The main problem I see is that they don't play football in NM. They play soccer, and of course roullette.

This guy is bad times 4.

Failed as UN Ambassador (let's not forget his NK ass-kissing sweet deal for 6B, nuke fule, AND food and fuel - all on the promise that they'd be have)

Failed as Sec DOE ( can you say Wen Ho-Ho-Ho Lee ?)

Failed as a Congresscritter - did zilch for his district

Failed as a governor - to us peasants here in NM he is the living definition of P.O.S.

Faux hispanic. Genuine fat-boy egomaniac

Bring it Billy Rich, bring it.

The only hope for the Dems next time is if they suddenly all shut up and fall in line behind a candidate who has said and done nothing stupid since 2000. Chances are unlikely.

As they say: New Mexico—cleaner than regular Mexico.

fall in line behind a candidate who has said and done nothing stupid since 2000

Where will they find someone that's been a coma for the last 15 years that just woke up?

Richardson is Hillary's lapdog. He'll be her VP if she gets the nomination. Don't forget his part in the get Lewinsky out of Dodge, dodge.

He is very serious about running for national office, this has been clear for some time.
I think that may mean settling for Vice President.

I'm hearing ass-kisser, failure, egomaniac and lapdog.

I am not hearing 'batshit crazy.'

For the Democrats, this is a significant improvement.

I am not hearing 'batshit crazy.'

For the Democrats, this is a significant improvement
This is sadly so true. I think it really hurts the conservative cause to have ape shit crazies as the only competition. Howard Dean and his ilk make it almost impossible for Democrats to win elections and should they win, does make it impossible for Democrats to sucessfully govern. Unfortunately, the Republicans have taken over the middle and the sane left, so conservatives have become marginalized in the Republican party. That's how we got Bush (a moderate that I greatly admire, but a moderate none the less). It is so much better to have two parties that sane people feel comfortable in, so conservatives can have a stronger voice in at least one party and nominate a conservative. I can find only one conservative (Senator Allen) on the national scene and its starting to look like Mccain or Rudy will take the Republican nomination. How sad.

I might add that "did zilch for his district" is a point in his favor. If only all congresscritters would "do zilch for (their) districts" we might be running a little closer to that "fiscal conservatism" that we conservatives (was that redundant?) are supposed to be so fond of.

I don't know much about the guy, so don't think of this as an endorsement, but I will echo LauraW.'s "not batshit crazy" sentiments.

I am not hearing 'batshit crazy.'

He is batshit crazy. You've heard it. Now, please, before its too late, turn around and walk towards the light! :)

For the Western states, I'd guess Bill Richardson is about even with Giuliani. If Giuliani is going to be the candidate Ace wants him to be, he's really going to have to some serious work out here.

Brewfan, what do you mean?
Look, I'm a registered Republican, which is a hanging offense here in CT. ; )

But I'd like to have healthy, illuminating debates between the parties. Not just one side talking about the issues and the other flinging poo.

If I'd had a choice between Zell Miller and George W. Bush the last time around, I'd have voted for Zell, regardless of that (D) after his name.

Do you have any information that informs us Richardson is a moonbat?

He made a lot of noise a while back about getting federal funds to deal with illegal immigration but has consistently failed to confront it at his level. This includes signing off on legislation to give illegal aliens the same discount as American citizens in New Mexico on state college tuition.

He's made it pretty clear he isn't really down on illegal immigration. He just wants the Feds to pick up the tab.

I'm offended that you think New Mexico isn't a part of the US. they make you speak Spanish and learn mexican culture just like the rest of America!

Do you have any information that informs us Richardson is a moonbat

No. I don't think he is. I was kinda pulling your leg (hence the smiley). But Bill Richardson = Bill Clinton, politically. Triangulation, etc, etc. You want that? As pointed out above he's pretty much been a failure at everything he's done. As regards Zell, I wouldn't have voted for him last time, but I might next time if he could be convinced to switch parties. I'm not liking anything on the Republican horizon with the exception of Condi.

Richardson = awful.

Richardson doesn't stand a chance against The Beast with the moderates and the DNC/DLC establishment, and he's not crazy enough for the MoveOn/Kos/DemocraticUnderground kook base.

I lived in New Mexico for a few years. It's not part of the United States because the laws of physics are different there -- NOTHING works right.

Bill Richardson is an order of magnitude better than Shitlary Clinton, which puts him an order of magnitude worse than Rudy Giuliani. He is a partisan blowhard, an ass kisser of those above him, an abuser of those below him, and a really ambitious fool.

But, he sounds good on TV. We'll see more of him.

King Richard running for president?

....Blech.

Oh well. The guy's a do-nothing, and with a Democratic candidate maybe that's exactly what we want.

In '04, I made the incorrect prediction that Howard Dean, after losing several primaries, will run as a third-party candidate. But I still think this is possible in '08.

Howard Dean is chairman of the DNC for one reason: To keep the liberal moonbats under the Dem's tent. The natives are restless and they want a bona-fide liberal for a presidential candidate.

Only a (perceived) moderate will be nominated from the Dem's side. A conservative OR a moderate can be nominated on the Reep's side. The question is, and this is the fun part, will the moonbats support a moderate Democrat?

I doubt it. The hard-cored, principled liberals may abandon the "anybody but Bush" attitude and demand a hardliner Lefty. Of course Bush isn't running, so they have the choice to support "anyone but the Republican," who will be Bush-lite because simply will not elect a Liberal, or the bats can say f-you to the Dems and throw their support to a Greenie.

If the election is a foregone conclusion or even projected to be close, the far left in the DNC may decide to chalk it up as another loss and force their party to steer Left by supporting a Greenie.

Why is it SO important to tarnish the entire Republican party with all these phony investigations and the constant reminders of corruption from Pelosi and Reid?

The answer is simple. They won't have GWB to push around anymore. The new candidate will be free from the stigma of the current administration. They can only attack him/her for being part of the evil Reeps.

Conclusion: Romney wins in '08. With or without the the moonbat's support, Romney will crush any Dem in a debate. Mark my words.

P.S. In the event that Romney does not win, forget the whole mark my words thing.

awful > wretched though

Awful is a big big step up in quality for the dems.

Romney will crush any Dem in a debate.

Kerry took him out. 'Nuff said.

Kerry ran a smear campaign against Romney and made him out to be a carpetbagger and wealthy snob -- exactly what Kerry is.

Mitt has improved greatly since that senatorial race. The guy is so cool and classy, if I wasn't a man...

He's made it pretty clear he isn't really down on illegal immigration. He just wants the Feds to pick up the tab.

Is defending the border a federal, or state responsibility?

Bart, chairman of DNC's job is one thing only. Fundraising.

Your theory that only a moderate will be the Democrat candidate, forgets that they have to survive the Democrat primary process.... You know, the same one that totally ignored lieberman, and gave us extreme leftists like Dean and Kerry.

I'd just like to say that I pretty much agree with lauraw. It seemed noteworthy.

That is all.

Laura, I think the verdict is in and there is no honorable choice but to confess error.

Rudy. Rudy. Rudy.

I beg to differ to, Idiot. The Chair's duty is raise funds via placating the activist base.

Kerry compared to Dean was a moderate. Remember the vote for the war? That was the key difference and is what made Dean seem unelectable to the normal Democrats.

Dean made no bones about being a centrist and his Deaniancs certainly made sure that everyone knew he was a fringe candidate. He was a turn-off to the mainstream Dems whereas Kerry seemed to embody an electable candidate.

Dean is faced with a serious dilemma. Should he steer Left to please his base and risk driving the mainstream to the Dark Side? Or should Dean steer his party to the center and risk pissing off bats?

What we (the RNC) need to do is stick stay center-right and make sure that Hagel and McCain get the message that they are not wanted.

Hagel and McCain aren't bad guys, but they are lousy Republicans. Nominating one of those men will be like Dole/Kemp all over again. I love Bob Dole, but he and Kemp were big pussies on the campaign trail.

Good point, Rudy might beat Richardson in the Democrat primary.

He wouldn't have a chance of winning the Republican primary, that's for sure.

Dean is faced with a serious dilemma. Should he steer Left to please his base and risk driving the mainstream to the Dark Side? Or should Dean steer his party to the center and risk pissing off bats?

That boils down to whether his ego is bigger that Buchannan's. Smart money would be that he goes loony toons. He gotta be he.

Bart said, "What we (the RNC) need to do is stick stay center-right and make sure that Hagel and McCain get the message that they are not wanted."

How can radically changing the US to embrace torture as policy be center-right?

You may agree with Cheney, but there's no way to argue that suspending habeas corpus is anything but radical change.

Richardson makes some noises about illegal immigration to get funding. Meanwhile, he makes NM a sanctuary for illegals and grants them drivers licenses. He wants the state firmly in the blue column, with or without the customary vote fraud. This is the state that went to Bush in 2000, until a bag of ballots magically appeared in Dona Ana county.

S T A R V E, troll.

They must have been the same magic ballots as the ones found in King county, Washington for the gubernatorial race.

But anyway, before we get off topic, my main point was that someone like Richardson will be directly at odds with Dean. Unless Dean continues to try to burn the candle at both ends, some in the party are going to get slighted.

Quotes from WaPo story on Dean's lousy fundraising:

As critics see it, Dean has disappointed on two fronts. The DNC has not replicated the success of Dean's presidential campaign two years ago in tapping vast numbers of new and smaller contributors over the Internet. And skeptics say he has not yet established rapport with and won the confidence of high-dollar donors.

In his presidential campaign, Dean drew cheers from activists for his sharp criticisms of what he described as an accommodationist party establishment, too beholden to Washington interests.

So how is Dean going to sell another candidate from "the establishment" to his radical base? How is Richardson going to be tough on imigration and not piss off the bats? How about tax cuts?

Link to full text:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101833_pf.html

Breaking news: Mexico is threatening to cut diplomatic ties with Venezuela.

Chavez != Dale Carnegie

Why is this not covered by the media???

THIS IS SHOCKING!

Kamau Kambon, C-SPAN, Oct. 14

The following is an extract from a speech by black activist Kamau Kambon on C-SPAN’s “Black Media Forum on Image of Black Americans in Mainstream Media,” which was broadcast on Oct. 14.

“And we have to start thinking about a solution to the problem. So that these young sisters and brothers who are here now, who are 15, 16, 17, are not here 25 years later talking about these same problems.

“Now how do I know that the white people know that we are going to come up with a solution to the problem. I know it because they have retina scans, racial profiling, DNA banks, and they’re monitoring our people to try to prevent the ONE person from coming up with the ONE idea. And the one idea is, how we are going to exterminate white people because that in my estimation is the only conclusion I have come to. We have to exterminate white people off the face of the planet to solve the problem. [tepid applause] Now I don’t care whether you clap or not but I’m saying to you that we need to solve this problem because they are going to kill us. And I will leave on that. So we just have to set up our own system and stop playing and get very serious and not get diverted from coming up with a solution to the problem and the problem on the planet is white people.”

Listen to the whole speech on C-SPAN. (It begins at 3:33:00)
If this was a white man it would have been war on the news. But since there black its a free pass and needs to stop! My daughters who is 12 was watching it with me and i had no idea what was going to be said. after he said those things she asked me "DAD WHY TO THEY WANT TO KILL US? WHAT DID WE DO WRONG?"
I told her nothing they just want a free pass in the world without working like all other races to make a life for there self.
Here is the link below.

http://amren.com/exterminate.mp3

The media is blind to all wrong doings of blacks like kambone on c-span saying KILL ALL WHITES and alot other racist hate things going on even with FARKON who is supported my so called civil rights groups like NAACP,BLACK CUKUS LEADERS and alot others. This is racist and the media does nothing to report on it.And then you Have FARAKON who is the number 1 racist of all but yet is able to rally and make racist remarks agaisnt Whites And Jews. Calling whites {{{WHITE DEVILS}}}. And he is supported by so called civil rights leadrs as NAACP,BLACK CUKUS LEADERS AND OTHERS.... Whats going on here???? And the BLACK ON WHITE HATE CRIMES ARE STAGERING NUMBERS.
Look at what happend to Bill Bennet after his comments was taking outa text and made to sound racist. IT WAS ALL OVER THE NEWS. But yet when blacks make threats agianst whites its covered up.
And is getting outa control. Listen to the rap songs about whites...its wrong and the media knows this...
Only one person coverd this story and it was BILL ORILLY! after i wrote some 30 emails to FOX NEWS!.
Write you congressmen and media and demand answers. This is racism. And if we dont stop it now its going to get outa control. Look at what happend to ohio teldo. Nazi group goese to protest black on white gang crimes and the blacks start looting and burning house throwing rocks. its crazy. and no i dont support nazi groups just making a valid point!

Student observes double standards at Winthrop

by Christine Byington
November 05, 2005

Black people at Winthrop will probably be angry. And I’m sure they will proclaim that Christine Byington doesn’t care about black people. If you care, however, you will read this thoughtfully.

To begin, I think it’s important to state a fact obvious to those who know me well. I don’t mean to implicate all blacks in this. I just have a problem with the belligerent ones who think we aren’t doing enough for them.

Hurricane Katrina brought back to the public attention the ongoing issue of race relations in America. The tragedy quickly shifted from concern for the people affected by the hurricane to the judgment that the federal government did not like black people. Obviously, the federal government has a vendetta against the blacks and chose not to respond to them quickly, right?

I guess we’re assuming that the many people of various ethnic backgrounds in the Bush administration don’t care about black people, either.

Today in the daily student announcements I saw the “Black Fact of the Week.” I did not have a problem with this in itself. Surely it is important for us to understand the contributions of black people in our lives. However, this is just one piece of an ever-complicating problem on campus.

In case you don’t know, there are quite a few groups on Facebook devoted to black people. Two in particular caught my attention: “Winthrop Does Not Like Black People” and “I Should’ve Went to a Blacker College.”

The first group describes itself as, “a group for people that agree that Winthrop is not a university for black people. Winthrop really doesn't try to do anything for blacks and black people has to work so hard to get things here.”

My main point with that description, being the amateur grammarian that I purport to be, is that the first step to “get things here” is to use proper English. To get what you want, you have to work hard. I don’t think this is a problem unique to black people. Everyone has to work hard in college.

I also wonder what they want. If anyone who is a member of that group would like to inform us what they want, then that would be super. My friends and I hypothesize that professors are equal opportunity dislikers. They don’t necessarily make things difficult for you because of your skin color or any other variable. They make things difficult because they can.

Seriously, though, what would you like Winthrop to do more of for you? I’m sure the administration would like to hear your options because they dedicate themselves to making Winthrop a positive learning environment. No, that was not a facetious comment.

The second group I mentioned begins its description with a simple question:

“Are u sick of not finding anyone good to do your hair without paying an arm and a leg? Do you ever see an HBCU's band and then hear the sorry Winthrop Pep Band and feel ashamed? Do you find yourself fleeing to other colleges just to enjoy a REAL homecoming (ex: football team)? Did you look around the first day of orientation and was like what the hell did I get myself into? Then you should have gone to a blacker college!”

I think this opinion I am about to write applies to everyone who complains for hours about Winthrop. If you hate the school so much, you have options. Namely, go ahead and go to another college. This Facebook group brings up the issue of having no football team at Winthrop. I don’t know about anyone else, but I knew Winthrop didn’t have a football team when I applied. Chances are you did too.

I have enjoyed many-a-comment in class about the plight of black people. Now, I understand taking pride in your heritage. However, it is just that-heritage. We no longer hose people in the streets. I’d say if you have the freedom to sit in a classroom and state those opinions, you’ve got it pretty well. I think the problem many people see with all the racially based arguments is that it seems those who argue the points are using past experience as present justification. They still think that the United States is a racist country and that the country isn’t doing enough for them.

I am a Republican and I definitely believe in the Republican-esque approach to achievement: Anyone can succeed in life if they try hard enough. Sure, there might have been many barriers to black success 40 years ago. However, it’s 2005. With the exception of a minority of businesses and perhaps universities, there are not many barriers to deal with anymore.

In fact, I think there has been a surge in specialized programs for people of various ethnic backgrounds. For example, I’ve been looking into summer research programs in psychology. I’ve noticed that most of the programs are limited to students of ill-represented groups (i.e., ethnic minorities). I am only half black and I don’t want to use that as my way to get into a program.

Ultimately, I think we need to achieve more equality. To be truly equitable, for example, we should offer programs that are specifically for whites. Yes, I just said that. I’m sure a lot of people just slammed the paper down and spouted a few expletives. But don’t you see the logic here? It can’t be a problem in one instance and not in another. Kids, that’s called a double standard.

This happens far too often, though. Some blacks are happy with the programs that benefit them. Once a similar program starts that is geared toward whites, all of a sudden the program becomes racist. Like a person I know once said, if an Association of Ivorites was established on campus, people would be up in arms.

We need only look at the case of a whites-only scholarship established at Roger Williams University last year. The group who sponsored the scholarship did so not out of racism but out of a desire to be fair.

Those who complain about the state of affairs tend to cite this desire for fairness. However, to be truly fair, we should offer such specialized opportunities for various groups in America. We should also offer White Facts of the Day and Hispanic Facts of the Day, among others.

I think it’s important to mention the groups on Facebook that are devoted to intelligent and articulate blacks. It’s somewhat disappointing when that is perceived as a surprise. I’m sure if you approached any of those people and asked them what people in their families or communities thought of them, you’d probably find a few who would tell you people didn’t like them.

Some in the black community frown upon black students succeeding in life. I think we have a problem when we need Facebook groups to highlight the articulate blacks on campus. While others are spending time complaining about the way things are, there are students at this school who are doing something about those problems.

A basic observation of people would show you that if you devote time to complaining about the way things are (Jesse Jackson), you don’t have as much time to devote to finding effective solutions.

To the angry black people who might be reading this column, understand that I do not mean ill will toward you. Basically, I’m the “safe” person to write this because I’m biracial. Know that there are many people on this campus who feel the same way I do but who do not want to air their opinions in the Johnsonian because, well, they are white.

I think it’s sad when some whites feel they must stifle their opinions because of the color of their skin. That must be what life was like for blacks in the 1950s.

Why is this women called a racist because she tells the truth. But yet Dr.KAMBON can say kill all whites and nothing happens to him. Covered up by the DEMOCRATS (RATS)

Thanks for sharing White Man. Thanks for being totally sincere in your condemnation of my people. It is greatly appreciated. I wish Democraps, who just use me to gain power, were as honest and plain talking as you. All the fancy words and grammer in the world can't replace your honesty.

I feel MoonBat_One is correct. Hillary is the triangulating Marxist to beat in '08. If Condi runs, Hillary will pick up Obama-slama-llama as her running mate. Richardson may be her running mate if the Republicans run Rudy paired with a southerner/midwesterner/southwesterner.

Dean's role in all this is to wink at the moonbats to clue them in on Hillary's faux centrist bullshit.

Richardson is starting to sound like a Lowell Weicker type to me.
People, I know what the post looks like, but its not an endorsement. I'll have to get in there and clarify.

I'm just saying the guy is not a loony. And maybe this is the beginning of a trend.

Remember the group that stepped forward last time? No sane Democrat was willing to go up against Bush.

McKinney?
Kucinich?
Hewwo?

Holy shit! Did a white man just take a giant dump in here, or what?

Pretty much agree on the comments about Richardson's malleability, which doesd make him a vast improvement as a Dem candidate. I do think he's going to wind up as Hill's veep candidate.

By the way, malleability in a Dem isn't all bad. Richardson saw which way the wind was blowing on illegals, and like his Democratic neighbor gov in AZ, declared a "state of emergency" to free up state funds to beef up border security. It was a smart move.

If I can't get commitment, I'll take compliance. Ask my kids.

"does" make him a vast improvement..

A guy whom the Norks already rolled is bound to be a disasterous Commander-in-Chief.

Isn't Warner going to run? He might be dangerous.

It's part of a brilliant Hillary scheme...Bill will attract moderates for Hillary. He's nothing more than a VP candidate.

Hillary is the triangulating Marxist to beat in '08.

Hillary Clinton was a corporate lawyer. Her proposed health care plan was somewhat to the right (i.e. more favorable to major insurance companies) of anything likely to be proposed in the future by big business. It's probably less socialist than whatever Nixon had in mind with universal health coverage.

Can someone give me an actual POLICY example of her supposed leftwing agenda?

I have been asking this for years now, and NO ONE has come up with a single POLICY or LEGISLATION example. (That excludes rumors of her private life, private habits in her 20s, or that pro-Mao college essay that mysteriously vanished from the earth.)

Can you? I am completely serious here.

Bill will attract moderates for Hillary.

I think trying to attract moderates to Hillary would be a lot like putting Rosie O'Donnell in a sexy outfit.

I think trying to attract moderates to Hillary would be a lot like putting Rosie O'Donnell in a sexy outfit

I think putting Hillary in a sexy domination outfit would attract a lot of ... attention. But she'd still be a moderate in terms of policy, as far as I can tell.

tubino - there was the children's emancipation stuff.

But in general, you're right. Unlike a lot of the people here, I don't think she's a crypto-marxist.

I also don't think she'd be a good president. She's basically her husband without the charisma - which is to say, nothing.

Tubino, considering Hillary didn't join the Senate until 2000, and presumably has had her eyes on the prize from that moment, her legislative record isn't especially liberal. From her remarks, I would guess her to be more liberal than Bill but, frankly, I think the Clintons are mostly about the Clintons. Hillary just has a really unfortunate way with a sound bite.

I don't think a Hillary presidency would be a tragedy, given a Republican House and Senate. Her biggest impact (probably every president's greatest impact these days) would be on the courts. But I seriously don't think she'll make it back to the White House.

Knemon beat me to mentioning the children's emancipation issue. I'd also throw in HillaryCare, the original plan to "end welfare as we know it" (by creating a European-style welfare state), and her suggestion that Bill could govern to the left after having campaigned as a moderate. According to a couple of accounts I've read, Hillary was also the source of the directive keeping military uniforms out of sight at the White House, and when the Clintons were selling military high-tech to the Chinese, she argued that national security was an "obsolete concept."

Hillary's not a doctrinaire Marxist, but she's a classic Sixties airhead liberal/radical, and she'd be a disaster as president. McGovern's foreign policy, Carter's administrative skill, and Nixon's paranoia, all bundled up in one person? No wonder she's got such thick ankles.

DAMN IT! IT WON'T LET ME POST!

To hell with this. Read Barbara Olsen's books on Hillary. Look up Saul Alinsky, who for all intents and purposes was Hillary's mentor and the subject of her now disappeared Wellesley thesis. Michael Lerner and the "politics of meaning."

At any rate, we'll definitely find what she's all about soon enough.

I'd forgotten Hell to Pay, Sue. I read it years ago. The impression I came away with was more rampant ambition than political ideology.

Poor old Barbara Olsen, who ended up on flight...whatsisname. The one that went down in the field in Pennsylvania on 9/11.

I don't know how anyone could claim that Hillary's health care was to the 'right' unless one's moved the midfield so far left that, like Eric Alterman, you believe that the boundary is just to the right of Rawls, Gramsci, and Sweden. The idea of strong government intervention in the health care industry, combined with restricted consumer choice is nowhere near the right.

Hillary, like Kerry, is a liberal who's masquerading as a moderate. She's a lot better at it than he was, though. Fortunately we have her It Takes a Village book to draw upon. These are from her book::

"Other developed countries, including some of our fiercest competitors, are more committed to social stability than we have been, and they tailor their economic policies to maintain it."

"most Americans do not favor a radical dismantling of government. Instead of rollback, they want real reform. And when a strong case can be made, they still favor government action, as they have demonstrated recently in their support for measures like the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Brady Bill, and the new Direct Student Loan program."

She's a strong advocate for government action, intrusion and intervention.

Knemon, Weasel,

I concur, mostly.

Sue, utron,

I know there's an anti-Hillary industry out there. I know who Saul Alinsky is. I really don't care if Hillary had a radical leftist phase as an undergrad. That's why I specified any actual policy or legislation, not a lot of "I heard she keeps an amulet of Pol Pot" nonsense.

I think she's about as leftwing as Joe Lieberman.

geoff,

Those are moderate liberal policies desired by the majority of Americans.

Deal with it.

I had a better response, tub-o-shit, but some computer thing is preventing me from posting anything bigger than your credibility.

Part of it was along geoff's theme, mainly that you would think the fucking Red Chinese are centrist.

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good"

I'm trying to remember when Hillary disavowed all of that Marxist-feminazi tripe she spewed, as tub-o-turds has admitted, in her 20s.

Oh wait, she never did. That's why the Wellesley thesis had to disappear. She could have shrugged it off, like her apologists do now, as a youthful indiscretion, but she didn't and she never will. Because she still believes it.

"Other developed countries, including some of our fiercest competitors, are more committed to social stability than we have been, and they tailor their economic policies to maintain it."

Yes, this is true... I happen to like social stability, myself. I would not like to have an underclass ready to start burning cars as a result of a incident of a police screw-up.

The US already tailors its economic policies toward certain goals. It is utter nonsense -- though quite commonly heard -- that the US has a laissez-faire economic policy. The highlighting of agri subsidies by the Hugo Chavez and the rest was only one reminder.

She's a strong advocate for government action, intrusion and intervention.

Arguably less so than the current bunch in exec. and legislative. Now why would I say that? The current bunch has advocated for more secrecy and less accountability,>/a> more foreign intervention, and in some cases, more fed control/less states rights.

I would not like to have an underclass ready to start burning cars as a result of a incident of a police screw-up.

Don't you find it noteworthy that the cars are burning in a country that is more "committed to social stability"than we are.

Well I sure screwed the pooch on those tags...

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good"

Again failing to mention an actual policy or legislation, but hey let's compare:

Current economic policy: "we're going to take things from your kids for the good of a very few."

"you would think the fucking Red Chinese are centrist."

No, I would think the Family and Med Leave Act is popular, liberal, and centrist. It is also consistent with family values proclaimed by the right.

"you would think the fucking Red Chinese are centrist."

You would think it perfectly okay to borrow record amounts from them, giving them a nice firm grip on our economic future.

Before you tell me you ARE NOT in favor of record deficits, remember that Bush is just doing what Reagan and Bush 1 did. More of the same, only more. Thus predictable. Do not believe what they say; believe what the do.

now with fewer tag screw-ups:
She's a strong advocate for government action, intrusion and intervention.

Arguably less so than the current bunch in exec. and legislative. Now why would I say that? The current bunch has advocated for more secrecy and less accountability, more foreign intervention, and in some cases, more fed control/less states rights.

If you can put up with all that, as well as slapdashing the intel for war, why would you worry about Hillary? What's she gonna do -- restore habeas corpus? Restore US credibility?

Can someone give me an actual POLICY example of her supposed leftwing agenda?
Can you? I am completely serious here.

Having said this, do you see what it did when people were nice enough to answer it? It, and not you, knows best what is 'centrist.'

If you see it ask really, seriously, sincerely for an explanation to something that is puzzling it, please before you respond realize that it is dishonest and you should really starve it instead.

All you need to know about Hillary...

Taxes, Taxes, Taxes. She doesn't need a radical leftist agenda...she'll just raise TAXES. Didn't she say, "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." That's ALL I need to know...

Hillary is dangerous because she's an orthodox lefty socialist/marxist/communist. She hates the US...Remember her, I pledge allegiance to the United States of America it could be (or some BS like that). Bill just wanted to be popular and get BJ's and he betrayed the lefties. Hillary won't.

I think Turdboy is some kind of karmic retribution for Ace's banning of Cedarford.

But....wait a second

Turdboy says "You would think it perfectly okay to borrow record amounts from them, giving them a nice firm grip on our economic future."

sound a little familiar?

No policy examples because she spent her entire career as the wife of a politician. She has NO experience and the REPUBS will pound home that fact. I think she's more dangerous because of her lack of experience...

Did I mention she will raise taxes...both her ugly daughter and husband our on record crying about the tax cuts.

I just made the comments above to whet people's appetites. The followup quote to the economic intervention comes as Hillary speaks admirably of the German model,"there is a general consensus that government and business should play a role in evening out inequalities in the free market system."

This is far left.

She wants us to adopt the French model of day care, where the government takes care of our children from 3 - 5 (and then, of course, until they're 18 via the public school system): "imagine a country in which nearly all children between the ages of three and five attend preschool in sparkling classrooms, with teachers recruited and trained as child care professionals." And as far as the public schools go, she advocates centralized national control over schools, vs. local school board authority.

This is far left.

Recently, on the subject of health care, she wrote:

The United States' closest economic rivals have mandatory national health care systems rather than the voluntary employer-based model we have.

If we finally act to reform what we know needs to change, we may take credit in building a health care system that covers everyone and improves the quality of all our lives.

The nexus of globalization, the revolution in medical technology and the seismic pressures imposed by the contradictions in our current health care system will force radical changes whether we choose them or not. We can do nothing, we can take incremental steps -- or we can implement wide-ranging reform.

To me, the case for action is clear. And as we work to develop long-term solutions, we can take steps now to help address the immediate problems we face. As Senator John Kerry has proposed, we should cover everyone living in poverty, and all children; allow people to buy into the federal employee health benefits program; and also help employers by reinsuring high-cost claims while assuming more of the costs from hard-pressed state and local governments.

So nationalized health care, economic intervention to ensure social stability and redress inequities, national control of schooling from age 3 to 18, and, oh yes, mandatory pre-divorce counseling, mandatory leave for fathers after births, and raising the minimum wage. That's a pretty liberal compendium of views.

For what it's worth here's a summary of her political position since 2000.

+ she has that shrill voice. Any man with a drop of testosterone is going to hear that voice and decide that 4 or 8 years is just too much. She sounds like a drunk banshee.

The media will reach some climax with her in office though...They will fawn/gush/ooze with praise for months. They will follow Bill around all day as he trots around the globe...being the "good hsuband". I already feel ill.

geoff,

I like that on-the-issues site. Thanks.

It looks to me like you confused nationalized health care (your term) with universal coverage (insurance), which seems to be what's advocated. This "far left" agenda is starting to look attractive to many US corporations, for the obvious reasons of economic competitiveness.

Many items you mention, such as raising the minimum wage, are actually rather popular I believe. FML act too. Is the majority of the US far left? I don't think so.

"government and business should play a role in evening out inequalities in the free market system" usually equals retraining programs and increased education opportunities. About as far left radical as the post-WWII GI Bill.

Yawn.

Govt regulated day care, when record numbers of mothers are working, when the desire is to take more mothers off welfare and into the workplace? You mean actually try to give an option for quality day care to poor working mothers? Maybe tax credits to use in those govt reg daycare centers?

I'd grant this is really far left stuff. You can just feel the private property being redistributed, can't you? I didn't find any evidence to back up your claim that she "us to adopt the French model of day care." Link? It's one thing to say Imagine... Another to propose an actual plan for the US.

Fed standards for schools? Repubs used to back that. How much Kansas do we need?!?

Concentration of wealth in the US is higher than ever, and increasing. Social stability will be an increasing problem. US incarceration rate is extremely high. Hillary barely acknowledges this sort of thing, right? A few education problems, training...

That's it? Just another middle-of-the-road Democrat. About as scary as Joe Lieberman.

Big difference. I'd vote for Joe Lieberman (if we weren't at war with radical Islam) - but never for Hillary.

A little article from 1993, reminding us of the canonization of St. Hillary.

Here's a 2000 article that talks about the excesses of Hillarycare among other things:

Take her 1994 health plan (which we have not seen the last of). Our current HMOs are bad enough. But if an HMO refuses treatment, you at least have the option of hiring a doctor at your own expense. Hillary wanted to close this loophole. Under her proposal, doctors who treated patients outside the plan would have been arrested and jailed.

Hillary's education plans are no less draconian. In 1992, she proposed creating a government bureaucracy with the power to steer students into specific career tracks, then place them in corporate jobs after graduation. "I see it as a plan for a kind of corporate fascism," commented panelist Joyce Milton, author of The First Partner. "What you're doing is giving the government the power to decide who works and who doesn't."

Now fuck off, tub-o-ass.