Hillary Clinton Lucks Out

New York Senator Hillary Clinton has always looked like a good bet to win re-election in 2006--probably by a margin wide enough to jumpstart the 2008 presidential campaign that many Democrats want the former First Lady to make.

With the decision of Westchester County District Attorney Jeanine Pirro to seek the Republican nomination to challenge her, however, Clinton's fortunes have taken a dramatic turn for the better.

Pirro, a hyper-ambitious publicity hound who frequently turns up on the Fox News Channel as a "legal affairs" commentator, had been weighing races for governor, attorney general or Clinton's Senate seat. With the fortunes of the state Republican Party in decline (even the conservative New York Post says that "New York's GOP is withering--fast"), Pirro was unlikely to win any of those posts. So she opted for the showcase contest: a challenge to the woman Republicans around the country love to hate. Pirro's announcement garnered homestate headlines, enthusiastic coverage on Fox and conservative talk radio and promises of hefty campaign contribution checks from Hillary-haters nationwide.

But, as the Post admitted, the Pirro campaign is "not one (Clinton's) likely to lose sleep over."

Here's why:

Pirro supports abortion rights and reproductive freedom. She's for civil unions and other gay rights measures. She favors affirmative action and opposes the strict immigration quotas favored by Congressional conservatives. She's a big backer of gun control. And she's been enthusiastic about precisely the sort of "big-government" solutions to child-welfare and community issues that Republicans condemn Clinton for promoting.

In other words, Pirro is more of a Rockefeller Republican than a Reaganite. Yet, in an era of sharper-than-ever partisan divisions, Pirro will attract few if any votes from moderate-to-liberal New Yorkers who have sent clear signals that they do not want to give aid and comfort to President Bush and Congressional Republicans. Don't forget that Bush lost New York state by more than 1,350,000 votes in 2004. In the same year, Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer was re-elected with 71 percent of the vote and the GOP suffered a rare loss of a House seat in the Buffalo area while several of its House incumbents, such as upstater Tom Reynolds, saw their victory margins slashed.

It is comic to suggest that Clinton will lose many moderate-to-liberal votes to Pirro just because, in the words of the the King of the Hillary Haters, Dick Morris, "Hillary will have to end up running against someone who is quite like herself in her public positions." New Yorkers are savvy enough to know that, if Pirro wins, she will vote to put right-wing Republican opponents of choice, gay rights and gun control in charge of the Senate, and that will disqualify Pirro with precisely the sort of voters she would need to mount a serious challenge to Clinton.

Morris suggests that Pirro might be able to draw support as a "tough-on-terror" candidate, playing the national security card against Clinton as have other Republicans in other states. But that is an even more comic claim. There is nothing progressive, nor even liberal about Hillary Clinton's stance on national security issues--she wants to "stay the course" in Iraq, she's backed even the most over-the-top spending allocations for the war, she's been a supporter of the Patriot Act and other assaults on civil liberties and she's frequently more in line with the Bush Administration's approach on national security issues than a number of Senate Republicans.

When all is said and done, Clinton could end up benefitting from the "name" Republican challenge posed by Pirro, as it will reinforce the Democrat's position with base voters who might otherwise have problems with her centrist stances.

Indeed, if there is a candidate who is going to have a problem with her base, it's Pirro.

Several more conservative candidates are in the Republican race, including Ed Cox, a prominent New York lawyer who is the son-in-law of former President Richard Nixon, former Yonkers Mayor John Spencer and attorney Bill Brenner. Pirro may beat the three of them for the GOP nod. But one member of that trio is likely to be the nominee of the Conservative Party, a New York state institution that refused to back Schumer's moderate Republican challenger in 2004 and gained 220,960 votes for a little-known candidate running on its party line in the race. (In the presidential vote, the Conservatives backed Bush, who obtained 155,574 votes, more than 5 percent of his state total, on its line.)

If Pirro loses hundreds of thousands of votes to a Conservative Party nominee, she could well run a weaker race than Clinton's 2000 foe, former US Representative Rick Lazio, who had the Republican and Conservative endorsements. (Lazio got 43 percent of the vote that year, while polls currently put Pirro at around 29 percent.)

That may not be the worst of it for Pirro. While there is no question that Hillary Clinton suffers among some voters because of her association with her husband, former President Bill Clinton, Pirro has a husband problem of her own. As the Post's able politcal scribe, Fredric U. Dicker, gently notes, "Pirro's strength as a candidate is handicapped by her husband Albert's conviction in 2000 on federal income-tax fraud charges, an earlier revelation that he fathered an out-of-wedlock daughter, as well as the recent allegation by a Mafia informant that Al Pirro leaked confidential material from an ongoing Westchester DA's probe."

Plenty of ink will be spilled over the next fifteen months on the Clinton-Pirro race, and talk-TV and radio will love the fight. But if there was any cheering heard after Pirro announced on Monday, it was coming from Clinton's headquarters.

Comments (128)

1. There are two reasons for holding elections.

   The most obvious reason, the one usually given, is to choose a leader or representative by popular vote.

   However, even in cases where one candidate is a shoe-in, as Senator Clinton appears to be in New York, it is a good idea for the opposition to run somebody against her just to discuss the issues. It's a healthy thing to do in a democratic state.

   If the Republican Party nominates a moderate, then one would hope the Conservative Party candidate gets some air time and a spot on any televised debates. Mrs. Clinton may be poised to win with about 65% of the vote, but that's no reason for her not to face voters and justify herself. Any office holder should have to do that.

   Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/09/2005 @ 2:05pm

2. Pirro may be the weakest...but she may have the strongest argument..."I'm looking for a full-time job, not a part-time job".

   Hillary has just now started to shed the "carpetbagger" label (which she did quite well to shed during the 2000 election), but if a second term is seen as "just a stepping stone" (and her FIRST election as well), the New Yorkers may not take kindly to being "used".

   Whoever the nominee is, will surely ask Senator Clinton to sign a "pledge" that she will serve out her second term....which of course, will be "balked at" (or merely ignored).

   Another factor that needs to be added is...if Hillary wins in 2008, then the Governor of New York gets to appoint a successor. If he or she is a Republican (not unlikely, even with Pataki's retirement), then it's a Republican Senator.

   but right now, the odds are....HRC will win handily. And she'll run in 2007-2008 and split the Democratic Party in half, between the Clintonites and the Deaniacs/anti-DLC types, as she "moves MORE to the right" to earn points for the general election.

   Posted by Mask at 08/09/2005 @ 2:05pm

3. .

   Hillary Clinton Lucks Out

   I am not big on political strategy. But I do agree, a weak Republican candidate in the NY senate race could mean a strong Hillary victory which would enhance Mrs. Clinton claim to the 2008 nomination.

   The Republicans are telling themselves, we should only be so lucky.

   Posted by nacl at 08/09/2005 @ 2:35pm

4. Well, I like Hillary, but if she runs for pres in '08 she will lose. I say this because there are SO MANY Hillary haters out there. Much of the HRC hating seems irrational. Can any of you HRC haters explain why you hate her so much? I don't get it and I want to know why.

   Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/09/2005 @ 2:38pm

5. They hate her becasue they fear a strong woman. An independent woman. We are raised to believe women can't play with the boys. And the thought of HRC not only playing with the boys, but beating them is a concept not many red-blooded, American males can accept.

   I'm not a HRC hater, but that is my theory. No HRC hater will admit this theory.

   Posted by BlueTexan at 08/09/2005 @ 2:43pm

6. "They hate her becasue they fear a strong woman. An independent woman."

   That is a phony arguement. There are many strong Republican women. We do not trust her because she is a power hungry bitch who is so fake it makes your head spin. She was a former lawyer for the Black Panthers and she is a hard core leftist no matter how much she lies her way to the "center". Pirro might not win, but then again she might clean her clock. Rod-ham might even bow out of the senate race to avoid embarrasment. With Crazy Howard at the helm and Hitlery as your standard bearer it will be quite enjoyable watching you liberals go down for good. See you in '06 & '08

   Posted by LIBSARENUTS at 08/09/2005 @ 3:09pm

7. There are Hillary haters on the left who dislike her for her "moderate" stand against taking a strong position on any Democratic issues.

   Posted by nattiebumpo at 08/09/2005 @ 3:18pm

8. LIBSARENUTS - "There are many strong Republican women."

   There are. And I've always wondered why? Just as I am perplexed at the idea of a gay Republican, I wonder many times why a woman can be a Republican. Since the Republican agenda is set up to solely benefit upper-class, white men, I don't understand why?

   However, many of those Republican women aren't strong, they are merely puppets that are allowed to have a voice in the Republican party because the back-room Republican stratagist need women to point to appease the rest of the soccer moms. America loves demure, soft-spoken, respectful women (for examples, see all female Republican politicians). Hilary is none of those, and you don't like it.

   Posted by BlueTexan at 08/09/2005 @ 3:19pm

9. LIBSARENUTS - "We do not trust her because she is a power hungry bitch who is so fake it makes your head spin."

   I too call your argument phony. Bush is power hungry. He's probably more fake (my head spins everytime he opens his mouth). And most people would probably use the b word to describe him too. (I think Karl and Dick call him that a lot).

   So I'm not buying your argument.

   Posted by BlueTexan at 08/09/2005 @ 3:36pm

10. John - you forgot to take into account liberals who won't vote for Hillary because we don't want to give her any momentum towards the presidency. Pirro may actually be a decent refuge for liberals because we can vote for her knowing that: A) she's going to lose, B) we're not supporting an entirely horrible candidate, and C) Hillary supported the war and deserves some voter backlash for her horrible decision.

    And while we all seem to be sure of a Hil victory in '06, never forget the old adage - a week is a lifetime in politics. Maybe, just maybe.....

    Posted by webb at 08/09/2005 @ 3:43pm

11. Do you really think that Hillary could win a pres election? I'd love it, but you know the "family values" people aren't just against gays and abortion--they also need the man to be the head of the house. I'd hate for those self-righteous pigs to make a difference again.

    Posted by rain man at 08/09/2005 @ 3:45pm

12. BlueTexan, quit reading my mind! :) I totally agree with you on Hill.

    Posted by RG at 08/09/2005 @ 3:51pm

13. BLUETEXAN: I don't hate Hillary, and depending on who she is running against, I could see myself voting for her. But your comment about Republican women is bs. Condi Rice and others like her earned their position; Hillary got where she is through marriage.

    Posted by RonS at 08/09/2005 @ 3:57pm

14. BLUETEXAN: I've always wondered how any man could be a democrat. I know lots of females who feel the same.

    And as far as "Republican women" not being strong. They understand, you don't have to be a cold bitch to be strong, i.e. HRC, Polosi, Lee, Boxer...

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/09/2005 @ 4:00pm

15. RONS - "Condi Rice and others like her earned their position; Hillary got where she is through marriage."

    So Condi got where she was becasue she earned it. I hope you're right. She seems to be a sharp person, but you don't seem to think there is a high possibility she was elevated to appease a particualar demographic? If you knew anything about HRC, then you would know that she could have gotten where she is (probably gotten farther) if she hadn't married Bill.

    USAPRIDE - When you wonder about a man being a Democrat, you may be right if you refer to a man as the typical egotistical, selfish, look-out-for-number-one male that men are taught to be. It only makes sense for them to be a Republican.

    Posted by BlueTexan at 08/09/2005 @ 4:14pm

16. LIBSARENUTS,

    Nearly as soon as I wrote that "much of the HRC hating seems irrational" you came along and validated my point with your crazed rant. Thank you! But I wouldn't expect much more from someone who stereotypes all liberals as "nuts".

    I ask again: Can any HRC hater give a RATIONAL explanation for hating her, instead of just heaping insults on someone you don't know personally? Can you back it up with facts instead of unfounded emotion?

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/09/2005 @ 4:15pm

17. RonS, Condi Rice and the rest of the women in the Bush administration got to where they are not because they earned it but because Bush needed tokens to "prove" his policies are in the interests of minorities and women. See Laura Flander's "Bushwomen" for complete biographies. I would also argue that Hillary may have gotten elected partially because of her husband, but Bush got elected mostly because of his daddy.

    Posted by RG at 08/09/2005 @ 4:16pm

18. RG - Great "daddy was pres" point to counteract the "husband was pres" point.

    Conservatives - list Hillary's policies that upset you. I'm guessing it'll mainly be a bash against her universal health plan while First Lady. She supports the war. She's much more centrist than most progressives on this website. I don't understand the hate toward her except as an irrational fear that Slick Willy would be holding the puppet strings. But to see how those two don't really care for eachother, I don't envision that being true.

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/09/2005 @ 4:29pm

19. Condi Rice -- Masters from Notre Dame, PHD Denver, author The Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia, The politics of client command, The Party, the military, and decision authority in the Soviet Union, Gorbachev Era, Germany Unified, Sternstunde der Diplomatie; professor of political science, Stanford; Winner of 1984 Gores Award Excellence in Teaching; Senior Direcotr of Soviet and East European Affairs in National Security; Special Assistant to the President National Security Affairs; Special Assistant to the Director of JCS; Federal Advisory Committee on Gender-Integrated Training in the Militry...what has Hillary done? who the heck is Larua Flanders and who cares?

    Posted by RonS at 08/09/2005 @ 4:30pm

20. FRANKGRITS: All Harris did was what she was required to do according to the election laws of Florida.

    Sounds like sour grapes to me.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/09/2005 @ 4:33pm

21. FRANKGRITS: I have not listened to talk radio in probably 37 years, so stop dealing in stereotypes. Hillary Clinton's election as Senator from NY would not have happened had she not been married to Bill.

    Posted by RonS at 08/09/2005 @ 4:33pm

22. URMYGYRO: Are you being sarcastic? I was just stating my opinion. I really believe Bush Sr. had at least something to do with Dubya getting elected. :(

    RonS, I never said Condi wasn't accomplished, I said she got her position because Bush needed to appeal to minorities and women, and unless he hired her, he wouldn't win those two demographics. I'm not going to sit here and waste time rattling off Hillary's accomplishments because you'll still believe she got elected because she married Bill. As for Laura Flanders, it would do you some good to read her stuff, but I know you never will. I'm sorry you don't want to read up on the women in Bush's cabinet that you love so much!

    Posted by RG at 08/09/2005 @ 4:37pm

23. "I'm not going to sit here and waste time rattling off Hillary's accomplishments"

    Madame Defarge has not accomplished one damn thing in her life except to marry a felon, disbarred impeached rapist. Not quite the qualifications I'm looking for to run this country or to fight terroists. Thanks but no thanks.

    Posted by LIBSARENUTS at 08/09/2005 @ 4:57pm

24. LIBSARENUTS, thanks for giving me a chuckle. ;)

    Posted by RG at 08/09/2005 @ 5:00pm

25. Not quite the qualifications I'm looking for to run this country or to fight terroists. Thanks but no thanks.

    Yet you're fine with a president who didn't see al Qaeda as an "urgent threat" before 9/11, didn't place counterterrorism in its top 7 budget priorities before 9/11, refused an FBI request for more counterterrorism funding the day before 9/11, had 9/11 happen under his watch, and lied this country into an illegal, unnecessary war which has now turned Iraq into a breeding ground for terrorists, cut veterans benefits, sent our troops into Iraq ill-equipped, let bin Laden slip away when we had him cornered at Tora Bora...oh, yeah, these are definitely the things I want out of a president. NOT!

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/09/2005 @ 5:05pm

26. Let's be fair. Hillary did chair the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee.

    Actually, the funny thing is, I'm she's more acceptable to me as our next President than to most of the editors and readers of "The Nation."

    Posted by RonS at 08/09/2005 @ 5:06pm

27. RONS - "Hillary Clinton's election as Senator from NY would not have happened had she not been married to Bill."

    You'r right, she wouldn't. She would have become a senator, or a govenor, or a cabinent member, or vice president, or president by now.

    Posted by BlueTexan at 08/09/2005 @ 5:06pm

28. typo -- meant to say "I'm sure she's more acceptable..."

    Posted by RonS at 08/09/2005 @ 5:07pm

29. I like Hillary, but I wonder how we define strong - riding to power on her husbands coat tails? Standing the fool as he screwed women (and was accused of rape) from Arkansas to NYC. Calling herself a New Yorker even though she'd never really lived here? Voting to the center (and for this war) because it was the popular thing to do? Hillary: she's pro death penalty - she's anti-late term abortion - she calls herself a conservative christian: so I guess if you stand by your man - even when he's screwing the help - use his power to gain your access, play fast and loose with the truth, disregard your base when it's convenient, then you're a strong women and Republicans hate strong women... even though they love the strongest woman in the world - who's not really strong because we don't like her ideas...

    Posted by jabelson at 08/09/2005 @ 5:14pm

30. I meant to type: You're right, she wouldn't. She would have become a senator, or a govenor, or a cabinent member, or vice president, or president by now...if she hadn't married Bill.

    Posted by BlueTexan at 08/09/2005 @ 5:14pm

31. RG - you're "accusation" that Condi got her job through "affirmative action" poses an interesting question: do you believe that those who get preferential treatment based on gender or color are not really suited to the job? Are they mere tokens - lesser people elevated by the power elite to appease the underclass or offer intellectual refuge? I wonder. I notice that lefties often attack affirmative action when they don't appreciate the recipient - we're often preached to about this perspective and that point of view, and then if we don't like the ideaology it's "token this and loser that". I do believe that Bush has used affirmative action in some of his appointments. I've read that he and Rice go back a long ways and she has been an advisor to him for years. But I do agree that you've proved the posion of affirmative action.

    Posted by jabelson at 08/09/2005 @ 5:23pm

32. LIBSARENUTS Writes: " Not quite the qualifications I'm looking for to run this country or to fight terroists. Thanks but no thanks."

    I had to smile and then really chuckle when I read that...I guess its not so bad to have a rebel, womaizing, alcoholic, cokehead who suddenly gets GOD because the wife he married to help control himself wasnt controlling him too well and gave an ultimatem. Of course MOM said "DO what the wife says or else". THEN GW got AA and thru AA got GOD.

    Any wolf in sheeps clothes can fool you conservatives huh? *cheeky grin*

    Posted by Jazzee at 08/09/2005 @ 5:26pm

33. "She would have become a senator, or a govenor, or a cabinent member, or vice president, or president by now."

    I wonder what you base that on - she had absolutely NO name recognition before Clinton became president - even if she made him - as some here say. She'd never won an election - not even local- at best we know she was a good lawyer (though that hardly recommends strong character) There were vicious rumors flying everywhere from the time most of us first heard her name. You might be right, but it sounds much more like wishful thinking than anything based in fact - if Hillary had political desires why didn't she try them out - why wait for Clinton to end he presidential run (where she came out "cuckholded", insincere [and her feminist friends with her] and quite a pathetic figure). It doesn't make sense to me. That NY voted for a carpet bagger is their choice - and she's done a pretty good job - if voting for a war that the left despises is a good job...

    Posted by jabelson at 08/09/2005 @ 5:32pm

34. URMYGYRO:

    I would be surprised if a conservative on this board responds to your request to name policies of Ms. Clinton that are objectionable. Most Hillary-bashers rely on nothing but general insults relating either to her gender or husband (usually that she is a "bitch"). In any event, her position on healthcare 10 years ago looks rather sage considering where we are today. In fact, according to a May 2005 survey published by the Pew Research Center for People and Policy poll, 65 percent of Americans questioned favor providing health insurance to all Americans, even if it means increasing taxes.

    An aside to USAPRIDE: Is name-calling the best you can do? What is a "bitch" to you? Is it a tough or calulating woman? An overly-competitive woman? An ambitious woman? Or is it just a derogatory term that, in actuality, means nothing specific, other than you dislike her? Without anything behind it, it makes you sound like a fourth-grader, and if you are an adult, hollow and pathetic. Whatever characteristics make Clinton a bitch in your mind, would you laud those same ones if applied to someone like Bush? I suspect the answer is yes. If someone brought up that Bush was "not a nice guy," (or whatever is the male version of bitch) you would likely respond along the lines of the country needing "an ass-kicker in the Oval office," or something like that, right?

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/09/2005 @ 5:33pm

35. I like Hillary, but I wonder how we define strong - riding to power on her husbands coat tails?

    Or riding to power on Sr. Bush's coat tails? If Bush -- whose every oil business he touched went belly-up -- didn't have the family name, he not only wouldn't have become president but not even governor -- in a state, mind you, where it's the lieutenant governor who actually does all the work. So it really cracks me up when he tries to come off like a Washington outsider when his old man was the frigging vice president for 8 years and president for 4 years. (groan)

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/09/2005 @ 5:34pm

36. LIBSARENUTS,

    How is HRC like Defarge? My guess is, you got nothin'!!!!

    So many of you righties are the same - you just spout absurd accusations without a shred of fact to back it up, and you hope enough people will accept it without checking.

    Well, you guys are right about one thing - enough people did accept it without checking, and so Bush got reelected. But that is a dubious accomplishment...

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/09/2005 @ 5:34pm

37. "Or riding to power on Sr. Bush's coat tails? "

    I despise George Bush - but you have to admit - Texas voted him Gov twice and AMERICA voted him pres. twice - debunked conspiracies aside. He definitely was not voted pres the second time based on his dad - who was not a popular president need I add.

    "I would be surprised if a conservative "

    I'm no conservative - Hillary voted for the war and she's pro death penalty

    Posted by jabelson at 08/09/2005 @ 5:48pm

38. I've got to add my dissent to those who are saying this is crazy move. While as a liberal Democrat I intend to vote for Hilary and think that Pirro will probably lose I've got to say that I think she'll make a more credible candidate than people think. Pirro is one of the few Republicans with a statewide profile. With Bloomberg running again for Mayor, Pataki taking time off to gear up for president in 08, and Rudy ruling out a run for Senatewho else were the Republicans supposed to run? For them Pirro is probably the best available option. For her this probably isn't the best choice. She may have done better running to replace Spitzer rather than against him. Spitzer is a popular candidate and the Gubernatorial race would be tough like the Senate but the A-Gs post is wide open and I can't think of a Democratic prosecutor in the state with as high a profile as Pirro (except Spitzer himself of course). She would have done better to run for A-G and then position herself to run against Spitzer for Governor next time or go for the Senate in 2006. All this aside I think that John Nichols assesment of her liabilities is a bit absurd. This is New York politics we're talking about, not national politics or red state politics. Sure, in a state like Alabama or Wyoming Pirro's views would probably make her a Democrat. In New York, however Republicans have done real well in large vote races by portraying themselves as moderates. Look at Michael Bloomberg who was a Democrat until shortly before he decided to run for mayor and who, like Pirro, supports abortion and civil unions. He looks likely to win re-election in a city which voted overwhelmingly against George Bush. Or take a look at Pataki. Nichols assesment applies to Patakis presidential hopes but he was very succesful as a stagte politician because he was a moderate who had a relatively strong record on the enviroment and supported abortion rights. Indeed the recent flap about Pataki came because he took a position which was considered TOO CONSERVATIVE on abortion, even by the state Republican leadership. True, Bloomberg especially has come in for criticism from conservative Republicans that he is a RINO, and one of the burrough Republican parties refused to endorse him, but the challenge looks unlikely to have an electoral effect. The fact is that New York is a liberal state, with one of the most classicaly "blue" cities in the country. While truly conservative republicans can win congressional and local elections here by appealing to local conservative populations, statewide offices are usually won by Democrats or moderate Republicans. In a blue state the new Republican strategy of appealing to the hard core right is much harder to pull off. Republicans in New York win by moving to the left of their party and shaving off moderate Democratic voters and people who like the candidate for other reasons and needed to be reassured on the thresehold issues. The same is true in Massachusetts where Mitt Romney made a good career as a moderate

    Posted by prestorjon at 08/09/2005 @ 5:50pm

39. HMAN23: I would consider the male version of a bitch to be an asshole. You should be able to relate.

    Have you heard some of the rants by HRC? Glass shatters and dogs howl in agony. It's no wonder why BJ runs around on her. People like that deserve no respect and no platform to spew their BS.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/09/2005 @ 6:04pm

40. I will, for this once, agree in part with Freiheit. I do not like Hillary Clinton. I cannot find much evidence of progressive thought within her--she seems like a run-of-the-mill political opportunist. Instead of challenging Hillary bashers to state the bases of these opinions, can truly progressive folk demonstrate why a vote for her is a well-cast vote?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/09/2005 @ 6:16pm

41. And I also agree with Freiheit's condemnation of the Bush as Burger Flipper comment. He obviously has the people skills to manage the burger flipping shop.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/09/2005 @ 6:17pm

42. Bush would not have had a political career if not for his father, and Hillary would not have had a political career if not for her husband. (Well, she might have been elected to a town council, but nothing beyond that. And I don't say that out of hatred.)

    Posted by RonS at 08/09/2005 @ 6:18pm

43. Libshavenuts; "There are many strong Republican women." yes, but I don't like mustaches.

    Posted by doog at 08/09/2005 @ 6:20pm

44. Finally a reason! Freiheit gave a reason for not liking HRC, but it sure isn't enough of a reason to hate her. Then he went on to ruin it all with an insult of all Dems. Sad how you righties just can't be civil... Remember, "compassionate conservative" is just an oxymoron.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/09/2005 @ 6:48pm

45. "Remember, "compassionate conservative" is just an oxymoron"

    I am a conservative compassionate

    Posted by LIBSARENUTS at 08/09/2005 @ 6:50pm

46. FRANKGRITS: Your last post proves Freiheit's point. You are elitist. You associate flipping burgers with a lack of education. Strange that you compassionate, spiritual, progressive types associate learning with a desire to make a lot of money. So I guess you really look down on the people who work at Walmart.

    Posted by RonS at 08/09/2005 @ 6:56pm

47. frankgrits what is an aludra?????I dont understand

    Posted by LIBSARENUTS at 08/09/2005 @ 7:02pm

48. "Compassionate" can now be used as a noun?

    Frankgrits, I think the US could vote for a woman in the near future. That person though will almost certainly be a Republican. How hard would it be to fight a woman with a number of sure-fire conservative credentials (member of the NRA, sitting on the Armed Services Committee and consistently voting to up the Pentagon's budget, talks the talk about frivolous lawsuits and the value of faith-based institutions, etc.) yet represents strong values that have been, rightly or wrongly, associated with women such as being Pro-Choice, fighting for education and children's programs, and supporting those abstract things that make this country a safe place in which to raise a family. Some of the current female senators seem like they could fit this bill, but they have (R)'s after their names.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/09/2005 @ 7:04pm

49. TJBEHRENS1,

    I think a vote for HRC in a presidential election would be an OK choice, but not a great choice. But great candidates cannot get elected president anyway, so it's all right. My reasons: She is tough and smart. She will protect our rights, such as freedom of religion, because she won't let the religious right shove their idea of Christianity down my throat using my own tax dollars to do it. Another right she will protect is the right to choose, which is also under attack by the religious right. Basically I am concerned that the religious right will turn this country into a fundamentalist religious concentration camp, being so intolerant of other faiths. Hillary won't go along with it.

    Also, she tried for national health care. I support that, and I hope one day it will happen.

    And one more reason to vote for Hillary Clinton: If the Republicans keep winning the White House, they will bankrupt America with their reckless spending. They have to be stopped before it is too late!!!!!!!!!!

    Yet another reason to elect Hillary: Having a woman president would really iritate all the rednecks and religious extremists. I have to admit, that would be a lot of fun.

    There are lots of other reasons to vote for HRC. All you liberals out there chime in with your favorite reason!

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/09/2005 @ 7:08pm

50. Thank you Freiheit. I wasn't sure what was going on. Someone said that yesterday too, I didn't understand then. I sure dont want to sound like M. Savage. He is a moron. I do have strong feelings though.

    Posted by LIBSARENUTS at 08/09/2005 @ 7:09pm

51. :-)

    Posted by LIBSARENUTS at 08/09/2005 @ 7:12pm

52. LIBSARENUTS - "There are many strong Republican women."

    There are. And I've always wondered why? Just as I am perplexed at the idea of a gay Republican, I wonder many times why a woman can be a Republican. Since the Republican agenda is set up to solely benefit upper-class, white men, I don't understand why?

    Its simple Bluetexan: Cutting taxes, family values, strong on defense, men who are masculine instead of promoting "men in touch with their feminine side", working to reduce the intrusion of government into areas that are not constitutional.

    Besides the most well known leading Republican women like Condi, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, and Elizabeth Dole; there are the Laura Ingrahams, Michelle Malkin, Monica Crowely women who will most certainly be running for office in the future.

    Then there are the hundreds of elected Republican Women:

    http://www.nfrw.org/republicans/women/20.htm

    And then the many like my wife, a proud conservative Latin/Black Woman who is proud of both her ethnicity and conservative politics.

    45 years of working in the Republican Party as a volunteer and I'm still proud and happy!

    Posted by love liberty at 08/09/2005 @ 7:26pm

53. Frankg...I can't believe you would even try to resurrect the "equal pay" issue. But please do, it helps to reduce the credibility of Democratic candidates. It's right there with the Loch Ness monster.

    Posted by love liberty at 08/09/2005 @ 7:29pm

54. We are lucky to have liberty and love.

    Posted by LIBSARENUTS at 08/09/2005 @ 7:31pm

55. LL,

    You can't get any facts straight. Name one - JUST ONE - Democrat in the House or the Senate who has promoted men "getting in touch with their feminine side". That is the problem with the right wing - you don't even understand what Dems are promoting. If you did, you would see that the Dems are more concerned with the Average Joe than the Republicans are.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/09/2005 @ 7:36pm

56. FREIHEIT thinks he can predict the future. We'll have to wait in line for liberty and love??? I guess you have to resort to wild, baseless accusations when the facts are against you.

    And you are wrong about your definition of a conservative. I WAS A CONSERVATIVE UNTIL I GOT LIFE EXPERIENCE. Then I became a liberal. In reality, a liberal is just someone whose political views reflect the golden rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That is how I try to live life, and how I form my political views.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/09/2005 @ 7:41pm

57. COME ON PEOPLE !!!!!!!!

    Grow up!!! Ms. Prro was TOLD by the GOP to run aginst her for ONE and ONLY one reason. To make Hillary Look bad.

    Pirro doesn't care if she wins or not. Take her down a few notches. That is Pirro's only goal. Say things that make Clinton look bad.

    It's so clear. Issues don't matter here. Its all about public appearance and Clinton's Presidental run.

    Posted by beachesclosed at 08/09/2005 @ 7:57pm

58. Frei, you contradicted yourself. You say Dems arent really concerned with the Average Joe, then you go on to cite a Dem who supports free education. Do you ever preview your postings?

    (Of course it would be more accurate to call it taxpayer-subsidized education.)

    Look, I am NOT trying to portray the Democratic party as God's gift to the downtrodden! I am just saying that if you compare them with the Republican party that they win the comparison in the "looking out for Average Joe" department. Is there room for improvement? Yes, lots of room...

    But I am sure you will misquote this posting, just like you did the other one. Oh well...

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/09/2005 @ 8:05pm

59. I (heart) burger flippers!

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/09/2005 @ 8:07pm

60. Liberalism is the philosophy of the stupid

    Conservatism is the philosophy of the thinking man

    Posted by LIBSARENUTS at 08/09/2005 @ 8:07pm

61. BTW, Frei, I think the Repubs make it easier for SOME of the people to make their own way. Incompetent sons of former presidents is one demographic.

    But for people from poor and disadvantaged backgrounds the Repubs don't seem to be helping. Just look at how you attacked the free education idea! Don't you think there are lots of smart people in this country who can't afford higher education, and wind up with more limited opportunities because of it? Of course it happens.

    If we took the money our government wasted to attack Iraq and spent it on education instead, it would not only help the people who had their college payed for, it would also help the businesses in this country because they would have more educated people to hire, and it would also help the economy and the government because those more educated workers would earn and spend more money (and pay more taxes).

    We could create an economic boom in this country by spending more on education, and help more of our citizens in the process.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/09/2005 @ 8:15pm

62. Yes, Frei, I know that nothing is free. THAT IS WHY I SAID SO IN ONE OF MY POSTS!!!! But I would rather have my taxes spent on education, which helps nearly everyone in the country (as I just explained), instead of having my taxes spent on a stupid, useless war that has killed thousands of innocent people and has actually made terrorism worse.

    LIBSARENUTS, I would put my liberal IQ and CV up against yours any day of the week, but I doubt you know what a CV is...

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/09/2005 @ 8:19pm

63. Frei, do you really think it will be interesting to see how Pirro does? Sen. Schumer crushed the Republican last November. If that is any indication, and I think it is, Hillary will be one of the first senators declared a winner by the big news networks. I am guessing she will be somewhere between the 4th and 6th senator declared a winner, approximately 11 minutes after the election coverage begins...

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/09/2005 @ 8:28pm

64. Jabelson, I didn't prove the "poison" of affirmative action - Bush's appointment of Rice has nothing to do with affirmative action. The appointment of people such as Rice only serves to cover up the fact that Bush is anti-affirmative action and anti-women. In this case he is definitely using her to distract people from the fact that he doesn't have the interests of minorities or women in mind AT ALL. Affirmative action is entirely different from tokenizing, which is exactly what Bush is doing.

    Posted by RG at 08/09/2005 @ 8:30pm

65. LIBSARENUTS- If you're new here, Aludra is a troll who hangs out on this blog. She/he? rants in CapsLock and the right-wing rantings resemble your postings. Such as "LIBS ARE NUTS". If you are Aludra posting under another name, I have wasted my time explaining this to you.

    Posted by proudlib at 08/09/2005 @ 8:31pm

66. Physics- What IS as CV?

    Posted by proudlib at 08/09/2005 @ 8:33pm

67. Pirro is no different than Clinton but for the fact she is from NY. She is pro choice, pro gay rights, and sounds just like Clinton when she talks in front of groups. She is for the war just like Clinton and for the Patriot Act just like Clinton. So what is the big deal just because she does not have a (D) after her name? Are we at the point when we have women standing up and running for high office but we shoot them down just because they do not look the way you want them to look or have some dumb letter after their name.

    Posted by whyme at 08/09/2005 @ 8:33pm

68. Ah, Frei, you are tricky, tricky, tricky! Very subtle, but not quite sublte enough! The appropriate comparison would be between how much $ the federal gov't spends on the Iraq war and how much it spends on college tuition for americans (NOT LOANS!!!).

    Of course if we looked at "education spending" as a % of GNP (as you suggested in your tricky post) it would beat what is spent on the Iraq war, because "education spending" includes STATE AND LOCAL spending on K-12. (Fortunately that still includes nearly all americans.)

    But I was talking about higher education, as was Kucinich (I think).

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/09/2005 @ 8:36pm

69. "We are going to take them away from you on behalf of the common good"

    That should send a shiver up any Americans spine

    Posted by LIBSARENUTS at 08/09/2005 @ 8:37pm

70. CV is an abbreviation of "curriculum vitae", in other words, a resume.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/09/2005 @ 8:38pm

71. WHYME, The answer to your question "what's the big deal?" is: The big deal is that she would be another voter in the Senate in Bush's party, thus strenghthening his ability to push a far right agenda on the country, appoint radical judges, get more wars approved by congress, etc. Party IS important, as you will find out if you track the workings of Congress closely.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/09/2005 @ 8:41pm

72. My spine shivers only when I find quotes placed in context.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/09/2005 @ 8:44pm

73. Well, "We are going to take them away from you on behalf of the common good" is actually not so scary if you think! Why? The tax cuts she wants to take away are the Bush tax cuts. Guess what? We didn't have these tax cuts before Bush got into office. And yet, wow, the country managed to thrive and prosper!

    I don't think some of the people making posts know enough economics to be taken seriously. Go and learn what the Laffer curve is! Better yet, learn what it MEANS...

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/09/2005 @ 8:45pm

74. Clinton will win in 2008. Conservatives like to think that they will be the majority forever, and Democrats cannot define who they are, or what they stand for. However, I think the pendulum is beginning to swing to the Left, and the GOP is overplaying its reliance on the Religious Right. This fringe arm has highjacked the GOP, and many of my Republican realtives and friends wonder what happened to the supposed bedrock principles of the GOP - a limited government combined with fiscal responsibility. Many on the Left chastize Clinton and the DLC for wanting to adopt more "centrist" policies. Even though I am someone who hold views reaching farther to the Left than most, I think these attacks are ill advised. The Far Left may want to put up a true-blue or progressive Democrat, and in an ideal world I would welcome that, but such a candidate simply will not win in 2008. Clinton may not be the perfect candidate for some Liberals, but you cannot change the entire policitcal leanings of a nation in one election. Society best operates on principles of cooperation and compromise. Clinton is shrewd -- she is not pulling the Democrats farther to the Right, she is shifting the Middle to the Left, where they will want to go after Bush finishes his term becasue he has taken the Middle to far to the Right. She recognizes this, and it will win her the presidency.

    What other reasons point to a win for Clinton? Specific policy posititions of the candidates will play a role, but I think the larger factor will be based on intangible factors concerning the principles that her presidency will stand for, as opposed to the legacy of what Bush will leave to whomever tries to follow him. The Bush Presidency rules by fear and divisiveness. We are made to feel as if we could be attacked by terrorists at any time. We should fear homosexuals. We should fear stem-cell research based upon arguments not grounded in science or fact. We should give up personal liberties because we fear "the terrorists." We should be fearful of questioning our government, or otherwise be labeled anti-American or unpatriotic. We should fear that Social Security is about to go bankrupt. We should fear Democrats because they will not protect us. What will be Bush's legacy? Conservatives, please list his significant foreign accomplishments. We are stuck in a multi-billion dollar war that less and less people agree with, and more and more believe was based on false pretenses. Even though the world was with us after 9/11, Bush squandered that and has further inflamed Islamic extremisism, and even alienated some of our allies. North Korea is accelerating its nuclear program. We have not found Osama Bin Laden. We have refused to sign the Kyoto protocols. We are engaged in nation-building while Bush contends that the extremists hate the freedoms that come with democracy (cribbing here from another post; I though it was a great observation).

    What are Bush's domestic accomplishments? Wages have stagnated, and by some accounts even declined. Domestic manufacturing jobs and technical/scientific jobs have dwindled and been outsorced to foreign countries. More people are uninsured. The state of the environment has worsened, because he has no conservation policies. More and more, families need dual incomes just to get keep up. His tax cuts benefitted the richest Americans, while record deficits require cuts in necessary social programs and increase our reliance on the investment of foreign countries (see China). He has done nothing to avert the oncoming fiscal crisis with Medicare. His energy policies amount to little more than corporate welfare. Individual liberties have been ransacked. The No Child Left Behind Act is an utter disgrace, and education has not improved.

    I am sure others can add to the list, but Clinton will win because of the simple fact that she is a Democrat, and not a Repulican like Bush. This may be simplistic for some, but recent history shows us that the pendulum swings between the Right and Left, trying to find the a center that is platable to the majority of the electorate at a given time. Moreover, the electorate likes to feel as if they are electing a better leader for our nation than the last one, and we try to do this, oftentimes, by judging how well recent years have been in a general sense. Carter beat Ford based mainly on the wreckage left by Nixon. Reagan beat Carter because many did not feel things were improving. Clinton beat Elder Bush after the country realized that 12 years of Reuplican rule did not satisfy us, and that we had a hope for a better life under Clinton. Bush beat Al Gore on the notion that a Gore presdiency would be a continuation of the scandals that dogged Clinton. Many in the Middle are beginning to see that Bush is not the benefit they bargined for, so they will look to the alternate party. Whomever the GOP puts up, he/she will be associated (rightly or wrongly) with the Bush Presidency, which was marked by fear. In contrast, many will associate (rightly or wrongly) the principles of Ms. Clinton's candidacy with that of her husband - hope for a better life.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/09/2005 @ 8:50pm

75. Bravo, Frankgrits! Saddly, though, the mindless lemmings of the GOP are going to drag down our great country as they obediantly accept the BS that George W. and his cronies feed them.

    "Oh, you'll give me $300 if I let you destroy America? Uh, OK, I guess...." Shame on you all!!!

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/09/2005 @ 8:51pm

76. FRANKGRITS:

    It will happen. We are a progressive society, and the Reactionary Right is fighting a battle they are doomed to eventually lose. Bush has made a solid effort to take us back a few steps, but we will make that up over time. Like so many past issues, the policies of liberalism, although attacked, will eventually win, and over time will become so much an accepted fabric of American life, that we will forget that there was even a debate about the issues in the first place.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/09/2005 @ 9:12pm

77. "the policies of liberalism, although attacked, will eventually win, and over time will become so much an accepted fabric of American life, that we will forget that there was even a debate about the issues in the first place."

    Who is that man behind the curtain?

    Posted by LIBSARENUTS at 08/09/2005 @ 9:15pm

78. HMAN23 one more thing, his energy policy of here are some tax breaks try to pump some more oil. Thought it might be relevant after he signed his energy giveaway yesterday. I think the corporations behind this guy are robbing us blind. How someone can someone be so incompetent, so used by so many, it amazes me. When you get a dimwit to do your dirty work you leave no fingerprints.

    Posted by Salunga at 08/09/2005 @ 9:30pm

79. SALUNGA:

    I was not specific, but meant that when I talked about his energy policy being corporate welfare.

    I hear ya.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/09/2005 @ 9:33pm

80. Sorry, impressive post, you covered a lot of ground. I agree with your thoughts on Hillary, she will play it just like her husband did, just about the center. Considering where we are today that would be a major improvement. Actually anything would be a major improvement.

    Posted by Salunga at 08/09/2005 @ 9:41pm

81. LIBSARENUTS:

    It would be truly nuts if we did not have the following, to name a few: child labor laws, a forty-hour work week; a minimum wage; the ability of workers to collectively bargin; laws protectiing worker safety; laws requiring truth in advertising; the right of women to vote; civil rights; the Interstate Highway System; the Internet; Social Security; rural electricification; universal public education; public universities and colleges; FDIC; the Familiy and Medical Leave Act; the CDC; the Consumer Protection Safety Act; countless scientific breakthroughs based upon research funded by the government; laws prtecting the environment; the regulation of the stock exchanges; Medicare; and the Peace Corps.

    You may not want to admit it, but these were all liberal policies, or resulted from government programs. Surprised? See, that is how we work. We eventually win, and many do not even remember that there was a fight in the first place. As an example, the current Religious Right's opposition about stem-cell research will be forgotten in 20 years, if not sooner. To be reminded of the current deabte will be as shocking in the future as it is now to remember that at one time, organ donation and transplant surgery were "controversial" to some conservatives.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/09/2005 @ 9:50pm

82. FREIHEIT the machine runs better if all the parts get some lubrication. Some amount of wealth distribution is good for society even in your, its all about the individual, world. Think about it.

    Posted by Salunga at 08/09/2005 @ 9:54pm

83. Ok ILP, here you go:

    Monday night, Gore took part in a 90-minute televised forum sponsored by Oxygen, the new cable television network developed by Oprah Winfrey and devoted to women's issues.

    Oxygen promoted the event as: "Al Gore gets in touch with his feminine side."

    The name's Dean. Howard Dean. Presidential candidate. Democrat. Metrosexual.

    The pack-leading Democrat hit all the marks, courting fiscal conservatives and social liberals. He bashed the war and pumped up his plans for universal heath care, renewable energy and investments in schools, highways and broadband Internet for everyone.

    Dean declared himself a "metrosexual," the buzz phrase for straight men in touch with their feminine sides, as he touted his accomplishments in "equal justice" for gay and lesbian couples.

    I know he changed his remark later, but who can resist it?

    I mean from the 80's into the late 90's, all you heard from feminists was about them wanting men who searched for their feminine side. They had the Alan Aldas, et al to stroke that fire and breed a generation of wimps.

    Posted by love liberty at 08/09/2005 @ 10:06pm

84. RG - re your daddy pres::husband pres analogy. Your sarcasm meter must be turned on overdrive, because I was being genuine. That was a great point.

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/09/2005 @ 10:11pm

85. LL - please go read my post in John Nichols' blog re Robin Cook. Thank you.

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/09/2005 @ 10:13pm

86. It would be truly nuts if we did not have the following, to name a few: child labor laws, a forty-hour work week; a minimum wage; the ability of workers to collectively bargin; laws protectiing worker safety; laws requiring truth in advertising; the right of women to vote; civil rights; the Interstate Highway System; the Internet; Social Security; rural electricification; universal public education; public universities and colleges; FDIC; the Familiy and Medical Leave Act; the CDC; the Consumer Protection Safety Act; countless scientific breakthroughs based upon research funded by the government; laws prtecting the environment; the regulation of the stock exchanges; Medicare; and the Peace Corps.

    other than the child safety laws, we should get government out of the rest. And for your clarification,liberals didn't get the internet, NASA did; likewise most of our great scientific advances (other than in the biological sciences came from Military and NASA R&D).

    Hopefully we get rid of Fed involvement in education, Social Security, open up every state as a right to work state, end the subsidies to corporations and farmers, abolish the income tax, and the estate tax. Maybe we could actually go back to the limits put on the Fed gov't by the constitution. One can only dream.

    Posted by love liberty at 08/09/2005 @ 10:16pm

87. Is the "feminine side" intuitive? Like "woman's intuition". If so, what does the manly GW Bush do? Goes with his gut. Another word for intuition. Duality. It's everywhere.

    Posted by proudlib at 08/09/2005 @ 10:19pm

88. FRANKGRITS: I've been offline for awhile. In answer to your question, I know a hell of a lot of intelligent and formally educated people who have opted for low-paying jobs from sweeping floors and panhandling and dishwashing to clerical. It's strange that someone who considers themselves "progessive" would find that strange. A lot of these peoples are artists, some are hippies. I myself have limited my career because of interests outside making money. Also, as far as feminism goes, I was introduced to this before the modern movement begun by Friedan and Steinem -- Ayn Rand was talking about women's rights back when the New Left considered women chicks whose only purpose in the revolution was to give blow jobs to the male revolutionairies.

    Posted by RonS at 08/09/2005 @ 10:19pm

89. Freiheit wrote: "What are you saying to burger flippers, other than you're an elitist leftist and you have no respect for their labor?"

    Freiheit: Do you aspire to be a burger flipper? Should we aspire to vote a burger flipper to POTUS? There's nothing wrong with burger flippers. However, don't pretend it's a job held in high regard.

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/09/2005 @ 10:23pm

90. I don't have the numbers, but if tax revenues were increasing after Reagan's tax cut, then how bad an accountant was he that the deficit ballooned? For all the love of small government that conservatives espouse, what on earth are they smoking to think that we have seen a conservative Republican administration in the last two generations? It seems to come down to ideology rather than dollars and cents. And if that is the case, what is the justification for cutting such luxuries as OSHA and overtime when increasing subsidies to the grease men buddies of W and Cheney? If they're going to blow the wad, why not actually help prevent injury in the workplace?

    Did LL say "stroke the fire"?

    This ends my questioning.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/09/2005 @ 11:36pm

91. Sorry LL, just read your 10:16 post in which you outlined additional cuts in the budget. Nice to see a conservative actually willing to outline his plan to return us to the 19th century. You'll find me in my bunker with my stash of canned vegetables and candles.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/09/2005 @ 11:39pm

92. This is what I've learned in recent history: when things go well with a D president and an R congress, it is the R congress who keeps the D president in check. Flip the R and D, and it becomes the R president who suffers at the hand of the D congress. That's why the country has kicked a for the last 4+ years: no D power to ruin the party. So--skyrocketing deficits, wasteful military excursions, an economy that is neither floundering nor booming. Good times brought to us by the GOP.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/10/2005 @ 12:08am

93. LL (your 10:16 post):

    Great platform. Good luck finding a candidate who could win with it in this century.

    BTW - I did not claim that the Liberals "got" the Internet (I think it was more of a Pentagon project than one of NASA's) or that other scientific breakthroughs were made by people who are Liberals. In any event, what do you think NASA is? It's a federally-funded government program using taxpayer dollars. Similarly, the government funds scientific research (a liberal philosophy), whether it is through NASA, the Pentagon or through research grants. According to conservative principles, we should allow all of this research to be done with private dollars, which would not always happen. Accordingly, we owe a great many scientific breakthroughs to the liberal idea that government is better suited than the private sector, in certain cases, to promote the general welfare.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/10/2005 @ 12:21am

94. For those questioning my response indicating a lack of complaint about the developments that came through NASA and Military R&D, that is because it was constitutional. Most of the early NASA efforts were military related due to the Cold War with the Soviet Union. I spent many years in the Defense and Space Industry and I know much about what the intent of our Space programs.

    In other words they weren't social spending programs that are reserved by the Constitution to the Individual States.

    Posted by love liberty at 08/10/2005 @ 01:34am

95. URMYGYRO: Cool. Sometimes it's just hard to tell online whether a person is being genuine! Sorry to be over-sensitive! :)

    Posted by RG at 08/10/2005 @ 09:36am

96. As soon as I saw this article, I opened it up, and I got a chuckle over how huge this blog got in a short period of time. People sure like to "discuss" Hillary!

    Posted by wereverywhere at 08/10/2005 @ 10:17am

97. Rightwing Lunatic Fringe: I know that you're out there...Hillary is like a full moon to you. You can't control yourself...can you?

    Posted by philbq at 08/10/2005 @ 11:10am

98. Nominate her please please please

    Madame Defarge is a dream come true

    Posted by LIBSARENUTS at 08/10/2005 @ 11:18am

99. ""They hate her becasue they fear a strong woman. An independent woman."

    That is a phony arguement. There are many strong Republican women. "

    Yep...

    Such as Kay Baily Hutchison.

    That deffintely is a bogus argument.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/10/2005 @ 11:55am

100. LOVE LIBERTY,

     I am referencing your post of 10:06 last night: Is that all ya got? Dean calling himself "metrosexual"? I don't know where you got your definition of metrosexual, but the actual definition is a young man, gay or straight, who is concerned with his image and appearance.

     As for what Oxygen says, that is not relevant to my post. Oxygen was trying to market a show to an audience, and I was asking you to cite examples of liberal political leaders saying that about themselves. Two different things entirely!

     Man, I always have to keep you conservatives on topic because you LOVE to try to misrepresent the left...

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/10/2005 @ 12:10pm

101. LL,

     At least we agree on one thing: Let's end corporate welfare. I am not referring to government funding of science, but rather to things like cash subsidies. For lots of specific examples of this, for those who doubt it happens, please watch the documentary movie "The Corporation."

     PB,

     Your 11:36 PM post shows that you don't know much about history or economics for that matter. Are you hanging around LIBSARENUTS? This country actually was quite close in structure to the false utopia that LL keeps pining for (e.g., reference his 10:16PM post). I am referring to the period of the early 1800s to the early 1900s when capitalist structures began to form in our economy, eventually becoming the dominant form.

     Guess what? It didn't work very well! That is the reason the populace demanded change. Sure, it worked great for a few people, the super rich, and that is why that demographic wants to go back to the structures (or lack thereof) of the past, so they can increase their dominance of society. Pure laissez-faire capitalism resulted in repeated boom-bust cycles in our economy, with several disastrous panics and depressions every few decades.

     Apparently you missed that part of your American History courses, or maybe your school wasn't very good so it might not be your fault, I don't know. I do know that we don't really have pure capitalism and haven't had it for quite some time, and only economists and right wingers don't know this.

     Those who forget the mistakes of the past are condemned to repeat them. Most of the institutions of government that LL wants to eliminate were put in place for protecting people or improving society.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/10/2005 @ 12:39pm

102. Everyone,

     Let's look at LL's proposal case by case:

     HMAN23 wrote: It would be truly nuts if we did not have the following, to name a few: child labor laws, a forty-hour work week; a minimum wage; the ability of workers to collectively bargin; laws protectiing worker safety; laws requiring truth in advertising; the right of women to vote; civil rights; the Interstate Highway System; the Internet; Social Security; rural electricification; universal public education; public universities and colleges; FDIC; the Familiy and Medical Leave Act; the CDC; the Consumer Protection Safety Act; countless scientific breakthroughs based upon research funded by the government; laws prtecting the environment; the regulation of the stock exchanges; Medicare; and the Peace Corps.

     LL's reply was: other than the child safety laws, we should get government out of the rest. And for your clarification,liberals didn't get the internet, NASA did; likewise most of our great scientific advances (other than in the biological sciences came from Military and NASA R&D).

     Hopefully we get rid of Fed involvement in education, Social Security, open up every state as a right to work state, end the subsidies to corporations and farmers, abolish the income tax, and the estate tax. Maybe we could actually go back to the limits put on the Fed gov't by the constitution. One can only dream.

     (End of LL's reply)

     So he wants to get the government out of "the ability of workers to collectively bargain". Well, we had that before. The factory owners just hired Pinkerton guards to shoot workers who were striking. Nice.

     Laws protecting worker safety. Great, so now my company no longer has to make sure that the poisonous chemicals at our workplace don't kill me or cause birth defects to my children. Nice. What a utopia, LL.

     Civil rights. LL, you want the government out of civil rights? We had that too!!! Guess what, we got racist Jim Crow laws, lynchings, disenfranchisement, etc. Nice dream, LL.

     The right of women to vote. You want the government out of that, LL? You want to repeal the 19th ammendment?

     I could go on and on, there are lots more things you want the government out of. Doing so would have consequences equally disastrous to those already mentioned.

     I can't believe in the 21st century literate people are still wanting to go backwards like that...

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/10/2005 @ 12:56pm

103. Let me make an observation about Republican men I have known: they were nerds in school, they were shunned by girls so they now hate and resent strong women, many of them are now lonely and are failures with women so they have a lot of anger towards women. Most women like liberal guys because they treat women with respect and equality. They don't wish to dominate, only co-exist.(as a liberal musician, I have always been popular with women) So you have a lot of frustrated, angry Republican guys out there, whose only victory in life is seeing Republicans elected. Revenge of the Nerds! Like the rightwing guys hanging around this blog...is that you???

     Posted by philbq at 08/10/2005 @ 2:08pm

104. Be honest(if you can), doesn't this describe many Republican guys? I see them all around me. I believe it is an accurate psychological profile of the angry Republican male. They hang around with others like them and voice dark thoughts about liberals and liberated women.(I have heard them) If the shoe fits, wear it!

     Posted by philbq at 08/10/2005 @ 2:57pm

105. To connect my profile of the Angry Republican Male with the subject of this blog, I believe that is at least in part why Hillary just drives the rightwingers BONKERS!!! She is smart, dominant, and does NOT know her place, as opposed to obediant Republican women.

     Posted by philbq at 08/10/2005 @ 3:22pm

106. so if Hillary is smart and dominant, then does that mean she orchestrated the Lewinsky affair?

     Posted by RonS at 08/10/2005 @ 3:25pm

107. Well, FREIHEIT, you seem like one of the few sensible and rational Republicans on this blog. I like conversing with Republicans if they stick to facts instead of baseless rhetoric. I have seen very little reasoned argument here. But I guess you Republicans like to expose yourselves to some smart people now and then. It probably gets boring talking to other dimwits.

     Posted by philbq at 08/10/2005 @ 3:29pm

108. HILLARY ROTTON CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT

     CHUCKY SCHMUCKY SHUMER VICE PREZ

     DO IT YOU NUTTY LIBS DO IT

     Posted by aludra at 08/10/2005 @ 3:32pm

109. Along comes Aludra with her childish ravings to make my point for me: few Republicans are capable of factual argument. So they act like raving loonies. If this blog was a debate with an impartial judge, they would have stopped the fight long ago, because you Republicans are getting killed. But you still come back for more...I guess it's exciting to talk to smart people sometimes.

     Posted by philbq at 08/10/2005 @ 4:15pm

110. A recent poll of Democrats asked them who their top choice was for the 2008 pres race. Almost half (48%) put Hillary at the top, and no one else was even close to half of that. I think Hillary would be the nominee if the primary were tomorrow. Who would the GOP put up against her? The Heart Patient says he won't run for pres, so who do you people see as the likely opponent? I think Frist's chances are almost nil, now that he broke ranks with the religious zealots in his party.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/10/2005 @ 4:41pm

111. NEW POLL: ONLY 38% OF NEW YORKERS WANT HILLARY ROTTON TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT...

     Posted by aludra at 08/10/2005 @ 4:53pm

112. PHILBQ - as for Republicans' abilities to "debate, " let's remember the most important indicator of the status there: right-wing blogs overwhelmingly disallow participation by people like us. They censor or block us outright, and make no apologies for it. Just like Their Dear Leader, who uses taxpayer money to stage campaign rallies (disguised as "Town Halls") and then GOP thugs let no one in except the true believers. Great conditions for true debate, eh? Haven't you heard - starting tomorrow, they're telling Cindy Sheehan and her supporters that they're "a threat to national security" so will be arrested if they don't depart.

     Is there anyone out there still blind enough to see fascism when it's right in front of their face?

     Posted by mewsician at 08/10/2005 @ 5:58pm

113. Ooops - my bad. Meant to say, "Is there anyone out there still blind enough to NOT see fascism when it's right in front of their face?"

     Posted by mewsician at 08/10/2005 @ 5:59pm

114. WHAT ARE THEY AFRAID OF, anyway?? That's the thing that I can't understand. Never mind that freedom of expression, freedom to dissent, freedom to assemble and all the rest are 230-year-old hallmarks of what was once the greatest society on Earth. Never mind that. What I want to know is, why are they so determined to shut out anybody who is saying things they don't want to hear? Why are we a threat? Can any right-wingers explain here?

     Posted by mewsician at 08/10/2005 @ 6:01pm

115. yeah frieheit is an unusually thoughtfull dissenting voice...... im sure there are many more but you know most people thatll go on a forum that is biased against their veiws are usually just agitaters with nuthin much to say (you know who you are)

     im gonna have to break ranks here not only do i belive hillary would lose, i can actually think of couple (not many but a couple) republicans that id rather have in the white house (mc cain for one)

     thats not a good thing, shes hardly liberal i sincerly question her scruples, and as much as some would disagree i dont think such a moderate vioce would change policy enough to progress this nation back to the pre bush days

     Posted by la volte at 08/10/2005 @ 6:49pm

116. Oh no, all you fascist blog dictators out there better shape up because FREIHEIT is on your case now!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Look out!!!!

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/10/2005 @ 8:36pm

117. I saw the results of a poll...

     Howard Dean is president!

     Polls don't count for much. 'Cept the one where people vote.

     Posted by jonb at 08/10/2005 @ 9:56pm

118. I voiced my thoughts about the psychological profile of Angry Republican Males. They all went away. Actually, that was my intent. They looked in the mirror, and it was scary!

     Posted by philbq at 08/10/2005 @ 10:08pm

119. It is interesting.

     All my life, I have been pretty much conservative, ocasionally radical right wing.

     And all my life, I have enjoyed the fact that women like me.

     On more than one occasion I have worked for women, and it was pretty easy, because they liked me.

     Not sure exactly why. Probably because I am civil, don't use bad language, treat people with respect and consideration. Smart and good looking help too.

     The other thing which I find amusing is that while I hold what most folks would consider radical views on gender roles, I find that articulating them does not cause women to be unhappy with me. It bothers the men a lot, though. Because they are terrified of women. Most men are afraid of women. Afraid of their anger. Sometimes I go on about such topics just to watch the other men in the conversation squirm. (I know, that's not nice. But it is good for them.)

     In fact, I find that quite often, women agree with me.

     This surprised me.

     Now of course, I don't tell people how they should live. Obviously, that is their business.

     But the nonsense about conservative men I read on this thread is pretty ridiculous.

     Gotta run. BBL

     Posted by jonb at 08/10/2005 @ 10:15pm

120. Question for you left-wing types:

     Would you want HRC to be YOUR Mother-In-Law?

     Posted by jonb at 08/10/2005 @ 10:16pm

121. JONB:I have a hard time believing your personal testimonial, condidering that most attractive,intelligent women run from men with rightwing opinions about gender. Whatever...on the subject of Hillary, because I am an honest person, and not an ideologue, I must say I could not vote for Hillary. She (and her husband) are basically moderate Republicans: she supports the war, she votes for a bloated military budget, she is the new face for the Democratic Leadership Council, the corporate pro-business group, she is a Biznocrat, and I am sick of Democrats like her. Progressives like me will not be bullied into voting for Republicrats any more. One Republican party is enough!

     Posted by philbq at 08/10/2005 @ 10:56pm

122. Actually not, PhilQ. Most women prefer men who aren't afraid to be men. Been my experience, anyway.

     But you know, everybody is different.

     I was my mamma's fovorite (as my siblings have pointed out) and that has sorta stuck with me.

     Posted by jonb at 08/11/2005 @ 12:34am

123. Interesting segway on women; Here is my 2 cents worth; I have found the the primary women who like liberal men are dominating feminists. They need a docile male so they can assert their alpha male genes that are lurking below the surface.

     Conservative and moderate women want a strong male type; I listen to women complain all the time about the number of wimpy men in America today.

     offered slightly tongue-in-cheek (but not by much)

     Posted by love liberty at 08/11/2005 @ 2:26pm

124. it was offered tongue-in-cheek as per my last line Frank

     Posted by love liberty at 08/11/2005 @ 3:28pm

125. However, as a Pastor, it is true that women tell me all the time in gatherings and sometimes for counseling that they wonder where all the real men have gone. Many tell me they really want to get married 1st time or repeat if they could just meet a man who acts like a man.

     Posted by love liberty at 08/11/2005 @ 3:30pm

126. JONB,

     Yes, I would like to have HRC as my mother-in-law. I think she would be lots of fun to hang out with.

     LL, I have a VERY right-wing Republican in my family who is married to a Republican woman, and she dominates him. so your 2:26 posting is another stereotype.

     PHILBQ is also guilty of stereotyping. The best lady's man I know is a right-wing hack.

     The moral of the story is, there are wimps and he-men on all sides of the spectrum

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/11/2005 @ 6:18pm

127. JONB, why wouldn't anyone want Hillary as a mother-in-law. She's brilliant, an excellent role model for any grandchild, and has the rare talent for intimidating men. Sounds like you're afraid of not only Hillary, but likely you're own mother-in-law as well. Stop believing the right-wing talking points and look at reality. She's a good leader, a smart leader, a leader with both rare and exceptional access and experience, and she has even demonstrated a christian trait that Republicans have forgotten even existed: forgiveness.

     I'd take her over our current gang of criminals in a heartbeat.

     Posted by hardyD at 08/11/2005 @ 10:44pm

128. The mother in law question was exploratory, not saracastic.

     I was curious.

     I understand women like Ms Clinton. As a rule, they turn quiet as a mouse around me.

     They are used to men who are easily manipulated, and (sadly) afraid of men who aren't.

     That is the reason they are so controlling. But that is another topic.

     Posted by jonb at 08/13/2005 @ 12:12am