08/31/2007
Hillary Clinton's Appearance on Letterman
Senator Hillary Clinton appeared on Late Night with David Letterman last night to have a chat and read a Top Ten list.
Sphere: Related ContentPosted 10:55 AM EST by Andy in Election 2008, Hillary Clinton, News, Television, Towleroad Guide to the Tube | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
i watched last night. she came across as self-possessed and self-assured. she's been working on the warmth thing. she is an extremely smart person, like her hubby. i wish her success. it would be great to have a female president.
Posted by: nic | Aug 31, 2007 11:57:43 AM
I love Hilary and she knows what a big mess we've made of things in Iraq and it's going to be an even bigger mess when the US pulls out. We've reaped a quite a whirlwind of bad karma! She was careful with her statements. And I can quite understand her not even being able to address the fact that the US has committed genocide of thousands of innocent Iraqui's, it's just too horrible. Like Norman Mailer said, "nothing good will come of it (Iraq war). Our own country is falling apart and we need to spend the money here. So Obama and Hilary should run together, but who would VP?
Posted by: the queen | Aug 31, 2007 12:14:12 PM
Can't stand her, though no doubt she is cunning and smart. But is this the best we can do? Loved him, though he did good things for the economy and the social agenda, but he disgraced the presidency --- the last two years were a media field day over his curved dick and a sperm spot on a dress, as we ignored the build up of Osama's campaign. To have him back in the White House, in any capacity, even as First Husband, would be a travesty.
Let's not forget who the Clinton's backed as a presidential candidate in the last campaign: Wesley Clark. They knew he didn't have a chance, but they didn't want Kerry blocking the way to the White House for Hillary for potentially eight years. These two are opportunists with a real personal agenda. No, thanks!
Posted by: Richard | Aug 31, 2007 12:26:14 PM
I love Hillary. Hope she wins. She has the balls all the others only wish they have. AND a sense of humor!
Posted by: Jordan | Aug 31, 2007 1:01:49 PM
Any cute men on the distant planet you live on, Richard? The Additional Candidates Window closed long ago at leat for the Dems. You have every right to hate Hillary but just bitching about her, Bitch, contributes nothing. Praise, work for, contribute money to whatever candidate you think is better or shut the fuck up or at least have the honesty to admit that you're just blowing your pie hole because it feels good. I've been known to enjoy watching others masturbate but you'll have to submit a picture first.
Posted by: Leland Frances | Aug 31, 2007 1:21:31 PM
leland, your hard-on for hillary should really entitle you to re-christen yourself leslie francine.
Posted by: sean | Aug 31, 2007 1:33:08 PM
I have no real problems with Hillary as president. I don't think we'd be talking about her opportunism or lack of warmth if she were a man. However, she remains a lightning rod of controversy. I think it's more important to elect someone who's not a right-wing idealogue rather than electing any particular person. All of the candidates are pretty good choices, but Obama and Edwards would simply be more easily elected. I love Kucinich's ideas, but he just doesn't have the gravitas that it necessary in a president.
The most important thing we can do is ensure that the Republican machine is defeated this go-around. Let the Republicans try to sort out their own house in the interim, and try to re-fashion themselves into a brand of conservatism that is based on ideas rather than ideology... that's what conservatism used to be, and if I disagreed with them at least I could still respect them. The religious right have ruined the party, and I think it will take many years for them to recover.
Posted by: Brian | Aug 31, 2007 1:45:39 PM
Nice try, Sean, but no cigar even from Bill's humidor.
I do often defend Hillary but that's not because I have decided to support her over others but because I hate to see her, or anyone, unfairly damned.
Were your cliched membership in the Hillary Haters Club not blinding you, you would remember and admit that I have repeatedly said I will support ANY Democrat who gets the nomination.
Posted by: Leland Frances | Aug 31, 2007 1:51:18 PM
My god Leland what a hypocrite you are and I quote.....
You have every right to hate Hillary (Reichen) but just bitching about her (him), Bitch (Dick), contributes nothing...
You are such a tool......
Posted by: Derek | Aug 31, 2007 2:00:28 PM
i'm with leland on this one.
RICHARD's comment is sophomoric. "Can't stand her". why? because, according to him, they (BILL & HILL) supported wesley clark for some convoluted, power-grabbing reason? excuse me, but that is absurd -- if not other-worldly.
SEAN's comment is beneath contempt, and Derek's is undecipherable.
i like hillary, but i, too, will support any demo over the best of the repugs (ron paul).
Posted by: nic | Aug 31, 2007 2:56:35 PM
My comment was not really meant for YOU to decipher at all there Nic. My point was that some people seriously need to practice what they preach.
Leland likes to continuously bitch about Reichen whenever posts about him appear but yet wants to point out someone else's bitching on Hillary because it "contributes nothing".
Can I make that any clearer for you?
Posted by: Derek | Aug 31, 2007 3:30:06 PM
Well, Derek, you have make clear what a moron you are because, surely, anyone any brighter than that could distinguish between discussion of Hillary and, gulp, Reichen, unless he's added "candidate for President" to his other self-annointed titles.
And not only was the original post to which I responded ONLY discussing candidates for President but in my second post I very carefully used the self-limiting "I hate to see her, or anyone, UNFAIRLY damned."
DOCUMENT one "unfair" thing I've written about Reichen or anyone else for that matter. And if it's simply my opinion, versus say a fact like Reichen falsely claiming that Nancy Reagan attended his "wedding" to Arndt, then why is your OPINION any more valid than mine? It's hardly like I say, "Oh forget talking about the latest iPod or Becks or literally bashed gays,let's talk about Reichen." I don't write any more frequently about him than events justify. He crawls out of his hole, usually cheek-to-jowl with his latest boyfriend flavor of the month, Andy posts about it, and I respond. That's my right as much as it's your right to be a Reichen Troll. Just don't expect to not be called on it. As I periodically am reluctantly forced to do, I must point out that dishonest flaming of me, e.g., "Leland only writes about Reichen," "Leland doesn't like anyone," when anyone objective would readily admit the contrary, says more about you than me. If you don't have the tools to coherently dispute what I say about what or whomever, don't embarrass yourself by simply and dishonestly attacking me instead.
Posted by: Leland Frances | Aug 31, 2007 3:53:24 PM
Any homosexual who does not support the election of Hillary Clinton as our next President is making a mistake. She is the best choice of candidates to move the gay agenda along it's path. No other person running would do as much as she will.
Posted by: Hillary | Aug 31, 2007 4:01:58 PM
Don't forget her
-her refusal to recant Iraq war powers vote till dragged kicking and screaming to be the last person to recant
- Yearly Kos visit where she totaly layed out the love for lobyists as important to her as actual citizens.
- her love for bush's surge (GAO says only 3 out of 18 benchmarks reached = 1.6666666%)
-her talking about "new war" undefined new war that she will lead us into = (Iran and syria)
- the recent revelations of her recieving $100,000 from a crook and only giving $23,000 to charity very publicly to try to save face
etc
etc
Suckers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Her negatives = dems loose to a stupid repub if she is the nominee
Posted by: anon | Aug 31, 2007 4:04:47 PM
Hillary Clinton is the enemy. ( Or one of them, to be more accurate.) She, her not so better half, and the Democratic Party as a whole are Republicans in drag. Their primary disagreement is about which set of crooks should be getting bribes.
Democrats oppose full 'legalization' and the drive to organize immigrant labor into unions and support shipping jobs overseas. They oppose socialized medicine. They recently voted to make the Patriot Act, Bush’s Enabling Act, even worse.
Hillary Clinton supported and voted for the criminal Bush/Republican blood-spattered invasion of Iraq. So did most Democrats. AFTER it became unpopular they faked opposition to the war and the rise of overwhelming antiwar sentiment regained the Congress for them. Then the inevitable betrayal ensued as they refused to impeach Bush, defund the war, or order the troops home without delay. The Democrats moan that their hands are tied but the killing goes on and on.
The Clintons and the Democrats are responsible for DADT and DOMA with Republican collusion.
On August 22, 2007, a Gallup poll said that the Congressional approval rate is the lowest it’s been since 1974. Barely 18% approve of the actions of the Congress while 76% disapprove. The poll was taken from August 13-16, 2007. Even George Bush has a higher rating than the Democratic Congress!
That means that a Democrat victory is far from assured. (Toe tapping, even heavier losses in Iraq and the possibility of a rapidly deepening recession are all wild cards.) The Democrats repeated their duplicity after the 2004 and 2006 elections and could pay the price of massive desertion and boycott at the polls again.
Our best hope is to join and build the union sponsored US Labor Party. Check them out at www.thelaborparty.org
Posted by: Bill Perdue | Aug 31, 2007 4:30:27 PM
Clearly I was not drawing any such parallels between Reichen (an absolute nothing) and Hillary (a potential president). I was simply pointing out that you should follow the advice you so thoughtfully leveled at Richard.
Your constant needless bitching, fair or unfair (who really cares), about those who you despise accomplishes nothing - it is just plain useless and quiet frankly makes you look more like the nasty old man you really are.
And it is hilarious that you want to discuss why I think your opinion is less valid (which I don't) than anyone elses when you are the Queen Bee at caustically jumping down the throats of people whose opinions conflict with your own. And Leland, to be clear, the only certified Troll on Towelroad is the one you see in the mirror every morning.
Derek loves wiskers on kitten, warm woolen mittens and knowing Leland is so bitter because he ain't getting none...
Posted by: Derek | Aug 31, 2007 4:36:16 PM
DEREK,
No, thank you. I didn't realize this was a pissing contest between you and Leland.
Bill,
Don't you ever get weary? I do. Being so constantly serious can kill some of us old farts.
Posted by: nic | Aug 31, 2007 5:49:30 PM
Everyone that believes that a Hillary nomination would put yet another Republican in the White House needs to put down the cool-aid. Her numbers continue to go up all across the board. The conservatives and the Republicans want everyone to think that she will lose so that she doesn't get the nomination. The Republicans don't have anyone of her stature even in the running. At least Hillary appeals to her base, unlike Romney and Guilliani.
Posted by: sugarrhill | Aug 31, 2007 6:17:25 PM
SUGARRHILL:
You've got it right.
Posted by: nic | Aug 31, 2007 6:56:23 PM
suggarhill not exactly
August 2003 saw leiberman's numbers higer than anyone elses and goign higher. He was the MSM designated primary winner in August 2003 before the primaries for the dem presidential nom even occured.
Leiberman's supposed support disappeared the first primary.
it is called push polling
1991 saw Cuomo in the lead and Bill Clinton with only 5% support in August 1991.
push polling yet again.
What you must look at is the base/ progressives/ the actual people who voluntere for campaigns for they are the ones who actualy show up on primary days to vote. Americans do not vote and far fewer even vote in the primaries.
According to more accurate info = the progressive base
Edwards and or Obama are ahead if Gore does not announce (if he announces he wins primaries by a land slide) with hillary only in 4th-5th place at best.
iowa and new Hampshire in particular are trending edwards. Every primary has what is called "early primary bounce".....the winner of the earliest primaries get a huge boost as people switch over to them in later primaries. Edwards is so far taking Iowa and New Hamshire.
Based on history showing that MSM polls never get it right in August and based on those who actualy vote in primaries and the 'early primary bounce" we are most likely looking at an edwards win.
If you think otherwise then please go congradulate Cuomo and leiberman for winning their primaries and becoming the great american presidents they were. snark!
Posted by: anon | Aug 31, 2007 7:54:22 PM
I saw her. I know hillary and I really think Ron Paul is the better choice for the country. Gay or straight.
Posted by: Vi agara | Aug 31, 2007 8:30:49 PM
I forgot to mention an interesting tid bit. Edwards has already mentioned that obama is on his short list for VP. Talk about a truely progressive ticket. No more biz as usual that would be delivered by a hillary win
If Edwards wins the early primaries as it appears he will then he will cut hillary off at the knees and most likely win the nom. Then we will Have Edwards POTUS and Obama VP running the dem ticket (if Gore never announces)
Posted by: anon | Aug 31, 2007 8:37:21 PM
I think John Edwards and Barack Obama would be a remarkable ticket, a fresh approach, a new dynamism, and they certainly would have my full support. Unfortunately, while hopeful, I doubt that it will happen in our current American landscape. But, let's see --- and, as others have suggested, we should put our time and money behind those we support. I have put PLENTY of the latter into Edwards' political war chest.
For the Hillary supporters, I reiterate: if the Clinton's had put their time and energy behind Kerry and Edwards in 2004 they might have had a fighting chance in the last election, against the nefarious, well oiled Rove machine. Where were they? Nowhere on the political horizon, backing Wesley Clark, with sights on 2008. They really did not want another Democrat in the White House. So much for team players.
Finally, who the hell is this obnoxious idiot "Leland?" He seems to have a lot of time on his hands, and a whole lot of misdirected rage. There are medications that might help, Leland.
Posted by: Richard | Aug 31, 2007 9:38:54 PM
Richard do not loose hope.
Just repeat after me "1991 august polls showed Cuomo as #1 and Bill at only 5%........2003 august polls showed leiberman #1 and kerry barely registering."
The actual voting days of the early primaries is what counts and will be just another big wake up call that polling sucks. Historicity is what counts.
Gore 08
barring that
Edwards/ Obama 08
Posted by: anon | Aug 31, 2007 10:36:32 PM
PS October is the magic month.
If Gore is going to announce it will be then after the Nobel peace prize winners are announced (FREE publicity that Hillary would kill for), he is nominated.
Gore will sweep the chess board clean and have done so with a totaly new paradigm in campaigning. All future candidates will have to do a documentary on a world issue, a book on politics and reason, get a nobel peace prize before even being able to run.
Anybody but Hillary 08
Posted by: anon | Aug 31, 2007 10:39:25 PM
PSS
For those who don't remember.
With the anniversary of Katrina lets remember bush fiddeling and playing golf. Al GORE recieved a call from a doctor at the hospital where he son was operated on for head injusy from a horid car crash. "HELP!!!!" Al Gore paid out of his own pocket to charter a private large air plane and flew down with it with supplies and helped evacuate that hospital that had helped his family in the past. Gore's only reaponse was that he didn't want any publicity for it.
What a vastly different world it would have been if the supreme court had not crowned the imposter king and instead the winner of the popular vote GORE had taken his place in the white house.
Posted by: anon | Aug 31, 2007 10:45:54 PM
Sorry I cant deal with Obama and Edwards' brainless enslavement to religion. They practically drag their damn crosses into every speech. A sad, stupid, ignorant statement that someone once mentioned to me is that the US is never going to vote for someone named Obama concidering what other name it ryhmes with. I dont necessarily believe it but then again I never believed Bush would get elected last time. I would rather have Hillary's ruthless ambition than someone who lets their bible lessons make their decisions for them.
And why the hell does Edwards' ALWAYS seem to have a "struggle" with anything to do with gays!? The douche bag should get over it by now.
Posted by: Toto | Sep 1, 2007 12:14:34 AM
clinton flips on issues more than a freshly caught mackerel on the dock of YOUR bay. i wouldn't trust that 165 lb. wide-mouthed bass as far as i could toss her back into the dreck. she's as phoney as that piece of baloney you keep waving in front of reichen's face. keyboard dilettante whose only source of facts is wikipedia. have a smoke on me.
Posted by: sean | Sep 1, 2007 12:54:09 AM
SEAN,
Why do you keep embarassing yourself?
Posted by: nic | Sep 1, 2007 5:13:06 AM
NIC
Please talk about Hillary's equating lobbyists for companys to actual american citizens in importance.
She boldly declared such at yearly Kos. there are tons of vids of it at You tube.
The gasps of shock from the base of the dem party are audable when she does.
Please explain why she has only gotten rid of $23,000 dollars of the $100,000 that she recived from a crook.
Please explain her comments recently saying "the surge is working...." Though GAO report says only 3 out of 18 benchmarks reached = that is 1.6666666+%
Please detail her "new war" ideas. Who does she plan on warring with? Iran and Syria per chance?
Please explain why Hillary has NOT walked 1 picket line in her life where as Edwards has walked at least 21 picket lines in his life.
Please explain why Hillary allowed herself to get blought by medical Insurance as detailed in SICKO
Please explain why she has not unveiled a Universal health care plan where as edwards has put out a very detailed Universal health care system.
Please defend her with some facts instead of just emotional ranting.
thank you
Posted by: anon | Sep 1, 2007 9:05:00 AM
These two are opportunists with a real personal agenda. No, thanks!
Posted by: Richard | Aug 31, 2007 12:26:14 PM
Can you become President without being an "opportunist?" I think not. I'm really struggling to dislike her. I think she is smarter than every other candidate.
I love Edwards, but he's just not going to be President. The country is moving towards Hillary, and despite what people say, she's starting to poll very well against the Republican candidates.
ANON makes a good point about picket lines and insurance, but unfortunately, Americans elect stars. My money goes to Edwards, but I think Hillary is our next President.
Posted by: dattexas | Sep 1, 2007 4:43:44 PM
Richard
Leland is an old "Castro Queen"...he is obsessed with Reichen (Lance Bass ex-boyfriend) but doesn't like to fess up, despite the fact that he post ad nauseum about Reichen's every move...he's bitter, no doubt, because he missed his chance at happiness for whatever reason and so has a hard time accepting his current fate. He's fairly intelligent (he reads mostly gay related stuff) but can offer little insight into anything else. We like him for his wit, but he has major anger issues and probably live alone.
Posted by: Marla | Sep 1, 2007 5:29:11 PM
dat
repeat after me
"August 1991 had Cuomo in the lead and Bill only polling at 5%" The cuomo presidency was a great one wasn't it?
"August 2003 saw Leiberman at the top with the highest numbers and Kerry far far behind him." The Leiberman presidential campaign against bush was so steller wasn't it?
On struggeling to dislike Hillary, give it time.
In 1 months time she
- boasted of equating to corporate lobbyists as equal to american citizens
- got cught having recieved $100,000 from a crook
- praised the surge though the GAO report says only 3 out of 18 benchmarks met.
-babbeled on about "new war"
She has quite a few months to go to the primaries and if the trend continues she will be screwing up quite a lot more.
Thanks
PS Gore is who we need the most so look to October
Posted by: anon | Sep 1, 2007 5:40:45 PM
ANON,
If, in fact, that is you REAL name, lol, don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. (god, i love that phrase. thank you, judge judy.) you're the one who is emo engaged here. i will let hillary's record stand on its own. you can continue to spout corrupted poll results and other nonsense, but until you quit being the craven that you are, do not darken my door.
Posted by: nic | Sep 1, 2007 7:35:51 PM
NIC
Uhm The only polls I mentioned were ALL the polls of August 1991 showing Cuomo as the dem nom and bill clinton at only 5%. Also that ALL polls showed August 2003 that leiberman was going to win the nom for the dems and run as our candidate for president.
Deal with the reality of history and stop looking at "push polls"
:-)
Thank you for playing your concelation prize will be bitter grapes after the first early primaries.
:-)
Posted by: anon | Sep 1, 2007 7:53:13 PM
i never mentioned push polls. i thought they were a rovian creation to destroy mccain, and later, kerry. nevertheless, you are unwilling to reveal yourself, so why should i indulge you. grow a pair, dude.
Posted by: nic | Sep 1, 2007 8:32:09 PM
uhm
reveal myself?
uhm You do understand this is the internet, right?
Uhm, in what way are you revealing yourself?
Am I the only one who dosen't have access to your live camera feed, your telephone number, your address, your birth certificate, your SS number?
Dude, debate 101.....personal attack against debator instead of presenting facts to dispute what I said automaticaly equals you lost the debate.
If you give me live access to your web cam i will give you live access to mine.
Till then don't get too upset when iowa, NH, NV, and SC go Edwards and Obama either or in the top 2 spots while Hillary won't pull a #1 till super tuesday with FL. probably not much else since "early primary victory bounce" is to the winners of the early primaries.
:-)
Have a nice day
Posted by: anon | Sep 1, 2007 9:41:34 PM
ANON,
b4 u get more uhm-chucky than i can tolerate: if you were the master-debater (tee-hee) that you wish you were (ad-hominen attacks aside) we would not be having this dialogue. by revealing yourself, and by that i mean, (helloooo!? how 'bout u not hiding under the "anon" b.s. name?) being a grown-up.
don't be obtuse or otiose. perhaps, then we can talk.
Posted by: nic | Sep 1, 2007 10:45:35 PM
If Edwards wins the early primaries as it appears he will then he will cut hillary off at the knees and most likely win the nom."
Damn, I hope you're right Anon. I've always heard Hillary's ascendancy can't be stopped because of her massive war-chest. Edwards is the most liberal of the 3 front-runners, and Obama as VP would be fine with me, he's more liberal than centrist Hillary. If Gore announced, I'd cry literal tears of joy.
Posted by: Johnny | Sep 1, 2007 11:19:51 PM
JOHNNY,
you will cry "liberal" tears of joy if that happens. but it ain't gonna happen. i am not averse in any way to liberalism; i am a socialist at heart. but there is wishful thinking, and there is reality.
a hillary juggernaut is coming that can't be denied. we need to get behind her. otherwise, we will again die a thousand deaths by 100,000 thousand cuts (over the top? yeah, i thought so) at the hands of a repug prez. do not forget or forgive ralph nadir. (no, seriously.)
pragmatism is always the best choice. as the late and great champion of the working poor and the much-abused middle class, molly ivins, used to say, "politics is always half a loaf." the sooner we GET that, the better WE as a people of all stripes will be.
Posted by: nic | Sep 2, 2007 1:00:40 AM
you will cry "liberal" tears of joy if that happens."
Yes I will cry liberal tears of joy, because I am a liberal. So what? Mocking someone for being a liberal and then following it by saying "I am not averse to liberalism in any way" is very weird and annoying.
a hillary juggernaut is coming that can't be denied. we need to get behind her."
Will I vote for her if she's the Dem nominee? Of course, and I'm sure Anon would too, so that's hardly the issue. In the meantime, if her juggernaut can't be denied, she hardly needs me kissing her ass.
Posted by: Johnny | Sep 2, 2007 1:27:32 AM
Is this good Nic?
Posted by: Harry | Sep 2, 2007 1:36:15 AM
How about this
Posted by: Larry | Sep 2, 2007 1:36:46 AM
Bert sounds nice
Posted by: Bert | Sep 2, 2007 1:37:16 AM
heck, anyone can type in whatever name they wish since this is the internet after all.
Posted by: Hillary | Sep 2, 2007 1:38:07 AM
Maybe I will call myself NIC.
I hope by now you are finaly understanding that the entire freaking internet is annonymous.
Unless you post your SS number. For all I know your real name is Bertha
Posted by: NIC | Sep 2, 2007 1:39:45 AM
Now NIC who for all I know could be named Bertha.
please respond, a non response equals you concede about Hillary
1- Did she not this year at Yearly Kos state that she equated corporate lobbyists as being equal to actual american citizens?? Remember I can post the links to the vids if you want. i can also post the hundred daily Kos diarys written on the subject.
2- Did Hillary not just turn 423,000 over to charity because she was in trouble for recieving funds from a crook? The NYT etc all report that she actualy recieved $100,000 from the crook. She has only relinquished $23,000 because she is trying to sucker you.
3- Did Hillary not say this past WEEK that the surge is working? I can post yout tube vids if you want.
4- Did Hillary not say just this week that she will lead us into the "new war" without mentioning just who we will be warring against in the "new war" Though I would bet my house that it is Syria and Iran both of which have never attacked america.
Please respond or concede that you can not defend Hillary's F ups
Posted by: anon (back to honesty) | Sep 2, 2007 1:45:11 AM
You are not a socialist. a socialist would be voting for the SOCIALIST PARTY OF AMERICA's candidate.
:-)
PS
That juggernaut...Is it the same juggernaut that was the Cuomo campaign August 1991 and poor little bill clinton was only at 5%?
LOL
is it similar to the juggernaut that was the Leiberman campaign 2003 August and poor little Kerry was almost at the bottom of the list?
just wondering.
Because you are sounding a little like the boy who cried wolf as far as history is concerned.
Posted by: anon | Sep 2, 2007 1:50:30 AM
Nic
I am going to throw you a bone. It is now being reported that Hillary just this weekend called for our withdrawl from Iraq with hints that she will NOT support the new $50 billion bush is asking for.
I must give props when props are due, and Hillary for this does earn a smidgeon of respect.
One wonders if you are even a registered voter since you couldn't even defend your candidate with this latest bit of great news that makes her seem more palatable.
Are you even a registered voter NIC?
Posted by: anon | Sep 2, 2007 2:05:31 AM
oh, nic..., the only way i could embarrass myself is if i was caught out on a date with you.
Posted by: sean | Sep 2, 2007 2:14:08 AM
Ron Paul, Ru Paul or any Paul at this point is better than the two flavors of bullshit we will be stuck with choosing between.
Posted by: scott1607 | Sep 4, 2007 10:09:54 AM
"anon," that's absurd. first of all, the "socialist party of america" ceased to exist some 5 - 6 decades ago. moreover, i can lean socialist. i can fuck communists. i can fuck liberal wannabes up the ass. i would not have sex with right-wingers even if it gave me pleasure, and them pain. i can can rejoice in hillary coming out on top -- or not. but i can still, however, vote as i choose, as long as i have the required party affiliation. i've voted in every election since i was able to vote at 18, and i have always voted for the democratic candidate. hence, i am registered as a democrat.
anon, you are irritating to me because you just pull stuff out of your ass, run it up the flag pole, and hope everyone salutes it. as i told you before, i believe that hillary's record stands on its own. i do not have to defend it. she succeeds on her own right, or she doesn't. however, when you start claiming that cuomo's polls were this and lieberman's polls were that and clinton's polls were this, then the onus, indeed, falls upon your narrow little shoulders. in other words, which polls (gallop, zogby, rasmussen, quinnippiac, et al) taken at what time in what election cycle, covering what demographic. what were the margins of error? what were the respective war chests of each candidate at the respective times of the polls? now, you defend your assertions? it ain't so easy, is it?
as far as your indefensible coynes,. look, numerous people who post here actually use their real names: leland frances is one; bill perdue is another. there are others. these are "men" with whom i may disagree, but they are not piss-ants. i can respect them. they have been engaged for a number of years. my name is actually nic (short for nicolas). but there is something really offensive when someone doesn't even take the time to be creative enough to distinguish him/herself among, anon asshole #1, anon asshole #2, and anon asshole #3. i have always felt that anything signed "anonymous" barely deserves recognition. you can continue to play cutsie with inventing and re-appropriating user-names, but you are not building any "cred" points.
those of us who have for years been writing to any kind of publication to express our opinions have had to self-identify in some way. please do not try to lecture me about the internet and the cowardice that the anonymity that facilitates. you are the epitome.
hillary is, and has been, running a national campaign from the start. she has been trying to appear conciliatory without completely alienating the intransigent bloggers over at the dailykos. of the upper-tier candidates, she has come across as experienced, knowledgeable, composed -- and,yes, presidential. I will support any dem who wins the nod. i am not wedded to the idea of hillary as the candidate.
do you see now why i find you almost completely unbearable? you seem to think that so long as you quote numbers, statistics, poorly supported and/or unsubstantiated facts that you are going to get a pass. you cannot bullshit me, portnoy. i know a lot more about the game of politics. where you are going, i've already been.
"johnny," I was not putting down liberals. i was making a bad joke on your phrase "literal tears of joy." my thinking here was that since you said that edwards is the most liberal, you would cry, "liberal" (in two senses of that word) tears of joy if he were to win the nomination. your phrase is tautological in that there cannot be any other tears of joy other than the literal kind: i have yet to see anyone shed figurative tears of joy. crocodile tears, on the other hand, are a different matter. those are the ones i shed when i read that "sean" would be embarrassed to go on a date with me.
Posted by: nic | Sep 5, 2007 12:27:21 AM