This Modern World: "The Trouble With Hillary"

[Hissyspit]

[Blue-Jay]

1. First bag is on me.

:popcorn:

[TahitiNut]

8. I think I hear the Hillacopters arriving in the LZ now.

:popcorn:

[lateo]

145. LOL!

Better throw some willie p.

[krispos42]

23. Don't bogart the popcorn

:popcorn:

have a brew, too...

:beer:

[ChairmanAgnostic]

85. MMM. More salt, please!

anyone for pretzels?

[Kurovski]

92. How about some red meat?

I'm weary of popcorn.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

102. I like celery and carrots for a change,

with a horseradish, sour cream and mustard powder mix as a dip. (and garlic) ((and minced onion)) (((And a dab of pepper))).

I lurked around a bunch of "D"based websites, and each one has some individual promoting Hillary's video and her wonderful performance art on TV this morning. You can tell that the hole campaign was rushed together after more bad news on the polls, and worse news from saturday and sunday editorials. Being a rush job, you have to hand it to her staff to get her on 5-6 morning shows, one after another. The problem is, there was no message. There was no there there. There was the laugh. There was inappropriate smiling and the nonstop thanking for having her on. But in none of her performance art-based appearances, did she answer one serious question. not one.

She did herself no good this morning, other to reinforce the idea that her campaign is getting ever more desperate and scared about not only Obama, but Edwards.

I suspect that their new campaign step is to elevate Edwards, (in the hopes that he erodes Obama) leaving her the inevitable selection.

fat chance. especially after a really bad morning for her team.

[Kurovski]

106. To veggies!

:toast: :hi:

[ChairmanAgnostic]

120. for veggies,

six veggies
and we eight them all.

[Blue-Jay]

133. *munch munch munch*

[babylonsister]

2. Ouch. nt

[Tesha]

39. This is the reason I've been citing *ALL ALONG* as to why I can *NEVER* support Hillary.

She's either complicit or stupid; choose one.

(And I'm pretty sure she's not stupid.)

Tesha

[Rockholm]

45. What are you going to in November? Vote republican?

[Tesha]

48. Of course not. But...

> What are you going to in November? Vote republican?

Of course not.

Hopefully, the Democratic nominee won't be Hillary.
But even if it is, there are always other choices
on the ballot besides "D" and "R".

Tesha

[NoFederales]

50. Yep! I will not be appeased by a Democratic leader foraging and

feasting on the spoils of Republican dirty political shit. I will not tolerate another Clinton in the Presidency.

NoFederales

[dysfunctional press]

59. i'll abstain from voting in the presidential race if hillary is the democratic nominee

simple as that.

[Seabiscuit]

63. In that case, maybe I'll vote for someone like Cynthia McKinney out of protest.

[0007]

179. I'll vote for Gus Hall again!

[Sarah Ibarruri]

137. I'm not a Clinton supporter, but if you FAIL TO VOTE in the presidential election.....

.... you are condemming us to another 8 years of Nazi Republicans. And don't tell me the Clintons are the same because that's bullshit. They are not what you and I want because they're too right wing, but they are not Republicans.

[dysfunctional press]

156. oh, well...

i CANNOT and WILL NOT cast a ballot for a candidate that i CANNOT support. sorry. :shrug:

[Sarah Ibarruri]

163. Then you're as bad as any Republican. Sorry. You are. nt

[dysfunctional press]

174. and you're as closed-minded as any freeper. sorry. you are. nt

:shrug:

[Sarah Ibarruri]

183. Actually, you're the close-minded one. When you can't get your way, you fling the Dem Party to hell

... which allows the Republicans to win.

Anyone who allows the Republicans to win, knowing that's the end result of their action, has no justification in my eyes.

The Naderites did that, and in my opinion, they're Republicans. Nader admitted he was accepting money from the GOP, that he was doing this to punish the Dems, and that he didn't care what anyone thought. That's your mirror right there. Look in it.

[Rockholm]

164. Like the republican?

I find it quite pathetic that a Democrat would not vote for the Democrat in the national election just because they do not like the choice that was made through the primary and convention system.
So, I imagine that you dislike, make that abhor Senator Clinton. Is this the only candidate that you do not like? What if the Democratic nominee was Senator Dodd? Would you support him? Is she the ONLY Democrat that you will not support?

[dysfunctional press]

175. dodd isn't going to be the candidate.

i will NOT support ANY do-called Democrat who is currently aligned with the dlc. imo, the people who make up the dlc are corporatist subversive dinos, looking to destroy the party from within.
and i will NOT support them in that endeavor.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

184. Okay, tell me what you hate about Senator Clinton. Mind you, I'm not a Sen. Clinton supporter...

However, I'm curious.

[BearSquirrel2]

143. If Hillary is the nominee ...

If Hillary is the nominee I think I'll start a "Draft Nadar" campaign.

The thing is that the Republicans have no candidate. They have collectively:

* A flip-flopping philandering, fraudulent, mobbed up, 2 time divorcee who happens to be for abortion (but against it in a way that Hillary Clinton could appreciate).

* A flip flopping former pro abortion governor, mired in an Olympic bribe scandal. These aren't huge problems. The real problem is he believes in what most Republicans would term a "false prophet", or more succinctly "A lying sack of shit nut job conman".

* A Baptist minister who fits their belief system perfectly except ... he likes to let serial rapists out of jail without reading what they actually did on the advice of his fellow wing nut ministers.

* A libertarian who would make Barry Goldwater proud. Unfortunately that is not where the party is. There is a reason that libertarians never compromise their values. They're never elected.

* The laziest Senator in the history of the Senate. Shiftless and Witless. Though he is a darling amongst commentators due to his utter vacuousness. Touted my some to "one up" Reagan.

* Flip flopper John McCain.


The Republican Party has no real candidate. There is no one to rally the troops except maybe .... HILLARY CLINTON!!!! Yes it is one thing not to have someone to vote for. But having someone you can really vote AGAINST ... that's another matter. If Hillary is nominated, it really wouldn't matter which one of these candidates they nominate. Hillary will have the conservatives lathered up at mouth. And of course, the fact that she has alienated liberals in recent years likely would not help her.

Nominating Hillary Clinton would be the most foolish action the Democrats could take. It's Obama or Edwards. If they stick to their guns and don't double talk, either will run away with the election even with the rampant vote theft that will occur.

[dysfunctional press]

157. exactly- hillary as our candidate is the best hope the repukes have of winning.

it will get more people to the polls on their side, and fewer on ours.

personally, i think that it HAS to be Edwards.

[Rockholm]

165. I am going to put you on ignore.

What a lame ass post.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

185. I agree with you....

I agree with you on this:

"Nominating Hillary Clinton would be the most foolish action the Democrats could take. It's Obama or Edwards. If they stick to their guns and don't double talk, either will run away with the election even with the rampant vote theft that will occur."

However, I'm too concerned about the ELDERLY to even remotely consider allowing another Repugnican to be elected. The elderly cannot endure another Republican. As we sit here discussing that some liberals don't like Sen. Clinton and would willingly allow another Repuke in the White House rather than Sen. Clinton, seniors are trying to figure out which they can do without: housing, their vital medicines, heating, or food, because they CANNOT afford all of them.

If it's a choice between a right wing Democrat and a Repuke, I don't even have to think. Sure I want a left-wing candidate, but if I can't have my way, I will vote for the right wing Democrat. And BELIEVE ME I'm about as left-wing as they come! I just cannot and will not put America's elderly at the whims of Repukes again.

[bvar22]

71. "Vote Republican"? The War Profiteers are counting on you!

[jeff30997]

79. Lol!

Great pic!:rofl:

[PurpleChez]

122. Just because I'm not gonna vote Republican

doesn't mean that I have to fall in lock step and pretend that I love Hillary.

I don't think she's evil in the way that the talk radio whackjobs do...I don't consider her to be some horrible hybrid of Hitler and Satan...but I do consider her to be incredibly opportunistic. If she is the Dem nominee...yes, I will vote for her...and I don't doubt that she'd be a good president...but I have ABSOLUTELY NO ILLUSIONS that she is any sort of heroic figure.

[roguevalley]

127. why do you assume hillary will be the november candidate? I

thought that idea was a lazy media's stick to beat us over the head with.

[JeanGrey]

129. Vote for the dem that will get the nomination?

[MrSlayer]

3. Tom Tomorrow nails it again.

I love This Modern World.

[corkhead]

4. So am I to understand that he isn't a supporter of our next "Great Leader (TM)"?

:shrug:

[libnnc]

5. Hillary Hater Oh noes!!111!11

He's such a meanie!!111!!111

He must be a GOP lurving freeeeeper!!!1111

How DARE Tom question our leeeading nomineeeeee!!!1111!!!


:sarcasm:











Pretty accurate cartoon, IMHO.

[Gold Metal Flake]

6. !1

!1

[NC_Nurse]

7. Yup. Right again.

This Modern World always cuts to the chase.

[jgraz]

9. Why does Tom Tomorrow hate women?

Or does he secretly want the Republicans to win? That must be it!

[earthlover]

15. Why do you hate America? Why do you hate Hillary?Why do you hate women Are you a card carryingRep?

:-)

[bagrman]

62. I think it's Clinton = Repub-lite. Or if she's the nominee Dems loose.

[Kurovski]

93. jgraz, it should be perfectly clear to you that Mr. Tomorrow is a Freeper.

Do you want people to think you're stupid? Don't be stupid, stupid.

And, why are you so stupid?

And crazy, too?

[Cha]

147. Tom and JGraz are probably none

of that..they're just plain ol' misogynists.. Or students of history!

[Kurovski]

181. Hey zidzi, just because I hate women doesn't mean Hillary should be prez.

:D :hi:

[PurpleChez]

123. Yeah...TMW is non-stop chick-bashing.

whuh?????

[corkhead]

131. where's your :sarcasm: thingy?

you are kidding... aren't you?

[jgraz]

176. Do I really need it? *sigh*, probably yes.

OK, here y'go

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:
:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:
:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:
:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:
:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:
:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:
:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:
:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:
:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:
:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:
:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:
:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:
:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:
:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[corkhead]

186. back at ya. you never know with all the hilbots around here...

:toast: :toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast:

[Strelnikov_]

10. That's gotta leave a mark n/t

[L0oniX]

54. More like a brown stain in the underware.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

11. Sometimes it's just that simple.

[creeksneakers2]

12. Same thing as others have said

But Tom is hilarious.

[Richard Steele]

13. K&R

[NMMNG]

14. Heh heh

[lynnertic]

18. love the ad.

:applause:

[Proud2BAmurkin]

16. he was anti Gore too nt

[John Gauger]

24. So? n/t

[Proud2BAmurkin]

111. so he's a "suicidal dem" nader type nt

nt

[John Gauger]

136. What does that mean?

What is a "suicidal Dem?" In what way is he like Nader?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

138. Gore's come a long way. I wish he'd run today.

Unfortunately, he's fighting a super important fight against the destruction of our planet and can't take time out to run for office. Love the man.

[The River]

17. If I Laugh at a Cartoon

will I be labeled a "hater"?

K&R

[KaptBunnyPants]

22. No, just a misogynist.

nm

[HughBeaumont]

43. You'd be labeled as a . . .

:rofl:

[bonito]

132. LOL

:rofl:

[Kurovski]

95. You're also the reason we Democrats never win.

Edit: That's right, it's YOU, bub. So stop laughing. Now go re-read it and be outraged until spittle flecks your monitor.

[0007]

178. BunnyPants sez Yes! I say NO!

I laughed my ass off. It was a good cartoon.

[tom_paine]

19. You don't get more on-target than this. K & R.

[Blackhatjack]

20. I think it was Richard Pryor who said 'All great comedy has elements of truth and pain in it'..

I find that comics are able to tap into the truth we know but won't acknowledge, and pain we feel but ignore.

Simplicity can be EITHER superficial or insightful.

[Arugula Latte]

21. That guy just hits it out of the park every single week.

:applause:

[dailykoff]

25. Guess he doesn't support a woman's right to choose genocide. (n/t)

[bjobotts]

26. She voted for AUMF not the war. That was supposed to be last resort

Kyl-Lieberman, hell even VA jr.sen voted that one. Really stupid vote unless we don't really know the intel. However. nukes should never be an option.
Now it's won't say no to torture 'case we might need to? Go figure. At least be honest about your smears.

[Hissyspit]

27. AUMF was a vote for the war. That's part of the point of the cartoon. n/t

[Asgaya Dihi]

34. AUMF?

AUMF = Authorization for Use of Military Force, in other words war. The vote was one and the same. I agree that the Iran vote from Webb was a disappointment, I had higher hopes for him based on his awareness of other issues.

[Orsino]

51. It's not quite the same thing.

My beef with the AUMF is that it had no teeth in its supposed preconditions for letting * get his hands on our troops. It wasn't a vote for war, but it let him get close enough to steal.

And the intel was phony enough that we could all smell it. Anyone who used it as a justification for a yes vote was lying.

[lumberjack_jeff]

66. AUMF says what it says.

Public Law 107-40
107th Congress

Joint Resolution



To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those
responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United
States. <<NOTE: Sept. 18, 2001 - >>

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were
committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the
United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect
United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign
policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence;
and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat
to the national security and foreign policy of the United States;
and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take
action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against
the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Authorization for Use
of Military Force. 50 USC 1541 note.>>

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of
Military Force''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) <<NOTE: President.>> In General.--That the President is
authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those
nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized,
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,
2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any
future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such
nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.

<[Page 115 STAT. 225>]

(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this
resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.

Approved September 18, 2001.

It was a blank check. If you, Mr President under your sole authority, determine that Canada "planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,
2001, or harbored such organizations or persons" then this resolution constitutes authorization wrg the war powers act.

The IWR wasn't any better.

[progressivebydesign]

96. they can't be honest in their smears, it would take away the fun of trashing Senator Clinton.

It's a blood sport around here. A mix of Naderites, Obama supporters, paid agitators, and republican infiltrators, all attacking one of the most viable candidates. The real wake up call for me is when I realized that the people here were basically saying and doing the exact same things as Newsmax and Fox News... only the DUers are nastier about it.

I'm throwing my support behind Edwards if Hillary either stops looking like a viable candidate, or if Edwards gets the nomination. The Edwards supporters have been incredibly kind, well-mannered, and fair. I judge a candidate by their supporters. Thus.. Clinton or Edwards will be my choice.

Oh, and don't bother trying to educate them about the Iraq resolution. They refuse to acknowledge the fact that if Senator Clinton voted for the war knowingly, then why in the hell are the same people calling this an "illegal war". If it's illegal, then that means the Resolution was not a war resolution that the Congress passed, then Hillary did not vote to go to war. They can't have it both ways.. but they want it.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

139. I know you want Senator Clinton to win

Others want someone who is more to the left than to the right. You don't like and disagree with other candidates. Are others allowed to do the same?

[leftchick]

28. perfect!

thanks

:)

[Perry Logan]

29. The first frame is the weakest. Like everyone else, she voted for the war because she was lied to.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

30. Sorry, but your excuse is weak

For some strange reason, Dems who WEREN'T up for re-election voted against the IWR in higher numbers than those who were.

If tens of thousands of people in each American city knew that Bush was lying about Iraq, what was wrong with those Dem Senators?

Answer: They were cowards. The lie they believed was that the American people would reject them for voting against the IWR. I wish more of them had stood up for what's right instead of thinking about whether people would like them for it or not.

Imagine Dem legislators with COURAGE. (I knew it's hard, since we've had so few examples lately...)

[Perry Logan]

31. "Gullible" only with hindsight. And since when is trying to stay in office "cowardice"?

Trying to stay in office is what politicians do. They can't do very much if they're out of office.

[Asgaya Dihi]

35. Trying to stay in office is what politicians do?

Isn't that in itself a big part of the problem?

Some people don't like this idea, but to me, better to stand up for what you believe in and lose than to compromise basic values and win. The any dem at any cost idea has always struck me as a good part of why we're in this mess to start with.

Most of the public is today against the war, most are for single payer health care, most are on the same side as the progressives on an increasing number of issues and if our leaders had just stuck to what we've always claimed were our core values the elections should be a lock. But instead they've compromised, equivocated, and straddled that fence till it's no longer a clear choice. It's our war too, it's our torture too, it's our connections with lobbyists, corporate control and the developing surveillance society too.

What they've accomplished is nothing less than to deprive us of clear choices, and choices that according to the polls should be winners if they just had the courage to stand up for them.

This isn't the first time this type of thing has happened. Look at the racial balance in our prisons, think about the voting patterns those population groups traditionally had, then consider what several million of them being disenfranchised would have on our elections. Not just Florida in 2000 but in many elections nationwide over the years. When they jumped on Nixon's and Reagan's drug war to show that they could be tough too they were also deciding that they really didn't want to win elections anymore. They just didn't realize it.

Should have done what's right, not what was popular or easy. Any dem at any cost? Even equivocating, damaging ones? Not for me. I'd rather lose an election that leaves the OTHER side responsible for the mess and us as the clear choice to fix it when the next election rolls around. As long as we play their game instead, we lose. As a party and as a nation.

[rAVES]

53. Fantastic post :)

[L0oniX]

55. Excellent n/t

[balantz]

74. Right on!

[hiphopnation]

83. jesus

this post needs to be read far and wide on DU

extremely well spoken and welcome to DU

:thumbsup:

[D23MIURG23]

89. Why can't Democratic strategists think like you? n/t

[speedoo]

104. Bravo, Asgaya Dihi!!!

That is simply a brilliant post.

[Pierre.Suave]

110. AWESOME

simply awesome.

[parasim]

119. Kudos! Excellent reply!

Hit the nail on the head with that one!

[Sarah Ibarruri]

140. I agree with you. You're right. Straightforward talking is what politicians should be doing.

Unfortunately if candidates were that straightforward, they might not be elected. Let me give you one example, okay?

For example, what if one of the candidates were to suddenly say he favored Chavez? Let's also assume Chavez is good for Venezuela because he's improving the lot of those who live in misery, hunger and poverty. The media here promotes an anti-Chavez stand, and if one of the candidates were to favor Chavez, we Americans would look to the media to tell us if this is a good thing, and of course, the media would say it's an anti-American thing because the media is corporate. Next thing you know, the candidate's chance of being elected would be nil. So any candidates that favor Chavez are probably quite wise in saying that they don't. So really, we're also dealing here with a very uneducated population, and a corporate media that will always defend corporations against the people. That, and the fact that elections are run only on private (corporate) money and it becomes quite clear why candidates might not want to be candid.

Now, I'm not saying Sen. Clinton is not corporate. She's probably quite corporate. However, where she isn't, she can't admit it because her votes depend on it.

Does that make any sense at all? I'm not too good at explaining myself.

[Asgaya Dihi]

159. Thanks for the comments everyone

I'm not too good with stuff like that, never figured out quite how I'm supposed to respond to compliments, so I'll leave it at thanks :)

Sarah, I do understand your point, but it has to start somewhere. If back in the 80's or 90's when the results of the drug war became apparent they had started to educate the public then perhaps our prison systems wouldn't be in the shape they are in today and the racial balance wouldn't be so ugly. Most aren't aware of the fact that death rates for cocaine and heroin have both climbed by several times through the war on drugs, they didn't fall. Prices adjusted for inflation on both fell, most people think we drove prices up. Purity on heroin is a LOT higher than it used to be and that likely contributed to the climb in death rates. I'd be glad to go over this stuff and source it for you if you'd like. What the public thinks it knows and what's real aren't the same thing but who is bothering to tell them that?

That's just one example, one ugly situation we're dealing with, there are lots of others. Yes, I do understand your point that it could be politically difficult to deal with some situations and in the short term people might not understand, but if we're right and we don't do anything our kids pay the price. If we don't start to teach people then who does? What we see today was built on the cowardice of yesterday, without the private prison industry and growth of domestic security we never would have accepted the idea of something like Blackwater. With that history though it's just another security firm to many, they don't see the big deal. Step by step on our way to fascism, built on the cowardice of yesterday. It was too difficult or risky to stand up for.

Problems don't go away due to the cowardice of politicians, they just get bigger. We're now the most imprisoned nation in the world and the system is still growing, and that's not something I'm comfortable leaving to my kids. Not with that problem or others.

[Asgaya Dihi]

161. btw

I figured I should add this in. I don't mean any of this to be targeted at Hillary in particular. I'm not thrilled with some aspects of her record but then again she's hardly alone there and almost certainly not the worst among them. She just happens to represent the problem to many people because she's the big name in the news today. In the scheme of things she wasn't even there when most of this pattern developed and inherited much of the problem rather than created it. She isn't resisting it well either though, and yeah, I am disappointed in that.

My problem is more with the mindset among the party in general that pushed us to support the war on drugs because it was the popular thing, or the war on terror, or invasive domestic security, or whatever else. We aren't setting our own agenda and we haven't been for decades now. We discuss immigration not because we thought it was an issue but because the repubs and the press did, we supported the war for the same reasons, the drug war, or the abandonment of the poor in the 90's for welfare "reform" which shifted the responsibility to States who were already staggering under the weight of the Federally mandated war on drugs and the resulting prison system. Does anyone even know what happened to those people? Do they care?

We keep jumping on the pretty, popular at the moment ideas that others are offering us and refusing to look at the results of our actions, or to take any responsibility for them. What I want is nothing more or less than for us to just look at the damned results now and then and adjust, do what's right instead of what the misconceptions of the past demand of us. That doesn't require suicide as a party for ideological reasons, just that we try to communicate the real results to the public and make them aware so they can make intelligent choices instead of ideological ones. That starts with the politicians themselves accepting those results, they have to stop parroting the lie. It's killing us and has been for decades now.

[Canuckistanian]

141. "Playing their game"

Yes, that's it in a nutshell.

For far, far too long, the Repubs have been defining the battle and somehow their terms have been the defining issues of the day.

Abortion, gun control, religion, flag-burning (:wtf:), stem-cell, gay-marriage....

If only Dems could reclaim the issues and shame them on bread-and-butter issues such as campaign reform, health care, corporate power, foreign policy and voting issues...

Only THEN will I be convinced that a true democracy exists and not a country run by special interests, war-mongers and the wealthy.

[Cha]

150. Thank you for trying to

educate the ones who support politics as usual above conscience and principle.

[jgraz]

177. Please make this its own thread. It deserves a spot on the Greatest Page

:thumbsup:

[Asgaya Dihi]

180. If anyone wants to they are welcome to use it

I've never been comfortable topping my own threads or blowing my own horn in any way, I know there's a good use for it at times but I've always been a bit self conscious and uncomfortable with it myself. Only nits I'd pick with what I wrote is I should have said prison/jail instead of prison and it should have been consider what *impact* several million disenfranchised would make, guess I was typing slower than thinking there and forgot to include impact ;)

If anyone wants to use or adapt the idea they are welcome to.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

37. So staying in office is more important than standing up for what's right?

Well, if you REALLY believe that, then Hillary is your candidate, I guess.

[annabanana]

42. I'm not a Hillary fan.. but I agree with you.

Can you imagine the pillorying she'd have gotten if she'd voted against it? The RW Echo machine would have engineered the first ever impeachment of a Senator.

[boricua79]

76. why would the RW machine

impeach just ONE Senator...when a whole host of others voted for it.

You're boogeyman scenario doesn't stand up to reason.

And she'll receive that pillorying whether she votes for or against Republicans.

Get it through your head...they'll NEVER like her.

[annabanana]

115. Because it was HILLARY.... they were jonesing at the time

for another hit at their fave pinata. The pump was already primed at the time..

[boricua79]

135. The Repugs pick ANYBODY

no Democrat is immune. It's Hillary one day...Bill the next...Pelosi another...the next Day Kucinich.

Our politics cannot be run on the "fear" basis. We must have standards...stick to them, and fight for them...and damn the freaking troglodytes on the Republican side to hell.

[warren pease]

94. And this fear of wingnut smears qualifies her to lead the party and the country?

By voting for the invasion, Clinton demonstrated one or more of these outstanding leadership traits: gullibility bordering on sheer idiocy, political opportunism and cowardice.

As far as I'm concerned, the wingnut Wurlitzer can slime her all they want. And when they stop sliming her, it'll mean she's no longer considered the presumptive winner, which is fine by me, too.


wp

[annabanana]

116. they were all cranked up when she was just first SPOUSE....

never mind Senator...

[Cha]

153. Yeah, hillary would make a good

prez since she's so easily swayed by fear of the insane fascistwing..Riiight.

[Cha]

151. .Kennedy voted

against it..as did..

"23 U.S. Senators who voted against the Iraq War Resolution who do not need to recant their vote:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/r...

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

"A short list which even includes Republican Chafee from Rhode Island. What did they know that all of the other Democratic senators who voted for the resolution did not know and how did they not get misled? What did Senator Kennedy know that Senator Kerry did not? While it is nice to admit to making a mistake, especially when so many now admit it was a mistake, but it certainly is much better to be correct in the first place even if they were not voting on the IWR. I think it is important for Democrats to have a candidate who does not have to apologize for voting for the IWR, but who recognized that it was all a mistake from the beginning. That would certainly give the Democrats the moral high ground on that issue. I just don't think it takes a lot of foresight to now be against now that things are going so badly. That's a no-brainer."


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3033516

Heroes..all of them!

[tabasco]

158. Most Dems in Congress voted against the IWR.

Try again.

[boricua79]

75. I participated in numerous anti-war rallies

as a political science specialist, all of my co-students and teachers were heavily opposed against the war, on legalistic, material, and realpolitik grounds.

We knew THEN that the war was wrong...why didn't Hillary.

THe cartoon is right...either she was stupid or she was political expedient, and judging by her background, I'd say it was the second one.

I don't need hindsight. I knew BEFORE the bombs started to fall that it was a lie.

[xxqqqzme]

90. trying to stay in office maybe what they do

but that is far from being right. They should be in office to advance the public good instead of being addicted to feeding @ the taxpayer funded trough complete w/ health care benefits.

[rucognizant]

32. She voted for the war, because..................

Her hoped for upstate NY future constituants, are a conservative, vengance seeking lot. ( My daughter's neighborhood!)
The war vote, the Patriot Act etc....... happened in the months between 9/11, and the '02 Nov. election, when she won the Senate seat for the first time!
When a large portion of the public was in a state of terra!

[Junkdrawer]

36. She was elected in 2000 and 2006....

in 2002, she had four years before her next election....

[HughBeaumont]

44. Aw geez, go away, Perry Lieberman.

Is anybody but me completely SICK of the "Well, I didn't know he'd LIE" defense???

"DUH, w'ull, I din't know he'd lie to us . . . d'uh . . ."

UNbelieveable.

For all of Hillary's degrees, acclaim and experience, she sure can't seem to read people worth a shit.

People, he's a BUSH.

He steals, he lies, he cares only about corporations and gives no shit about anyone who isn't making $300,000 per year, he breaks the law and gets away with it.

That's what he DOES. That's what ALL Bushes do.

What part of this did NO one understand going in? What was so enigmatic and charming about this fortunate son assrapist that no one GOT it? What about this war-prelude fantasy concocted by defense corporation-bought warhawks was SO iron-clad a case that attacking a nation that threatened not ONE American citizen seemed so completely plausible?

Same goes for the Dumberican public. I believe there was some chicanery involved in BOTH elections to get the Simian in there, but there's always one burning question I have to ask that gets my blood boiling.

After all we knew about this man and after ALL the trouble his administration had caused and lack of ONE thing positive that happened for the middle class during his first term . . . WHY was this election even CLOSE enough to steal?

You gotta be one supremely gullible or just flat-out lobotomized stupid idiot to believe giving this doorknob a second chance would improve things. I can't be nice to people who are experiencing buyers remorse and I don't care if I'm not building bridges.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

56. OMG, will you marry me, Hugh Beaumont? nt

[HughBeaumont]

61. I would, but that whole "bigamy being illegal" think kind of puts the kibosh on that.

:D

[truth2power]

64. OUTSTANDING post, Beaumont!!! Thank you. n/t

[mike_c]

72. BRAVO!

I wish I could recommend this thread all over again just because of your magnificent reply!

[boricua79]

77. I'm with you, brotha...Dumberica is right.

There's somethign to be said for the kindergarden playground "you're stupid" tactic.

Stupid people usually shut up when they're called out on it...and that's what need. For the stupid people to get back to their caves.

[D23MIURG23]

97. Yes. There was plenty of reason to doubt *

And there were many senators and representatives who did. I'm sure their reasoning wasn't secret in democratic circles. People make mistakes, and that vote was very clearly a MISTAKE, but Hillary won't even aknowledge it as such. She repeated it with Kyl-Lieberman instead.

[LuckyLib]

125. And there are two things members of congress seems unable to accomplish:

compromise for the good of the people, and stand for something based on principle. Both require putting the nation first and your future, pocketbook, influence, and self interest second, third, fourth and fifth. Hillary had another agenda, not that of the "good of the people."

[Cha]

152. Yeah, Thanks,

Hugh!

[rAVES]

47. for fucks sake Perry, ever the apologist.. Shes gullible.. all the great leaders where

:sarcasm:

[warren pease]

87. Stepped in it again, eh Perry?

Ask yourself these basic questions:

How stupid do you have to be to be conned by the stupidest man to ever occupy the Oval Office?

How many millions of people, operating on far less information than Clinton presumably has at her fingertips, weren't fooled by this imbecile?

How many millions of people knew intuitively that anything Bush claims to be true is invariably a lie?

How many millions of people knew intuitively that it was all about projecting US military power into the Middle East in a PNAC-driven effort to control fossil fuels reserves in Iraq, Iran, Syria, various former SSRs and, eventually, Saudi Arabia itself?

How many millions of people marched in the streets all over the world to protest what any rational person who understood what "shock and awe" actually meant could see was going to be a humanitarian disaster?

And poor Hillary was just so overwhelmed by the force of Bush's character and unassailable logic that she was blinded by the light? Spare me.


wp

[Stephanie]

103. One million of Clinton's own constitutents marched on NYC February 15 2003

Where was Sen. Clinton? Why didn't she listen?

[warren pease]

107. I suppose she had "other priorities" n/t

[Cha]

154. hillary didn't listen to

our pleas and neither did fuckchuck. I bet when she voted YEA on IWR she never thought she'd have to be dealing with us again.

[Exultant Democracy]

112. I won't say that I knew there were no WMDs but I was pretty damn sure that there weren't

or that any that we would find would have "Made in the U.S.A." stamped on them and would therefor be useless for propaganda. Didn't even Hans Blix say something to the effect of weapons programs being unlikely, who would take Bush's word over Blix's?

[Stephanie]

100. 23 Senate Democrats knew better.

Why didn't she?

[yurbud]

114. No. Even if she believed the lie that Saddam had nukes, anyone old enough to remember the Cold War

knows that some pissant Third World dictator can't threaten us with a handful of nukes when he knows that we have enough to vaporize his entire country in retaliation and still kill everyone on earth 5-10 times.

Hillary and the others who voted for the war resolution are not retarded. They either feared those who would profit from the war or hoped for their political patronage.

[Cha]

155. Exactly..it was all about fearmongering

and military complex expansion..they had themselves a boogieman and they were going to plant wmd but they had a little blowback problem that came up.

hillary backed the wrong monkey and should be ostracized instead of running for prez.

[yurbud]

166. the problem is that would knock out most of the Democratic presidential candidates

Obama wasn't in Congress then, but he didn't bother to show up for the recent Iran fear mongering vote.

Kucinich and Gravel are the only ones with clean hands on that.

[Cha]

169. I know..I'm not lookin'

for the cleanest hands, though..I like Edwards cause I think's he's done a 180 but I will defend Obama on a lot against hillary's fanz.

Nobody has clung to bushit like hillary..she even has it on her shoes.

[yurbud]

170. she's in him so deep he almost makes her blonde hair brown

[Cha]

171. She stays busy

keepin' it bleached.

[yurbud]

172. somebody's got a help out a guy who's never had to wipe his own his entire life

he's always had servants to do it.

[Cha]

173. clintons' know

which side their bread is buttered on.

[Cha]

Then according to you..

hillary is stupid..my my what will she think about that?

[Perry Logan]

33. This kind of thing helps the Bushies get DOUBLE MILEAGE from their original lie.

It's just really bad tactics. The Bush administration got what it wanted by lying to Congress and the world. Then--when Democrats attack their own leaders for having been deceived--the administration scores another blow against us--without having to do lift a finger, because we're doing it for them. This plays right into the Republicans' hands, giving them a double advantage. I think we're chumps to do this sort of thing.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

40. No, this gives the REPUBLICANS leverage

Instead of taking on full responsibility for the Iraq War, they can say, "See! Democrats voted for it!"

Then if a Dem candidate tries to appease his/her base by saying,a) "I was really against it but I voted for it anyway" or b) "I was for it then but I'm against it now" or c) "I was deceived," then the Democratic voters JUSTIFIABLY think

a) The candidate is a craven coward who thinks more about his/her personal ambitions than about what s/he knows is right

b) The candidate has different positions for different audiences

c) The candidate is dumb enough to believe the Bush administration, despite heartfelt pleas from tens of thousands of constituents

[freefall]

57. As I wrote to my two Republican female Senators when I became a

resident of Maine, how come I knew it was a lie and you didn't? You have an entire staff of researchers at your disposal and all I have is an open mind and the internet. Yet I knew there were no WMD in Iraq, I knew Saddam had no connection to 9/11. I knew trusting G.W. Bush with the authority to initiate military action was a dangerous mistake. Why didn't you?

I consider that the blood of all of those who have died as a result of our illegal invasion into and occupation of Iraq is on the hands of every Senator who voted for the IWR in October 2002. I cannot imagine shaking any one of those hands regardless if they are female, male, Republican, Democratic, or Independent. (To be fair, the only Independent in the Senate at the time, Jeffords of Vermont, voted No.) Neither can I imagine voting for one of them to become President of the US when she still refuses to acknowledge and apologize for the mistake and indeed has continued a pattern of similar votes. Consider the Military Commissions Act, the recent Kyl-Lieberman vote etc. etc. I will vote for John Edwards if he becomes the candidate but, given the opportunity, I would not shake his hand until we are completely out of Iraq and making reparations to the Iraqi people for the devastation we have caused.

I guess, despite the fact that I have been hoping for a female president since childhood, the above makes me an anti-feminist, Hillary hater. So be it. I am still a registered Democrat but cannot say how much longer that will be the case. I am unwilling to support corporatism, torture, destruction of the Constitution and an imperial America regardless of the sex or party of the front person. Either the Democratic Party rejects these values or I reject the Democratic Party. I'm waiting for the nomination to determine whether or not I will be able to continue posting on DU.

Dennis Kucinich for President!!!!

Peace,

freefall

[D23MIURG23]

105. we play into republican hands by supporting candidates who vote for their policies.

They get their policy and we advance the candidates that they like best. Why not nominate a candidate who won't appease them out of cowardice? Are we are afraid to enact our own agenda?

[indimuse]

38. Senator Clinton was the most forceful advocate on the Senate floor

Statement from Sen. Frank Lautenberg:

When Senator Clinton introduced her proposal to make FEMA more independent and strengthen qualifications for its Director in 2005, I was proud to cosponsor her

measure and promote it in committee. Following Katrina, Senator Clinton was the most forceful advocate on the Senate floor for competence and independence at

FEMA. As a former member of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, which oversaw FEMA and DHS, I was happy to see her long-standing

proposal to improve the FEMA Director's qualifications become law. Unfortunately, President Bush ignored her reforms with his signing statement.

[babylonsister]

58. FEMA has nada to do with this war, so I think you're confused.

Did you read the 'toon?

[bunkerbuster1]

41. I wish I could put this in front of every primary voter's face and demand

that they read it.

[Lurking Dem]

46. LOL!

While I agree with the sentiment, I don't think it would result in any changes of heart.

"I hate the DLC! I'm voting for Hillary!"

"I hate the corporatization of America! I'm voting for Hillary!"

"I hate the war! I'm voting for Hillary!"

If Mark Penn, Monsanto, and Murdoch haven't registered, what will?

[ThomWV]

49. I am going to email a copy of it to every Hillary supporter I know.

Before she loses the Presidency for us.

[Bitwit1234]

52. The Trouble"""" the green eyed monster rears it's head everywhere

[Heywood J]

69. Of course,

he must be jealous of her. I mean, what's not to be jealous of? He obviously wants so badly to be a consummate politician who cares only about being re-elected, and the stigma and shame of not being able to do it is making him lash out at her. Maybe that, or he hates vaginas - isn't that your other excuse?

[freefall]

60. Thank you, Mr. Tomorrow and Hissypit!!!

K&R

:kick:

[DS1]

65. 88 recommends

:)

[Blue-Jay]

118. I have a theory about that.

I think that there are a lot of DUers who don't want to see Senator Clinton as the Democratic nominee. They're tired/afraid of being shouted at by a few of the more prolific shouters, so they let their opinions be heard by recs or the frequent unscientific DU Poll. They're tired of being called "Hill-Haters" (hur hur hur) or worse, but they'll most likely vote for the good senator if she manages to get the DNC nod.

That's just a theory, though.

[Blue-Jay]

134. Whoa.

It's up to 144.

[MissDeeds]

67. Yep, that pretty much nails it

Thanks for sharing this, Hissyspit. :hi:

[treestar]

68. I don't think the right is sophisticated enough for this

To them, Hillary is a left-wing, socialist, liberal who will turn us all into peace-loving hippies and communists. It is so odd how this happens. But calling her Republican-lite has to be something that only happens on DU. If she were that, there would be Republicans who would vote for her. To a man and woman, all Republicans I know think of her as slightly to the right of Karl Marx. Maybe I just don't know the right people.

Painful as it is to hear and read, it is useful to read right wing publications other than the MSM. They make you feel better. In their world, the liberals have taken over and we are all heading for Godless Communism.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

86. That's true, she won't be regarded as Republican Lite

She'll be regarded as a flip-flopper, just like Kerry was.

[mike_c]

70. tom tomorrow nails it!

:thumbsup:

[boricua79]

73. as always...Tom is right on the money

I especially like the first two squares...that sums up what kind of candidate she is.

[Ichingcarpenter]

78. I like it n/t

[librechik]

80. I love Hillary--but this is too effin true.

I can hardly sleep at night--I know they're going to do it to us again! Damn the DNC!

[Kurovski]

99. Do you mean the DLC?

Or both?

[librechik]

101. Both!

and the DCCC too!

[Cha]

148. The DNC is headed by Howard

Dean and they are working hard for us in all 50 states to set up a strong infrastructure to help Dems win in coming elections. :)

[librechik]

162. i know, zidzi--i love howie too.

i'm not talking about him. It's the unknown shadowy figures in the back rooms, ignoring the will of the people. That's who I hate and fear, whichever party. The alphabet soup confuses me. Does the DLC still have influence? I guess so...I was hoping they had faded away.

[Cha]

168. Good..DNC are the Good Guys

and Gals now that Dean has been elected Chairman. The dlcers are the horrorshows who are clothed in dino skin.

hillary and her ilk are strangulatin' dlc pods.

[bvar22]

81. Recommend # 92 !!!!

This should be re-posted everyday, and sent out over the "Internets"!

I'm going to print out copies and post them in our supermarket and laundromat.

Without even getting into Issue and Policies, THIS is all a Primary Voter need to know:

Hillary Nomination = MOST electoral risk
for LEAST democratic gain!

Worth repeating:

"We need to choose a nominee who fills voters with a sense of Profound Ambivalence!"

"YES!---Preferably one with high Negatives and excessive Baggage!"

<cue stupid smile>

"White House, Here we come!"

[redqueen]

121. But she's doing so well in the polls.

/lemming

[jeff30997]

82. This cartoon is...

Hillary-ous !:)

[2008]

84. 100th rec is mine

can't get much clearer than this

[Nothing Without Hope]

88. K & R. And on top of everything else, I'm betting that the neocons have

some kind of nasty secret(s) about Hillary - perhaps picked up with their illegal surveillance - that they are holding in reserve. They can hold it/them over her head in case she steps out of (their) line, or, if they decide to derail her candidacy, they can leak it at an opportune time. These guys are all about control, and I've do doubt that Hillary has enough dirty secrets that they've got enough in reserve to do her some serious damage.

I totally agree with Tom Tomorrow, and if he did a multi-strip set on Hillary, he'd lay out some of her other egregious acts and positions. She is wholly owned by the corporatists, and they know she'll do what she can to sugar-coat her actions in their interests, no matter how it damages the country and its citizens.

[Kurovski]

91. Oh dear.

K&R.

[redqueen]

98. OMG you guys what a bombshell! I can't believe nobody thought of that!

:wow:

[PATRICK]

108. If Tom had

written her all the easily perceived facts after that long ago Powell speech he would have been told in the auto-reply message that EVERYONE believes Powell, so of course there was a sense of urgency....to lead people from behind once they had been stampeded somewhat successfully toward war.

Funny, we get a lot of that leadership from behind thing, but the cowboys shooting the guns off in our rear don't like where the left is turning, namely, not toward the high cliff. So with some great relief that it was not Bush's word being relied on, but her good and trusted friend of long "experience", of course she had to vote for the authorization. One auto-rely e-mail is not exactly fair but I chain link that forward anyway to her recent gushing over Powell that does not mention how the poor guy got "duped"(?) into duping Hillary who just had to because "everyone" believed Powell.

So the accusation that she believes and relies on Bush might not be accurate. She relies on Bush surrogates and cronies that she trusts to give her cover.

That seems like harsh rhetoric that I am not used to putting in divisive posts especially based on a mere cartoon. Most of the candidates were "duped" into a war that most DC policymakers were predisposed toward- to topple Saddam or force his defanging. Surely Intel could come up with dirt to justify it to the people? At the moment when I saw the graves of the future stretching before us- which I badly underestimated nonetheless, I went to our local NY Senate leader with a simple e-mail and got just as simply rankled. I admit it, and the thorn is still there. Maybe I would have received the same form any
of the signers.

I have held one thing since the 2000 election season. It is the entitled consistency of political leaders, whose faults, such as they always remain, become worse upon taking office. In this case I wonder if they even see there are faults to hide. Those are the worst of all, not just the unawareness, but the exponential growth. Bill was a womanizer. That did not change and, given his ego despite the chastisement of a nation shattering impeachment, will not. I could easily have given the benefit on the glum Iraq War vote if someone admitted the shameless parade of lies and propaganda moved them to wed past policy to a dark, tragic scheme. We had to. Most people running were caught in the rear of the stampede. The consistency of a major flaw however was simply painted and recently, gratuitously confirmed by her guileless, unchanged trust in Colin Powell. It is not the only one, just the most personal. I will vote for her as senator until someday she is led down better paths. To see her in higher office would be to see the flaws magnified with results as predictable as that of the Iraq War itself. Nearly always, always by simple evidence of all presidents once in power. Some things never change. That ALWAYS includes the flaws.

Cartoonish?

[Franc_Lee]

109. This is more of a multi-caricature of Hillary then a cartoon...

[Kurovski]

113. Cartoons rarely contain caricatures?

[Blue-Jay]

124. Tell me what you know about political cartoon strips.

I have a few seconds to spare.

[Spiffarino]

117. I will never vote for Hillary

Unless she's the Democratic nominee.

Psych! :evilgrin:

[WillTheGoober]

126. Admittedly Tired Response ... Please excuse the poor writing ...

I think what Hillary has been able to do is admirable.
She is a woman who has been able to position herself to have a real chance in 2008. That says a lot about our country and what's capable here. There should be more women in public service.

Here's a lady who really does represent the beauty of the Democratic Party. She's classy, she's prudent, and she has shown a passion for getting things done. She hasn't always voted the way I'd personally like and she's far from perfect -- but that's never a realistic expectation.

I remember Bush having a lot of power following 9/11 -- and the climate for war was heavy. Ultimately, the Congress is representative; they represent the will of the people. The people wanted to fight. So we can blame anybody we want, but we, the perople, allowed that war to happen -- and we're paying for the war today.

I know, personally, I didn't do everything I could have to stop the war. I didn't attend every protest and I didn't do everything I could to get Kerry elected in 2004, because I supported Dean.

So we can split the vote here folks, if we want.

I think it's helpful to talk about your candidate and why they are the right choice but I think it is hurtful to bash another.

This woman has a real chance here. We should really decide where our vote may go if she wins the nomination, regardless of our candidate.

No matter who wins the nomination, the Dem has my support. This gigantic country of our's moves in progressive steps; we're not revolutionary folk. :-)

[mistertrickster]

128. The man is a genius for cutting right to the heart of the matter. Thanks, Tom Tom! nt

[Guaranteed]

160. Hey, thanks! From a month ago:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3732569

[Swamp Rat]

130. LOL!

:rofl:

[Canuckistanian]

142. I can't believe this made it to the top of the Greatest Page

On the other hand, this issue seems to be at the heart of American politics - business as usual - or a whole new start?

And I'm sorry, Hillary-boosters. This is a crossroads.

More of the same that we've had for 20 years?

Or a whole new way of thinking?

[robbedvoter]

144. Funny thing is - it applies to most candidates - all except 2 who are excluded from debates

Why is only Hillary accused of things they ALL do? (Gravel & Kucinich excepted)

[Cha]

146. I was here in New York begging

her office not to vote YEA on the IWR..she's box # two of Tom Tomorrow's strip. Too bad about that political expediency that went on and on and on..

[Danger Mouse]

149. Wow, just wow. The last panel kills me.

:rofl:
nicely done.

[yurbud]

167. ''profound ambivalence'' will get people's asses out of bed on election day won't it?

[Kurovski]

182. ...Only if it's cold and rainy out.