Maybe Ryan and I can share the Nobel prize for attempting truthfulness in journalism.

Nah, that only goes to myth makers from the other party.

So only women who give up on their marriage in face of difficulties qualify to run for Commander-in-Chief? That's another great lesson for our daughters, isn't it: don't think about anyone else (including your children) when your spouse cheats on you. Cut him loose and dismantle your family. It is more important to look like someone who takes no BS than to be someone who puts others ahead of herself.

Funny you say that Ryan, I have had multiple truthful, and yes, anti-HillBilly postings deleted on multiple blogs the last two days.

The truth will come out real SOON and they won't be able to ignore it.

(1) It's not about "gravitas," it's about endless investigations. If someone investigated you for 7 years with the full power of the federal government, I bet they could raise more than a few doubts about you among your friends and relations. And, from what I read, Sen. Obama has a few matters in his private life that he might not want looked into extensively. For example, Republicans will have a field day investigating the land deal between Sen. Obama and Antoin "Tony" Rezko in which Sen. Obama purchased land that enlarged his backyard from Mr. Rezko, at a time when the latter was widely known to be under investigation by the U.S. Attorney's office. I believe Mr. Rezko has been since been indicted on fraud charges. Mr. Rezko was a large contributor to Sen. Obama and I believe that Republicans will want to know all about the price at which Sen. Obama bought the land just for starters.

At the same time as he's involved in such "deals," Sen. Obama is running on cleaning up business as usual in Washington. It will be child's play for the Republicans to make him look shifty, dishonest and hypocritical: qualities Americans find very "polarizing."

(2) The baby-bond and 401(k) proposals are not in the least "extreme." It would take many years for the costs of these proposals to equal the price tag of President Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, not to mention our little sojourn in Iraq. Also, they would benefit a lot more people.

(3) Maybe the GOP predicts that Sen. Clinton will win so Democrats will nominate Senators Obama or Edwards, whose campaigns so far do not proclaim them as particularly strong candidates. I don't know and I don't care. Democrats should pick the Democratic nominee they feel is best, without regard for what Republicans want Democrats to think Republicans want. (See how complicated trying to read their minds can get?) The chosen Democrat should then run a smart, tough campaign and win.

(4) If you would consider any of the GOP candidates interchangeable with any of the Democrats, something tells me that you don't have detailed knowledge about either the Democratic or Republican candidates and/or their respective parties.

I don't want the wrong message sent to women who are less fortunate. I am no stranger to the pain and shame women feel when their husband is unfaithful to them. I have seen it with the women closest to me. As a brother, son and father I don't want the first female president to be one who empowered her husband to cheat. I just think that so many women out there have felt that kind of betrayal and don't have the will or power to leave. I think that sends a message to women especially young women that such things are acceptable as long as the man is a valuable asset.

Don't women turn to their sisters and girlfriends when things like this happen? What happended to the proud women I remember from back in the seventies? I think it is better for women see the first female president have a husband who is faithful and sticks by her side no matter the temptation. For all the women who support hillary as a woman, I ask, how would you feel? If a man cheated on you and the whole world knew, what message would you want to send to your daughter? That cheating is part of a healthy marriage? Obviously you would not want her to know until she was old enough. No matter which way you look at it, it is bad for women to accept indfidelity from men. Had she cheated on him, she would be called a B**** The whole world would be against her. Nobody would talk about what a great first lady she was. Don't tell our daughters that the best way to be succesful is to ride your husband's coat tail.

Hard to swallow but true. I understand that this comment may offend, but you have to respect my point.

Hope you don't think your special coz they didn't post my comments either!

And mine were Pro Clinton so go figure? Their weeding out process can't be based on Pro's or Con's – maybe they just don't like us! HA

Hillary isnt lying and at this point, anything is better than the worse president in history..even a woman!

or Nancy Pelosi...

or a lot of other women leaders.

It's something about Hillary.

Any applicant for the job of the president of the USA should run on his/her own merits. Simple as that.

NO gender card, NO race card, NO mommy-daddy-hubby help. See what happens when the person is hired for wrong reasons. To do better than George Bush – well, that bar is set really low, isn't it?

Refer to specifics of Hillary's proposals, policies, new ideas. Politically correct slogans and touchy-feely rhetorics of her supporters suggest that she is not perceived as a person of real substance and they are not acting as responsible and well informed citizens.

Nader/Paul in 08?

I'm all for third party politics but those two couldn't be any further apart. Especially on issues like government spending and taxes.

While I don't disagree with your points about Republicans attacking HRC; the point that I've tried to make is this:

1. She is a VERY divisive figure with the most negative approval ratings.

2. A few of her policies proposals are a bit extreme. (baby-bonds and 401K). Which translates into more ammo for the GOP.
3. Many GOP politicians have already predicted her to win the nomination. This kind of prediction doesn't happen too often from the other party. I interpret this to mean that the GOP WANTS Hillary to win the nomination; they are foaming at the mouth for her to win, because of all the baggage that she carries.

Let the GOP attack Obama, he has the gravitas to stand on his own two feet. Unfortunately, this may be another election where people are left to vote for the “lesser of two evils,” if she wins the nomination. Depending on who the GOP nominates, I may end up using a write in candidate if Obama doesn’t win the nomination.

America has NO problem voting for a woman for President. Just not THIS woman.

Margret Thatcher would run roughshod over Clinton, and would swamp the broad in a general election, sending her packing back to (wherever she claims to be from this week).

For you women – what kind of man do you WANT? Do you guys to stay home and take care of the children? Do you want him to be your wife? All the women I know like that cheat on their husbands with bad boys. So WTF??

When pundits look at a picture of Senator Clinton's campaign team, and all they can talk about is how many of them do or don't have blond hair, THAT's what we are talkiing about.

This was a Network, not Fox or CNN. In the 40 years I have been watching the talking head shows, (like Face the Nation) I have never, never, never EVER heard a discussion about the hair color of anyone's staff. EVER!

So people who try to draw parallels to past candidates, it doesn't fit.

On the issue of voting for Billary, I feel that she refuses to live up to mistakes. John Edwards voted for same measure Clinton did (remember, the one authorizing the president to fight terror by any means necessary), and has since said his vote was a mistake. Clinton voted for the measure, but says that she thought she was voting for diplomacy. Either Clinton has a terrible "knack" for deciphering information feed to her for voting purposes...or she refuses to live up the fact that she made the wrong call. After the measure passed, the headlines read that congress "voted in favor of war" NOT that congress "voted in favor of diplomacy."

We all know it was a mistake to go to war...why won't she admit that she made a mistake in voting for a measure allowing it?

Therefore, we have some questions that every voter should really be asking (Hillary or Hillary supporters):

Can you explain to the American people your relationship with the Council on Foreign Relations and the goal of combining the US with Canada and Mexico into the North American Union? This will accomplish the goal of removing our individual liberties, sovereign freedom and override our Constitution.

Also, if you could explain to us your relationship with the One World Government, Bilderberg group and how they support up and coming candidates who are in agreement with fulfilling this goal? Didn't Bill also visit with them just prior to his becoming president?

If you could also explain to us how it is you will pay to support all the promised programs you are promoting to gain middle America votes, which so far total, what, 7, 70, 700 billion(?)? If the American people haven't figured it out yet, the government cannot give, lest it first taketh away, right? Also, the more they can give, the more they can take away as well, correct? Therefore, the American people will be the ones ending up paying for all these programs you are promising 'the government' will provide if you are elected and "if" fullfilled, can easily be taken away as well.

What are your plans for giving control of our currency back to the American people, instead of allowing unlimited inflation from a 3rd party central bank (the Federal Reserve) by endlessly printing our money out of thin air until it is debased to zero?

In addition, what is your stand on a National ID card requirement for the American people? Last we checked, we have plenty of other documentation to prove that we are Americans; why is this card so necessary?

These are just a few questions that need to be asked and truthfully answered for the American people to make an honest evaluation before placing their vote for their next president, don't you think?

Posted By cornelia, s.v.az : October 15, 2007 6:40 pm

Don't worry Cornelia, I'm sure that Eleanor Roosevelt is spinning in her grave over the comparison with billary.

Hillarys thesis on Saul D. Alinsky – funny...if she changed her party to the Marxist party....I think the same drones would follow her (look that one up..good reading....very telling)

Hillary not leaving her cheating husband...not just the White House girls...but also back to Arkansas...she knew...but she has her eye on a prize...read about Saul D. Alinsky – "lying, cheating or stealing. Its fine as long as its for the greater good" – who does this sound like??

Liberals....this is not attacking with mud....its attacking with facts....theres a huge difference...now you guys are supposed to say that "Bush made up the Iraq intelligence" (which of course you have zero proof of....) – truth will win in the end....and we are just getting started dismantling Hillary...

Giuliani 08

Those tactics might make it a little easier to be the "prez". I've had enough of those kind of tactics witht he current administration, we need to turn the page and move on from Bush/Clinton.

She has little right to complain about being a woman when she is riding her husband's cottails.

She should be publicly defending Elizabeth Edwards and Michelle Obama from the vicious hateful attacks they are receiving from Clinton supporters.

That said, I agree with James, our conservative friend from Phoenix. Hillary shouldn't blame all her criticisms on being a woman alone. Then again, there are a bunch of sexist , homophobic, superstitious, and racists people still lurking out there (usually to be found at any Republican convention!).

How about some details on her "greatness"?

The posters earlier hit it dead on, as many other candidates have had issues to deal with based on looks, religioun, age and yes, five o'clock shadow.

Save the victimhood angle.

Lets deal with her integrity, moral compass and lack of character.

From 2 New York times staff of all people (probably not part of the vast right-wing conpiracy:

In their book about Clinton’s rise to power, Her Way, Don Van Natta Jr., an investigative reporter at The New York Times, and Jeff Gerth, who spent 30 years as an investigative reporter at the paper, wrote: “Hillary’s defense activities ranged from the inspirational to the microscopic to the down and dirty. She received memos about the status of various press inquiries; she vetted senior campaign aides; and she listened to a secretly recorded audiotape of a phone conversation of Clinton critics plotting their next attack.

“The tape contained discussions of another woman who might surface with allegations about an affair with Bill,” Gerth and Van Natta wrote in reference to Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton. “Bill’s supporters monitored frequencies used by cell phones, and the tape was made during one of those monitoring sessions.”

A GOP official said, “Hillary Clinton’s campaign hypocrisy continues to know no bounds. It is rather unbelievable that Clinton would listen in to conversations being conducted by political opponents, but refuse to allow our intelligence agencies to listen in to conversations being conducted by terrorists as they plot and plan to kill us. Team Clinton can expect to see and hear this over and over again over the course of the next year.”