Hillary sums it up...

farfromglorifiedfarfromglorified Posts: 5,696
edited November 2006 in A Moving Train
"I voted for change, except for me" - Hillary Clinton
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • lmao.

    Hilary's presidency shot just took it's last breath with Obama thinking about running. Let's all celebrate together. A Bi-partisan 'fuck you, hillary' ;)
    Come on pilgrim you know he loves you..

    http://www.wishlistfoundation.org

    Oh my, they dropped the leash.



    Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!

    "Make our day"
  • stuckinlinestuckinline Posts: 3,368
    what if hillary ran WITH obama?
  • gluten919 wrote:
    what if hillary ran WITH obama?

    What could she possibly have to offer Obama?
  • gluten919 wrote:
    what if hillary ran WITH obama?
    then obama won't have a chance.
    Come on pilgrim you know he loves you..

    http://www.wishlistfoundation.org

    Oh my, they dropped the leash.



    Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!

    "Make our day"
  • lmao.

    Hilary's presidency shot just took it's last breath with Obama thinking about running. Let's all celebrate together. A Bi-partisan 'fuck you, hillary' ;)

    Fuck you Hillary! Wow, that felt great. Thanks.
    "So, you must really love Led Zeppelin. That’s the oldest shirt I’ve ever seen on someone who wasn’t a bum."
    "Hey, if God didn’t want me to wear it so much, he wouldn’t have made them rock so hard."
  • Say not to Hillary. She'll be a much better Senator than Pres.

    The democrats would get killed with her on a national ballot.
    9/7/98, 8/3/00, 9/4/00, 4/15/03, 7/1/03, 9/28/04, 9/29/04, 5/24/06, 5/25/06, 6/17/08, 6/22/08, 6/28/08, 6/30/08, 5/17/10, 10/15/13, 10/16/13.
  • normnorm Posts: 31,146
    mwachsman wrote:
    Fuck you Hillary! Wow, that felt great. Thanks.
    :D
  • floyd1975floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    What could she possibly have to offer Obama?

    Money.
  • MilestoneMilestone Posts: 1,140
    What could she possibly have to offer Obama?


    oral sex from a white chick.
    11-2-2000 Portland. 12-8-2002 Seattle. 4-18-2003 Nashville. 5-30-2003 Vancouver. 10-25-2003 Bridge School. 9-2-2005 Vancouver.
    7-6-2006 Las Vegas. 7-20-2006 Portland. 7-22-2006 Gorge. 9-21-2009 Seattle. 9-22-2009 Seattle. 9-26-2009 Ridgefield. 9-25-2011 Vancouver.
    11-29-2013 Portland. 10-16-2014 Detroit. 8-8-2018 Seattle. 8-10-2018 Seattle. 8-13-2018 Missoula.  5-10-2024 Portland.  5-30-2024 Seattle.
  • zstillings wrote:
    Money.

    I doubt that will be a concern for Obama. And that money would come with a massive pricetag -- the huge political liability that is Hillary Clinton.

    Obama would be best served with a very moderate relatively unknown VP candidate.
  • floyd1975floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    I doubt that will be a concern for Obama. And that money would come with a massive pricetag -- the huge political liability that is Hillary Clinton.

    Obama would be best served with a very moderate relatively unknown VP candidate.

    Obama will have to raise at least 230 million to compete with Hillary in the primary. After this Senate race and with the fundraising draw that she already has, he would have to be personally wealthy to compete.
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    zstillings wrote:
    Obama will have to raise at least 230 million to compete with Hillary in the primary. After this Senate race and with the fundraising draw that she already has, he would have to be personally wealthy to compete.
    All the more reason to find a way of taking money out of politics. It shouldn't be "I have the most money so I win." Dollars aren't votes.
  • floyd1975floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    RainDog wrote:
    All the more reason to find a way of taking money out of politics. It shouldn't be "I have the most money so I win." Dollars aren't votes.

    If you take the money out of politics as it is being tried, you will wind up with only the wealthy candidates able to compete.
  • chopitdownchopitdown Posts: 2,222
    RainDog wrote:
    Dollars aren't votes.

    in theory. but i agree i wish we could take money out of politics.
    make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    zstillings wrote:
    If you take the money out of politics as it is being tried, you will wind up with only the wealthy candidates able to compete.
    Public financing would be a good way to go - provided there was a law stating that candidates couldn't spend their own money.

    It's a difficult situation, and there's no one solution (or two or three); but it's something that needs to be addressed. Hell, it's probably half the reason so many people are disenchanted with our political process.
  • RainDog wrote:
    All the more reason to find a way of taking money out of politics. It shouldn't be "I have the most money so I win." Dollars aren't votes.

    Dollars will be votes only for as long as the American public is willing to auction off their votes. Stop blaming the money.
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    Dollars will be votes only for as long as the American public is willing to auction off their votes. Stop blaming the money.
    Profound. You know, I'm perfectly capable of "blaming" more than one thing at a time.

    Money has poisoned politics - and to show I'm fair, I'll say politicians and voters are toxic themselves. People are disenchanted with the process, and money has a lot to do with it; and you can't convince the 150 million + eligible members of our population that "it'll all be O.K. if you just go out and vote." Because it never is - and it furthers the disenchantment. Take the money out and, hey, maybe there's more incentive.
  • Raindog wrote:
    People are disenchanted with the process, and money has a lot to do with it; and you can't convince the 150 million + eligible members of our population that "it'll all be O.K. if you just go out and vote."

    I'm glad I can't convince them of that, because that would be a total lie.
    Because it never is - and it furthers the disenchantment. Take the money out and, hey, maybe there's more incentive.

    How?
  • JeanwahJeanwah Posts: 6,363
    gluten919 wrote:
    what if hillary ran WITH obama?
    Now, that's a dream ticket.
    Hillary's great. And for all you Hillary haters, you obviously don't live in NY, where she happens to already be our Senator and is doing a great job.
  • chopitdownchopitdown Posts: 2,222
    Jeanwah wrote:
    Now, that's a dream ticket.
    Hillary's great. And for all you Hillary haters, you obviously don't live in NY, where she happens to already be our Senator and is doing a great job.

    that should tell you that everyone who doesn't like her is outside of that state...it'll be tough to win carrying only new york
    make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
  • miller8966miller8966 Posts: 1,450
    Hillary is the worst candidate ever! What kind of feminist lets her husband receive oral sex from an oversized woman and then stays with him?

    How can women, especially women with a feminist idelogue vote for Hillary.....THEY CANT.

    Vote republican
    America...the greatest Country in the world.
  • The Democrats ran a study to figure out the viability of a Hillary candidacy. The best outcome was 60/40 against. TOO many people hate her. These are people she will never win back.

    I am liberal, I used to love Hillary, and I think she is a perfect leader in the Senate. PLEASE GOD keep her away from the National Ticket.

    Hillary lost me forever when she went off about video games and their effects, I instantly understood why those that dont like her take hate to a new level.

    NO and NEVER for Hillary.
    9/7/98, 8/3/00, 9/4/00, 4/15/03, 7/1/03, 9/28/04, 9/29/04, 5/24/06, 5/25/06, 6/17/08, 6/22/08, 6/28/08, 6/30/08, 5/17/10, 10/15/13, 10/16/13.
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    I'm glad I can't convince them of that, because that would be a total lie.
    "Everything" was a bit hyperbolic; but voting in a more money neutral environment would open up more choice for the voters. And who they vote for does have a large effect on their issues of choice.


    How?
    By completely removing the argument that "the richest guy always wins."
  • VictoryGinVictoryGin Posts: 1,207
    miller8966 wrote:
    Hillary is the worst candidate ever! What kind of feminist lets her husband receive oral sex from an oversized woman and then stays with him?

    How can women, especially women with a feminist idelogue vote for Hillary.....THEY CANT.

    Vote republican

    uh yeah they can when you're using that reasoning. i think it's pretty stupid to say that feminists can't vote for hillary because her husband cheated on her. it was her choice to stay with him so people should honor that. and how the hell does that affect her political policy? that's a weak reason to not vote for a person.

    please. and do you have an idea of how many people cheat? what a joke.
    if you wanna be a friend of mine
    cross the river to the eastside
  • VictoryGinVictoryGin Posts: 1,207
    Jeanwah wrote:
    Now, that's a dream ticket.
    Hillary's great. And for all you Hillary haters, you obviously don't live in NY, where she happens to already be our Senator and is doing a great job.

    hillary is doing a lot of work here, which is one reason i hope she doesn't run for pres in 08. she loves working with policy, so i'd hope she could take a senate leadership position. becoming president would remove her from really getting into legislation.
    if you wanna be a friend of mine
    cross the river to the eastside
  • RainDog wrote:
    "Everything" was a bit hyperbolic; but voting in a more money neutral environment would open up more choice for the voters. And who they vote for does have a large effect on their issues of choice.

    See, that's the thing. The only barrier to underfunded candidates now is the voters themselves who, as you say, would vote in a more "money neutral environment".
    By completely removing the argument that "the richest guy always wins."

    But that argument isn't true today.
  • hippiemomhippiemom Posts: 3,326
    miller8966 wrote:
    Hillary is the worst candidate ever! What kind of feminist lets her husband receive oral sex from an oversized woman and then stays with him?

    How can women, especially women with a feminist idelogue vote for Hillary.....THEY CANT.

    Vote republican
    I'm a feminist, and I strongly believe that there's only one marriage in the entire world that is any of my business, and that's the one between me and my husband. I say whatever works for Bill and Hillary and doesn't harm anyone else, more power to 'em.

    I do hope that Hillary doesn't run. About 40% of the population would never vote for her under any circumstances, and that doesn't leave enough swing voters for her to win in the general election.

    Personally, if she does run I won't vote for her because I think she's aided and abetted this administration with regards to Iraq. My decision certainly wouldn't have anything to do with Bill's extracurricular activities, which don't interest me a bit.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • hippiemom wrote:
    I'm a feminist, and I strongly believe that there's only one marriage in the entire world that is any of my business, and that's the one between me and my husband. I say whatever works for Bill and Hillary and doesn't harm anyone else, more power to 'em.

    Bravo!
  • JeanwahJeanwah Posts: 6,363
    VictoryGin wrote:
    hillary is doing a lot of work here, which is one reason i hope she doesn't run for pres in 08. she loves working with policy, so i'd hope she could take a senate leadership position. becoming president would remove her from really getting into legislation.

    Ya know, you're probably right about keeping her in Senate, she's at the right level now. Anything larger would get her less involved. Plus, I don't really think she's got a great chance of winning presidency. It's really too bad.
  • Can anyone tell me what Obama's actually done?
Sign In or Register to comment.