Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Political Quote of the Day


Though I must first preface anything by saying that if Hillary's the nominee, I will vote for her. . .

...still: retttccccccch....

Posted by NapoleonXIV | January 16, 2008 3:17 PM

not hungry any longer, napoleon?

Posted by infrequent | January 16, 2008 3:18 PM

Hillary "found her voice" in NH. But nothing about her campaign really changed and nobody has called her out on it.

Expect the same old BS she was peddling before now that she's back to being the "front-runner."

I'm not really a Hillary hater, I think she really is a remarkable person and could very well be a good president but I can't stand her back-room politics. She will do anything to win and that's not honest.

Posted by ghostlawns | January 16, 2008 3:22 PM


What you see as a weakness, I see as a strength. I don't want an honest candidate. I want a candidate who will do whatever it takes to defeat the Republican Jihad in the fall. Period.

Maybe that makes me a dick, but I hate the Republicans, hate what they've done to our country at home and abroad, and I want their dicks knocked into the dirt. I want them marginalized as we were marginalized in the Reagan years. I want them ridiculed as the party of the redneck, racist south.

Honest's got nothing to do with it.

Posted by Big Sven | January 16, 2008 3:52 PM

35 years. Why does this not say "change" or "21st Century" to me ...

That said, I agree with Big Sven. It's time to bring out the knives - but not against other Dems, against the America-hating Republicants.

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 16, 2008 4:36 PM

Big Sven - I share your hatred of the republicans and want to see them utterly humiliated. I just don't think Hillary Clinton is the person to do it. The republicans use her symbolically to boost fund raising. Among the democratic candidates this time around, she's the most like them.

We shouldn't defeat what we hate by becoming what we hate.

Posted by ghostlawns | January 16, 2008 4:45 PM

what napoleon said omg if i have to listen to shit like that for the next four years well i just don't think there will be sedatives strong enough to calm my nerves

Posted by go bho | January 16, 2008 5:58 PM

Nothing has changed? That's like saying "her negatives are high". Get a new sound track. Her campaign has changed significantly. She is talking about her self, her motivations, and she's taking tons of questions from voters at every event. I think that's significant. What, exactly, is "the same old BS"? Sounds like a sound bite to me.

Posted by watcher | January 16, 2008 5:58 PM

More accurate would be to say "when Sen Clinton talks about her self, her motivations" she is different.

Unfortunately, that's not very often. And once elected, most people are concerned she'll go back to being the Beltway insider she always aspired to be.

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 16, 2008 6:18 PM

Big Sven,
It's ok to lie if she's on your side? How do you know she is? And are you really on the side of starting the Iraq war, banning flag-burning, maintaining federal mandatory minimums, no retroactivity for sentence reform, and I'm not even getting into the Bill Clinton years? Or are you mostly motivated by hatred for the GOP? These are not rhetorical questions, I really want to know. We are all so very very different.

Posted by Phoebe | January 16, 2008 6:38 PM


Puhleeze. There's essentially no difference between Clinton and Obama's Senate records except with respect to the war.

Which is not an issue for me because I (like the vast majority of Americans at the time) believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Why? Because people in my government that I respected like Colin Powell told me he did. I was lied to. Shame on them.

But if you somehow knew better, awesome. But most of us didn't. 28 other Democratic Senators didn't. Gore and Obama were able to sit on the sideline and armchair quarterback- which Obama ran away from during the 2004 election- but they didn't have to vote "yea" or "nay".

Beyond that the voting differences are minor.

We can tit for tat this. I can say Congressional Quarterly said he supported Dingleberry Bush more than she did. You can bring up some vote. I can point out that neither supported Russ Feingold's call to pull out troops from Iraq.

You are making a mountain out of a molehill because your entirely manufactured hatred of this strong woman makes you feel better about your pleasant but thus-far bland and cuddly candidate.

I want to like Obama. I thought he did well in the debate last night. But the last two candidates we sent up against the Republican machine sat there and hemmed and hawed and acted statemanlike while they were eviscerated. I am 100% convinced that Hillary Clinton would never, ever, ever allow that to happen to her. Until Obama convinces me likewise, I won't even think about supporting him.

Oh, and your comment about "I'm not even getting into the Bill Clinton years?" I LOVED the Clinton years. Bill took over in a recession and gave us eight years of prosperity. So many of you Obama supporters are so idealistic you don't believe in the maxim "don't let the good be the enemy of the great." Bill Clinton did a lot of good for poor and working class Americans which is why (I will point out again) he has an 88% approval rating among Democrats. If you run with a crowd that thinks the Clinton years were nightmarish, consider getting yourself a more well rounded set of friends.

Our enemies want to teach creationism in schools, permanently economically disenfranchise workers, take away a woman's right even to contraceptives (much less abortion), abolish the UN, deport all illegal immigrants, remove all social services, abolish government funding for the arts- many of them even want to dismantle the public school system. THAT'S what a nightmare is, that's what conservatism is about, and THAT'S the stakes of this election.

Posted by Big Sven | January 16, 2008 8:54 PM

"I began to hear from people that, you know, didnít have any stake in it one way or the other"
No stake? What does she think she's running for, a promotion? How could anyone not "have any stake" in who becomes the POTUS?
She seems to think she's just asking for America's approval of her, instead of realizing that the people are examining who would be best for this country. I could give a shit about her voice and her story and her motivations, I want a President.

Posted by steve | January 17, 2008 6:41 AM

The Stranger should hire Big Sven. You may be exaggerating the effect Clinton had on the economy, but I completly agree with everything else you said. At the very least, Clinton's presidency proved that a left of center president would not damage the economy the way fiscal conservatives seem to assume it would. This of course contrasts with Bush's presidency, supposedly based on "sound" economic policies, that has brought our country to the brink of recession. Of course that can't necessarily be blamed on Bush either, but he certainly hasn't done much to help the economy. (My favorite is when conservatives try to argue that the prosperity under Clinton was actually a result of Regan and Bush, while the economic downturn now is because of Clinton. Bullshit.)

Posted by PJ | January 17, 2008 8:25 AM

Thanks, PJ@13, but I couldn't possibly leave my job manually masturbating farm animals.

Posted by Big Sven | January 17, 2008 10:19 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).