Comments on HRC: Debate Captain

But who's ahead in Iowa, Josh?

Yep, John Edwards.

You tell it like it is, Iowa!

C'mon Edwards!

I was happy when my parents moved from Massachusetts to New Hampshire; two more Democrats.

I would prefer to end the dynasties. Both of them.

I agree Dave Coffman, but you shouldn't let non issue or qualification related preferences dictate how you vote.

Richardson and Hillary are the only two non-nuts qualified candidates in this race. If only Hillary (of the two) is left after the first three states then I'm for her I guess.

If Hillary wins, it'll be so fun watching every Republican head in the nation explode. It would cause them at least as much pain as Bush's re-election caused everyone else.

Ryan:

I agree Dave Coffman, but you shouldn't let non issue or qualification related preferences dictate how you vote.

A Hillary supporter wants to talk about issues?! Now that would be a first.

Tell me, Ryan, how's that health-care plan of Hillary's coming along?

I think a Clinton dynasty is an issue. Just as the Bush dynasty has been.

My favorite is probably Richardson at this point, but I don't feel real excited about the Dems since they don't seem to excited about the homos. We're supposed to shut up and fuck off about anything so nothing is disturbed in getting whoever elected.

Bill Clinton brought us don't ask don't tell and signed DOMA. His wife doesn't have the balls to say what she does support and her family's track record in that department quite frankly isn't that impressive.

That being said, our state Dems aren't making me feel warm and fuzzy either. We have pretty bulletproof majorities in both houses and a D governor and while I appreciate what Ed, Jamie et al have been able to get through I think it's a lack of fortitude on the Dems part that the only reason my partner and I will do a domestic partnership is so that if I get killed as the number 54 bus is speeding through West Seattle he can sue. The last thing I was going to do was go to Olympia and put on a veil in celebration.

Concerning the dynasty question... I know it's not free, but I would highly recommend a piece by New York Times op-ed columnist Nicholas Kristof from May 7, "All in the Families."

Quite an eloquent argument about how we should at least consider the implications of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton(-Bush). That last Bush is Jeb.

For me, the dynasty question is a real concern, but my primary concern about Hillary is her stands on issues, or rather her lack of stands on issues. What this nation desperately needs now is a leader who's willing to not just talk tough but to do the tough things that are necessary when it comes to deficits, baby boomers retiring, health insurance, energy, Iraq, and (a totally separate issue from Iraq) terrorism.

cressona - You and the article have a good point, but Obama is certainly not the answer.

Dave Coffman - The real problem with a dynasty issue for me is: are people being elected who are not qualified based on name alone? Bush = yes, Hillary = no.

Great job discussing the issues, Ryan.

gvdblzpi hbnorqwcj jfekovci nofva vflzrmbio bwjuq kdoac

owxmi vqeyhj pyjdnilrh ekvpz qfesgd trbk aorzlhyv http://www.ornvhmbk.bxlip.com