and the bankers all have the resources in place to fix any voting system at any time to make sure things go the way they planned. All it takes is money, and they certainly have enough now.

        Reply

        5 Replies

        • 0%

          LeftTurn8 months ago

          Cont.

          Every four years we hear the same thing, allot of nothing and we think for some reason they are saying something different, and we fall for it every time, and everytime, they never do what they say they were going to do to get elected, or create a falsehood of how they tried and it failed.

          The people in power (Bankers) made it possible for them to be there and it's for a specific purpose, and the politicians are happy to return the favor, that's how it's works. Bush actually did this right before our eyes, to the extent that if you caught him in the Kitchen raiding the cookie jar, he'd just look at you with that caught look on his face, with blood, oil and trillions of dollars smattered and dripping from his face, in the disgust one might find a touch of brilliance, either that or more disgust for the people in office who knew better and didn't have the guts to do anything.

          Obama will win, because some people have more money than you, and they want to keep it that way.

          Reply

          2 Replies

          • 0%

            bobo-in-texas8 months ago

            I thought the Bilderberger, Free Mason's konspiracies went out with the John Birch Society in the 70's.

            Dude, you are so very retro.

            Reply

            1 Reply

            • 0%

              LeftTurn8 months ago

              Dude, it was a lie then, and it's a lie today, who do you think runs things, me... YOU, GW!?? Please, he takes his orders from Rove still, as you apparently have adopted Rove's his glorious propaganda writing techniques to label such things as false or absurd, then of course you offer not a single argument to the contrary.

              Why do you think the hundreds of journalists who have the balls are reporting this stuff on the net, this isn't fiction, you think all these writers and reporters all make up the same story? Hardly, they report on what they believe to be the facts, this is the true world around us, if you choose not to except that, it is completely up to you, but please don't embarrass yourself any further then you have, conspiracies aside, the Bilderberg meetings have been reported on in local major news publications as of the last decade, mainly thanks to the internet for obvious reasons. Of the last meeting, there are pictures of Rockefeller and an Ohio governor. ILLEGAL!

              Reply
        • 0%

          KingSol8 months ago

          Are you quite sure Obama and Edwards are Builderbergers? I ask because I've done my research and all the names on your list match up with mine except these two. Do you have anywhere I can reference this information? Just looking for a little clarity.

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 0%

            LeftTurn8 months ago

            Watch "End Game" by Alex Jones. I do know for fact that Edwards is, and all the above names are on the "Council on Foreign Relations", founding member John Rockefeller, and it follows suit that any member of that committee is a Bilderberger. You can't be trusted to make arms deals and barter for the US economy unless you know what's at stake and what the game plan is, otherwise we would be hustled up and down the middle east. But if you know everything there is to know about your adversary, you will most likely come out ahead every time you make a deal, that's one reason why these people meet every year, to make sure certain people know everything, the "agenda" basically. That's where it comes from. Why do you think Obama never gives any real statements about HIS policy, because he doesn't have one, he is working for someone else's agenda, he is telling us what we want to hear. People are either stupid, or it truly doesn't matter who you vote for.

            Reply
• 0%

  BronxBomber8 months ago

  Why is she putting up certain conditions on this inquiry? What doe she got to hide? It seems like all she done in NY is make a lucrative book deal. I don't hear nothing else from her.

  Reply

  29 Replies

  • 0%

    MisterX8 months ago

    Hillary didn't do much at all for NY. She's not doing much of anything right now. Her campaign machine is in overdrive, working 24/7. They're playing numbers games to assure her nomination. God help us all if she gets in.

    Reply

    16 Replies

    • 0%

      mesodude8 months ago

      Let me guess...You voted for Bush twice, didn't you?

      Reply

      15 Replies

      • 0%

        pahilljack8 months ago

        Did you even read the article? Obama was asking for Hillary to release her tax information, not Bush, Chimpo! And I did vote for Bush, four times.How many times did you vote for Clinton? Quit blaming Bush for everything, you have enough problems in you own Party.Or did you forget the cigar already.The republicans don't even have to take a shot. Your two are taking care of all the mud thowing on thier own.Just take a look at the related stories on this page.Later Chimpo

        Reply

        7 Replies

        • 0%

          mesodude8 months ago

          "And I did vote for Bush, four times.How many times did you vote for Clinton?"

          --That explains why you don't get it. Who is asking for her records isn't really the issue. I'm asking why her tax records are controversial *at all* given that no such scrutiny (on tax records or any other matters) has been cast on anyone else. Did you go over Cheney's resume and personal finances with a fine tooth comb before you voted for him. HELL NO, you didn't and the media is giving Obama a freaking FREE ride because they have an agenda.

          Finally, Bush is the CURRENT President. If you morons can sit back for more than a decade diddlling yourselves and fantasizing about Clinton's penis, I can DAMNED well bitch about that filthy CHIMPANZEE in the White House who has destroyed our country. Get serious.

          Reply

          6 Replies

          • 0%

            pahilljack8 months ago

            Whitewater Ring a bell!!! Enough said!

            Reply

            5 Replies

            • 0%

              1-2-Oscar8 months ago

              That WAS a rather Pavlovian response, I'll have to admit.

              Reply
            • 0%

              sinophil498 months ago

              pahilljack - Just to refresh your memory, the Whitewater affair was investigated by:

              - Resolution Trust Corporation

              - Little Rock Grand Jury

              - House Banking Committee

              - Senate Banking Committee

              - Senate Special Whitewater Committee

              - Robert Fiske, special prosecutor

              - Kenneth Starr, special prosecutor

              - Robert Ray, special prosecutor

              ALL these investigations found the Clintons innocent of nothing other than a failed business deal. The chief witness against the Clintons was David Hale, himself charged with looting his own savings & loan. He struck a deal w/ his prosecutors for reduced charges in exchange for his testimony against the Clintons.

              The Clintons were found to have made incorrect interest deductions for 2 years. They were no longer legally liable because it was past the statute of limitations, but they did pay off the back taxes and the interest incurred.

              In Starr's testimony to the House Judiciary Committee, he admitted he himself had doubts about the...

              Reply

              3 Replies

              • 0%

                sinophil498 months ago

                veracity of the 2 major witnesses against the Clintons.

                The entire affair was grabbed on to by the conservative press and the Republican controlled congress and hashed over repeatedly and magnified beyond all reason.

                Cost to taxpayers - $58-59 million.

                Therefore,

                Whitewater = Clintons innocent

                = Republican paranoia, hatred, intransigence

                = waste of tax money

                "ENOUGH SAID"!!!

                Reply

                2 Replies

                • 0%

                  sinophil498 months ago

                  The sentence I wrote - "...found the Clintons innocent of nothing other than a failed business deal" should have said

                  "innocent of all charges, other than a failed business deal."

                  Reply
                • 0%

                  joey-evans8 months ago

                  Oh oh!

                  Now you went and did it Sinophil.....these neocants lemmings just hate when you slap them about the snout with facts! L.O.L.

                  I can hear them all gnashing their one tooth in a frenzy waiting for their propaganda minister Karl Rove to issue their next crumb to abuse themselves over.

                  Good work!

                  JOEY EVANS

                  Reply
      • 0%

        doggammit8 months ago

        8 years of Bush 43 plus 4 for Bush 41 as VP plus 4 as CEO 8 Clinton years and the possibility that Hillary could gain 8 more and you have 32 of a projective 40 year span of politics 1980 - 2012 winnowing through the figures and the fingers of a very tiny gene pool. The sample could be more "plural" - a popular perception that might be key to Obama's appeal. Hillary is dead if she discloses. Remaining aloof means we will have to put up with her until the last campaigning breath is drawn.

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          doggammit8 months ago

          Sorry for the scrabbled posts - ?? Not sure if that was me or Propellor whut dun it.

          Reply

      • ScrimshawComment removed: User banned.2 Replies

        • 0%

          joey-evans8 months ago

          Down girl, down!

          That's a good bitch.

          JOEY EVANS

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • ScrimshawComment removed: User banned.
      • 0%

        mesodude8 months ago

        What Joey Evans said...And I'm not a lesbian. Not that there'd be anything wrong with that. ;-)

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • ScrimshawComment removed: User banned.
  • 0%

    AntiNeoCon8 months ago

    Hillary has her assets hidden somewhere in the Bronx. Probably at BronxBombers pad. :O) Watch those Dodger jokes buddy, we know where you live...!! j/k

    Reply
  • 0%

    Shadowolf8 months ago

    She's been bought and is tryin' to play..."Never mind ME...what about HIM???"

    Reply

    4 Replies

    • 0%

      JoseMadre8 months ago

      Yeah, what about Obama?

      http://www.judicialwatch.org/judicial-watch-ann...

      Reply

      3 Replies

      • 0%

        ybdogsct8 months ago

        What about him?

        http://mediamatters.org/items/200706140007

        "Several media outlets omitted statements included in the Sun-Times article that challenge the paper's assertion that Obama performed a "favor" for Rezko, specifically Burton's claim that he did not 'know that anyone specifically asked him to write this letter,' and Rezko attorney Joseph Duffy saying that Rezko had not asked Obama to write the letters -- undermining the article's claim that the letters constituted 'a political favor'"

        http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/124171,CS...

        Reply
      • 0%

        RedRiverJ8 months ago

        From the site above:Senator Barack Obama (D-IL): A "Dishonorable Mention" last year, Senator Obama moves onto the "ten most wanted" list in 2007. In 2006, it was discovered that Obama was involved in a suspicious real estate deal with an indicted political fundraiser, Antoin "Tony" Rezko. In 2007, more reports surfaced of deeper and suspicious business and political connections It was reported that just two months after he joined the Senate, Obama purchased $50,000 worth of stock in speculative companies whose major investors were his biggest campaign contributors. One of the companies was a biotech concern that benefited from legislation Obama pushed just two weeks after the senator purchased $5,000 of the company's shares. Obama was also nabbed conducting campaign business in his Senate office, a violation of federal law. Interesting.

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          cushi8 months ago

          Common sense says to me that if Obama had ANY substantial "dirt" to dish about him, it would've long been brought to the forefront. Most of the people backing him have been around long enough to investigate his credentials and know whether or not he can be trusted with their vote. He never would have made it this far if there was anything truly untoward about him. He has been subject to more intense scrutiny than any of the other candidates, and he's STILL looking fresh as a daisy in comparison.

          Reply
  • 0%

    mesodude8 months ago

    "It seems like all she done in NY is make a lucrative book deal. I don't hear nothing else from her."

    --And yet, oddly, she has been repeatedly elected by New Yorkers by wide margins. I guess you're just among the tiny minority of New Yorkers with unique and special powers to discern the failure and incompetence others can't see. Lucky you...

    Reply

    5 Replies

    • 0%

      1-2-Oscar8 months ago

      mesodude, Sen. Clinton has been elected once and re-elected once. Not "repeatedly." Now wipe the spittle off your face. It's disgusting to see a grown man act like that.

      Reply

      3 Replies

      • 0%

        mesodude8 months ago

        "mesodude, Sen. Clinton has been elected once and re-elected once. Not "repeatedly." Now wipe the spittle off your face. It's disgusting to see a grown man act like that."

        --Well, if you're going to split hairs...She was "elected" twice (four times, if you agree with the "Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton" yahoos) and she just won their approval again in the primary. I'd say that, overall, that's a fairly good indication of how popular she is. And don't call me disgusting... ;-p

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          1-2-Oscar8 months ago

          When I want to "agree with the "Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton" yahoos" I will say so plainly and openly. But I have not--so your response is simply evasive and mildly insulting.

          But it is apparently the best you can do.

          Reply
      • 0%

        BronxBomber8 months ago

        Oscar, I didn't call mesodude "messy" for nothing...

        ;o)

        Reply
    • 0%

      BronxBomber8 months ago

      Yeah you're right I am lucky to see Billary as it is...not amongst the mindless masses who can't see jack when it's in front of them. Now go take a Prozac Messy, and quit that frothing of the mouth...

      Reply
• 0%

  gamahuche8 months ago

  My prediction of the day:

  The first headlines with messages like "Hillarys Campaign in Meltdown" are not far distant.

  The disaffected Reps who are not happy with McCain would also NEVER vote for Hillary. So they either abstain or..

  Reply

  18 Replies

  • 0%

    Georgia508 months ago

    Abstention here. Can't cast a vote for someone who wants to lead a country whose borders he/she refuses to defend.

    Should my friends prevail in insisting I vote (and they have compelling arguments), it's going to be a Democratic vote. At least with Hillary or Obama they are loyal to their party and idiot-ology. Maybe the Dem nominee should really freak us all out and name McCain as their VP nominee.

    Reply

    3 Replies

    • 0%

      mesodude8 months ago

      "Abstention here. Can't cast a vote for someone who wants to lead a country whose borders he/she refuses to defend."

      --So then you've never voted, right?

      Reply

      2 Replies

      • 0%

        Georgia508 months ago

        Touche!

        Let's just say my priorities have shifted a bit over the past decade.

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          mesodude8 months ago

          I give you props for your honesty.

          Reply
  • 0%

    MisterX8 months ago

    If worse comes to worse, all she'll have to do is cry on CNN. The support will come pouring in.

    I just read somewhere that, if a Dem takes office, we'll be seeing the end of conservative controversial radio talk shows.

    Reply

    10 Replies

    • 0%

      amazed8 months ago

      why, will they outlaw them? Rush gained his name during the Clinton administration. If the opposition is in power, there's even MORE grist for the mill.

      Reply

      5 Replies

      • 0%

        nostalgia8 months ago

        The opposition will be in power if Clinton, Obama OR McCain wins!

        Reply

        4 Replies

        • 0%

          JoseMadre8 months ago

          Lumping a straight shooting war hero like McCain together with a couple of corrupt leftists is a bit disingenuous.

          Reply

          3 Replies

          • 0%

            nostalgia8 months ago

            That's why his name appears on major legislation with the liberals in the Deomocratic party, right?

            McCain-Feingold, Kennedy-McCain, Lieberman-McCain

            Sounds to me like McCain is part of the "left" wing

            Because someone is a "war hero" means we should automatically make them president?? Didn't work out too well for Kerry or Dole

            As far as "straight shooting" perhaps when he was in the military. Now he's more of the typical "Inside the Belway" politician

            Reply

            2 Replies

            • 0%

              Eagle_Eye8 months ago

              "Sounds to me like McCain is part of the "left" wing" Shhh, we don't want any one to know that!!!

              Reply

              1 Reply

              • ScrimshawComment removed: User banned.
    • 0%

      mesodude8 months ago

      LOL. This is all such sexist, misogynist CRAP. It works for Chimper. He's always on camera looking hopeless and befuddled, "feeling" the pain of the troops and their families at every photo op he can and the MSM says nothing about it.

      Reply

      3 Replies

      • 0%

        joeeddie8 months ago

        I'll bet you listened to Michael Savage last night...

        Reply

        2 Replies

        • 0%

          amazed8 months ago

          who?

          Reply
        • 0%

          mesodude8 months ago

          I don't know who that is. I just think this garbage about her crying is disgusting because it's not as if she would be the first politician to act for the camera to curry favor with the public.

          Reply
  • 0%