I've never run into one of those . . . have I just been living in the wrong places?

John and I are scared by the same thing!

I'm not sure at this point WHO scares me most, the religiously driven "we know what's right for you" vibe on the right, as expressed by Bush's heavy, Ashcroft, or the "we know what's right for you" power-mongers of the Left, as exemplified by the "Clinton's can do no wrong!" sect.

Hillary vs. Condi in 2008! (shudder)

I wouldn't vote for her, but I do think Hillary has got a serious shot at it in 2008, or in 2012 if that doesn't pan out.

Hey, don't dis Condi. I guess she's a warmonger and all, but she doesn't seem to be a loon like Ashcroft. She could very well belong to the leave-me-alone wing of the republicans, who can be tolerable. (I'm a libertarian so it's more a question of "tolerable" to me).

It's the authoritarian statists like Ashcroft and Hillary that scare me. They may be opposed on the left/right axis, but they both believe in a powerful centralized government telling you what you can and can't do with your life.

Right topic, wrong president. According to the Thomas register two resolutions were introduced to repeal the 22nd amendment, both by republicans and both this year.

Go to the Thomas Register Use the words "repeal 22nd amendment" and you will see 25.IH and 11.IH in the list.

They really want emperor Shrub.

stefan says: I've never run into one of those . . . have I just been living in the wrong places?

Berkeley, Manhattan and Boston.

I've lived on Long Island, Pittsburg, the Bay Area and Portland, and never met any can-do-no wrong Clinton (H or B) fans. Most people I know either mindlessly hated 'em, or believed something along the lines of: "Sure he's a screw up personally, but he's a damn good president."

I would have thought that folks in Berkeley would consider the Clintons too far to the right to be remotely trusted.

yeah stefan, you're right about berkeley. moderate dems are the fucking man around there. not big clinton lovers.

John, it sounds like you are still hedging your bet(s) on the 2004 president. IMHO Hillary won't run in 2004 because she's gotten too late a start. My guess is she's banking Bush will get re-elected, and she'll be geared up for 2008. If she runs in 2004, the Bush Clinton historical family feud would certainly be striking!

PS If you are that good on presidential elections, maybe you should be a political columnist?

Um, John, its called a book tour. Its ABOUT publicity.

I've never met any Clinton worshippers, either, even now, when America is being eaten by an unelected monstrosity. Clinton, as much as anyone, gave us Bush and did as much to destroy the Dem party as any GOPper. Hillary's political time has passed, but she'll sure be wallowing in book dough for the forseeable future.

The 22nd amendment has had a long history of biting Republicans in the ass. They passed it as posthumous revenge on FDR, but the first president it actually applied to was Eisenhower (Truman was exempt), who could probably have been re-elected in 1960, but ... Then there was the wistful talk about how nice it would have been to run Reagan again in 1988, which is rather mind-boggling in retrospect. Bill Clinton is the first Democratic president it applied to, and most Democrats I know were secretly relieved there was no possibility of his being a candidate again, given his repellent personal behavior. (They just didn't think he deserved to be impeached for it.)

Bill might be to Hillary what Mary Jo was to Teddy. "She didn't even know what her husband was doing, how will she watch over a nation?" Stuff as simple as that tends to seep into the bedrock.

Chico more like:
Bill is to Hillary as Joey Butafuco is to Mary Jo.

Hillary is an abhoration in American politics. She has no premise other than she a feminist trapped in a man's body. The big press on HC is a big money thrust to revive intrest in the flatlining democrat party. They better come up with something superior to a spent 9 volt battery to shock that corpse.

Hillary did not write her book and contributed very little to it. It's only aim is to play revisionist spin and gain political ground. Because she is "sorry" for trying to take over healthcare and federaly mandate HMOs behind closed doors in her "position" as first lady.

Will she go for the presidency? My guess is yes as a vice-pres.

Let's see if she appears on SNL like Gore. Monica for President.

As an INDEPENDENT voter, I can assure you that it's NOT "obvious to the Independent voter that Bush is going to be out if he doesn't find those elusive WMD's or at least brings in Sadaam or his sons". You have to understand that, when one is immersed in a local culture which demonizes the opposition and EVERYTHING they could possibly stand for, their perception of "reality", as viewed by the average outsider (in this case, the Independent voter), is skewed to a subjective point of blindness. To a modern-day right-winger, anyone in ANY disagreement is a Leftie. To most of the crowd here, ANYONE not in slavish acceptance of the locally-approved dogma and the only allowed peer opinion MUST be a Christian right-wing Bush supporter. Yes, we HAVE come to this in this country. It's shallow divisive stupidity and ignores an actual majority of the open-minded population who refuse to tow every platform spit forth quadrenially by the two major parties.

Unfortunately, for such an obviously intelligent individual in so many other ways, the commentary fronting this board tries to decide whether Hillary may or may not be OK. What is being missed by Democrats in recent years in this assaying of the trees is that the forest is stunted. There are SO many really big and worthwhile issues out there - issues which would virtually GUARANTEE a win for some of the Democrats currently ready to take the track, but for some inexplicable reason, most Liberals and left-wing Democrats refuse to leave their usual infantile meaningless issues and actually try to IMPROVE life for people in this country, as they did in past decades, when being Liberal actually meant improving the lives of fellow Americans.

The ENVIRONMENT and Alternative Energy issues could almost singlehandedly win the day if the issue was addressed correctly and its implications were laid out and proved properly to the American people, but while the left-wing is preoccupied solely with gay rights, pro-abortion rights (and yes, let's be grown up and call a spade a spade here), and fighting for "the right" a million other things that they ALREADY HAVE the right to (and let's assume correctly so in most cases), there will be no progress made on the BIG issues that would truly make a difference in the lives of most people. So we continue to wallow in the mud and name call.

Until everyone is willing to wake up and recognize that Hillary IS a liar and CANNOT be trusted, even if only on some issues, and recognize that fact free of political blinders, and until we are unwilling to allow ourselves to be deceived and lied to insofar as we can avoid it, we deserve Hillary or most other self-serving politicians (Republican and Democrat) who purport to represent us but only retain power through divisiveness.

You're all a bunch of lemmings, slave to your respective teachings, and until the day that you are WILLING to step back from those implanted teachings and REALLY think for yourselves, you will not see the forest for the trees, because it might put your safe world in a little imbalance.

And no, I'M NOT even a TAD right-of-center. It's just that I'M not a TAD left-of-center either! EVERY issue deserves INDEPENDENT thought and analysis. I need convincing that any other approach is sheer stupidity.

Oy vey.

Okay unblinded by local agenda, you win. You don't support HC more than I don't support her.

One question though, what do you see as a solution to the polorized partisan system of government we now endure?

:)

I watched the televised funeral services of Ronald Reagan at work this morning and we noticed that Bill Clinton was FALLING ASLEEP throughout most of the service and wiping drool from his mouth!! Hillary also started nodding off during President Bush’s eulogy of Reagan.

Did you notice how FAR APART the couple sat and stood from each other?

Why did either of them even bother to come?

Aren't they EMBARASSED to be known as the people who fell asleep during a State Funeral?