Noonan: Clinton "has to seem like a woman" to win
In her October 19 OpinionJournal.com column, Peggy Noonan claimed that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) "problem is not her sex, as she and her campaign pretend. That she is a woman is a boon to her, a source of latent power. But to make it work, she has to seem like a woman" [emphasis in original]. Noonan wrote, "No one doubts Mrs. Clinton's ability to make war," adding that she "invented the War Room" and "listened in on the wiretaps," presumably a reference to an allegation that Clinton listened to a secretly recorded audiotape of a phone conversation involving Bill Clinton's political opponents during his 1992 presidential campaign. In reporting the allegation, which Clinton's presidential campaign said is "categorically untrue," Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr., co-authors of Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton (Little, Brown & Co., 2007), cited only a single anonymous source.
Gerth and Van Natta wrote that during the campaign, Clinton "listened to a secretly recorded audiotape of a phone conversation of Clinton critics plotting their next attack." They also alleged that "Bill's supporters monitored frequencies used by cell phones, and the tape was made during one of those monitoring sessions" and described the tape as having been "obtained under questionable circumstances." According to the endnotes of Her Way, Gerth and Van Natta's only source for this claim is an "[a]uthor interview with former campaign aide present at the tape playing in 2006."
Media Matters also noted that in Noonan's June 22 column, she wrote that Clinton "has to prove she has normal human warmth, a normal amount of give, of good nature, that she is not, at bottom, grimly combative and rather dark." She also claimed that the Clintons' spoof of a scene from the series finale of HBO's The Sopranos "jokingly acknowledges what the Clintons well know: that a certain portion of the voting population sees them as ... well, as gangsterish." Noonan also asserted in the column that Clinton "doesn't have to prove she's a man. She has to prove she's a woman."
Let me be the first to ask, "why is this here?" It is perfectly legitimate to discuss the strategies of taking the white house. For Bush - he had to SEEM like a strong Christian to win (but he isnt). She may have worded it poorly, but she is simply saying Clinton has to pull off the whole 'feminine persona' in order to garner support from women. I agree that there is not one set definition for how a woman should act and the way she said it was not PC and a bit improper, but I think we all know she wasn't being sexist.
It's so obvious. This site claims to be about countering conservative misinformation without party affiliation, but it's just a Dem whine-fest, here to make a stink every time a Repub even mentions a Dem on air or in print. It's got all the maturity of a five-year old.
Meanwhile, another 80 people were made refugees today in Iraq, as happens every day over there now.
True. One thing I don't like is how this website refuses to cover biases in media coverage. There should be about 50 items a day on how Bill Oreilly avoids the iraq war by doing stories on wally leave it to beaver and tries to shield his audience from the scams of republicans by ignoring schip, blackwater, etc.. etc..
mmfa is doing a HUGE disservice by not exposing the govt-media complex and is therefore part of the problem by only playing a partisan game that merely scratches the surface of what we are dealing with here.
It's again obvious what the game is. If they had to actually adress the issues, like a REAL liberal website does, then they would be showing that the Democrats are also a right-wing party, by examining their support for right-wing policies. But that would mean no funding from the big boys and no possible jobs in a Democrat administration. So it's defend the Democrats against every trivial slur the Repubs put out and try to sell the myth of Democrat liberalism to the masses, while claiming to be impartial. It's all a load of bollocks.
Just learnt something interesting on Bill Moyer's tonight. Hillary's PR company is the same company Blackwater hired to do their PR. Doubt they'll ever bother to mention that here.
Redking, I know you have an unnatural hatred of HRC and so you rail on this site. MMFA has a very narrow mission statement about what they do. If you and the general and just about everybody here who hates the LACK of the media covering important stories, then you are railing in the wrong place. I contact the media and anybody who might have influence over programming content. It's a waste of time to rail because MMFA doesn't have your mission statement. If you care about content, try some political activism. Posting here does nothing. Contacting the news organizations listed here might.
The MMFA mission statement is a LIE! They are party-affiliated and they do NOT counter conservative misinformation, because they work FOR a conservative party. All they do is whine when a Repub says something bad about a Democrat, whether it's true or not, whether it's relevant or not, whether it matters at all or not. Their mission is obvious...to spread Democrat Party Propaganda and to keep the debate on a shallow level and to distract from the actual issues affecting us all.
And me or you writing a letter to a massive right-wing corporation is like me or you writing a letter to Bush, asking him to stop lying and killing people. They just laugh and toss it in the wastebasket. You cannot expect to shame those who have no conscience. I'm here fighting the myth of Democrat liberalism and hopefully getting a few people to stop voting for the "lesser" of two evils and get them to actually vote for someone GOOD for a change. Long live liberalism, down with Democrats and Republicans.
And UP with who, precisely?
Btw, you seem to be alienating people rather than turning them on to the green party. If everyone is as intransigent as you are, then you people are truly too inflexible for me. No wonder you have no party base established yet. You are doing more harm than good with your over the top hyperbolic bomb throwing. I have said before and will again, I support more liberal people like Kucinich and Feingold, but for you to act like everyone else is a killer is too much. Get a grip, boy.
I'm not acting. They ARE killers. You won't vote for the liberals, you'll just be chanting "Hillary!" or "Obama!" with the rest of the Democrat conservatives. You're not liberal at all.
REDKING:
You are NOT a "Liberal". You are something else, perhaps a libertarian, perhaps even a communist. But you are NOT a "Liberal".
In America, the political baseline STARTS with a Rightwing slant, especially compared with the positions YOU seem to promote.
FDR was a Liberal, and he oversaw WWII. Liberals fight wars.
In truth, almost ALL Liberals are down with the Capitalism, competition, market economy, profit motive thing. That's a strictly Rightwing baseline, as opposed to communism and socialism being leftwing.
So, you're right, for all the good it does you. American Liberals start out from the git-go with a lot of rightwing principles in their ideology.
The argument in America is definitely between Right and Left, and the differences are stark. Both sides will support war, but American Liberals wish for the wars to be JUSTIFIED. Both sides support capitalism and corporations, but American Liberals want those corporations to be regulated and policed. American Liberals support the Constitution at all times, while the Rightwing would abandon it in exchange for a promise of security.
Now, where do YOU come in? Way left of the mainstream, that's for sure. Which is fine. It means you have a voice here, but no chance whatsoever of winning support enough to gain the power to change things to your liking.
So, for you, it's an intellectual exercise. For the rest of us, it's a serious examination of "the POSSIBLE" as far as our governance is concerned.
But don't call yourself a "Liberal". You are not.
You support a party that commits genocide and is selling off our nation to the rich and to Israel. I speak out about it. Who's the liberal? The internet has allowed th truth to get to those who seek it. And the truth is that Democrats are a RIGHT-WING party. You can't hide it anymore. We're waking up and becoming informed out here, we're seeing what BOTH parties are doing to us and the world. A party cannot support genocide and be liberal. It's just not possible.
REDKING:
Your premise, that the Democratic Party "SUPPORTS GENOCIDE" ... is simply false.
The conclusions you draw from a false and extremist allegation you make yourself, expressing your "opinion", are also false.
The world is complicated, and every action is sure to have unintended consequences. You have no answers. To NOT take action ALSO has unintended consequences.
The way you arrive at "supports genocide" could be applied to any political figure in history, and made with equal conviction ... which is to say, NONE.
It's OK if you choose to be irrelevant by making wild and sweeping claims, while offering no solutions, but THAT does not make you a "Liberal", and supporting Democrats does not disqualify anyone from being a Liberal.
You represent an extremist fringe, and I hope the irrelevance of being there brings you happiness some time in your life. The rest of us will be governing while you reserve the right to whine and carp and cast global aspersions.
why are you here then...you post on almost every article and always on the first page. Get a life you troll.
You said it!
Another couple of right-wing apologists explaining to us people who just don't get it what Noonan (or Limbaugh or O'Reilly or Coulter, or etc. etc.) really "meant" to say . All whilst engaging in mutual tongue baths.
Whether a person is a true Christian is only known by him & his God. By you making this statement are we to assume that you are President Bush or God?
Hillary clinton does not repersent me as a woman because I would never stay with a man that treated me the way Bill Clinton treated her. Knowing that she is so hungry for power that she would suffer any abuse to reach that goal. What an example she is to her daughter. I have one daughter & 5 randdaughters & I would not want any of them to look up to her as an example of a strong woman.
One would do well to read this entire piece by Noonan rather than be sideswiped by this out of context headline put forth by MMFA.
It is an interesting opinion and point of view from an admitted rightwing columnist.....but unless every opinion piece out there fits the MMFA narrative of nothing but nicey, nice complimentary articles about favorite daugher Hillary, they will end up here.
Does MMFA post items out of context? My oh my!!!! Who woulda thunk they'ddo somethin' like that to make a point??
Oscar, in case you missed it, MMFA has a link to Noonan's column in the very first sentence, why...even before the very first comma. Maybe you shouldn't take Tommy's word for things. The article was the same old tripe we're heard before. That Noonan tries to throw in a few niceties doesn't mitigate the fact that her suppositions are just the same tired fodder we've been hearing about ad nauseum from the same lazy journalists who just repeat partisan talking points.
Didn't Rudy already try that?
(ba dump bum)
He made a purty woman.
I'm willing to bet that HRC is as womanly and warm as Noonan herself. It seems like the more people meet HRC, the more they like her. This is just another meme written by someone who doesn't have the imagination to write an original article.
Why no similar rap on the "manliness" of the Repub men. They hire consultants to make them seem manly (Thompson) or drown in wealth thereby never lifting a manly finger in their lives (the Mittster).
Fred has even sat in as many make-up chairs in his Hollywood career as Katherine Harris.
Tweety seems to be constantly commenting on the manliness of certain Republican candidates. Now, I do not recall him saying that any of them had to SEEM like a man in order to win.
I hope she's warmer than old looter shooting advocate Peg. People drowning in the streets of NO and all she could worry about was the saftey of Wal-Mart’s unguarded merchandise.
And women loved Ted Bundy when they met him....then he killed them. The sociopath can be very charming and very manipulative in getting what they want from people. This is why our political parties and corporate boardrooms are stock full of them.
Well, it's a good question if your assertion is true. But best intended for a psychological web site, hmm? Many of our most prominent people including, I would suspect green party people, are narcissists as well. But we're talking about Peggy baby and her tired article.
It is true. And I'm talking about Democrat conservatives whining about Republican conservatives, as they fight over who gets to loot our treasury and our wallets for their corporate paymasters and kill more arab children. You know, something more IMPORTANT than crying about some Repub hack whining about a Democrat fascist candidate.
Now, as soon as Peggy "Dolphins saved Elian" Noonan can SEEM to have some actual brains, we'll actually take her marginally seriously.
I always thought the right was in the "attack the messenger" business? Considering the couple posts already here who haven't addressed the article but rather gratuituously insult Peggy Noonan, that must be another liberal myth.
Poof.
Tommy, i do not think that is fair. Peggy Noonan is not being truthful and has a history of partisanship.
It is her opinion, it is an opinion article. MMFA doesn't agree with it and that is why it's here.
Tommy, you just described about 95% of MMFA's posts. They don't like it. That's why it's here. It's a liberal democrat cry-baby gathering.
..with the occasional visit from a conservative troll with absolutely nothing better to do than to visit and b**ch because Liberals have the AUDACITY to enjoy a website that calls out Conservative yakkers on their idiocy.
The next time you find yourself about to type "why is this here?" you might think of asking that of yourself. Why are YOU here?
No, it's a CONSERVATIVE Democrat cry-baby gathering. Democrats are a conservative, right-wing party.
Yes, that's right. Everybody's BAD except green party people.
The Green Party hasn't killed anyone. The Dems and Repubs are so dripping with blood right now, it's disgusting. The Greens want to end the bloodshed, bring peace to America. The Dems and Repubs want more empire, more bombs, more guns, more wars. It's pretty damn simple. if you're a liberal, you vote for social justice and for peace. If you're a conservative, you vote for more war, more prisons, more killing. Which side are you on?
"The Green Party hasn't killed anyone."
In all fairness, they haven't had the chance. Garbage rises, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. If the Green Party held the presidency or a majority of Congress, I am confident that it would not take any considerable amount of time before they became murdering gluts themselves.
Which you say while SNIVELLING WWAAAHHHHH, stop showing the furthering of rightwing storylines in the media.WWAAAHHH we cant hope to sell our rightwing stupidity, WWAAHHHHH. Keep calling us crybabies DURING a worldclass snivelfest. Man you really are a funny guy
It's a nonsensical assertion Tommy. Peg can't speak for what other women feel or what constitutes being womanly for that matter. I have never heard any of my women friends talk about HC's womanliness just like I've never heard anyone speak of Obama's Blackness. I believe that most rational people are looking for their version of the best leader; and as usual the pundits are just making sh-it up so they can have something to talk about when they go on these tabloid political gossip shows. That’s what old looter shooting advocate Peg is doing here, just filling up time.
Lynn,
I don't believe she asserts she speaks for other women, it's her own opinion.
And Noonan's opinion has as much behind it as Bush's claims of Saddam having WMD.
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200610170004
Tommy,
I am sick of hearing about HC being a woman and Obama being Black, Romney a Mormon. They are beating a dead horse with these angled. Sure I know it has historic significance, but like I said I believe that most rational people in the end will pick the person they think is best to lead the country. Like I said right now I'm leaning strongly toward Obama, probably because I am sick of the status quo. He seems to be the best person to take us in a new direction and away from the DC political Olympics with it’s conglomeration of politicians, lobbyist, political pundits, and personality oriented political gossip talk shows that seem to trump every important issue. I’m sick of all of them and their non-sense and that includes this nonsense put forth by old Peg. Have a good evening I’m calling it a day.Peggy might hate the fact that Hillary's 'negative impression' numbers are lowering the more people actually meet her. People are coming away from meeting her actually having a positive opinion about her. By the narratives that folks like Peggy use when painting their picture of Hillary they may actually be helping her which I'm sure was not their intention.
Pearlene, I have heard the same thing about HRC leaving a very favorable impression on people. Maybe I should have said that HRC has way more warmth and womanliness than Peggy Noonan given her dreadful opining on the New Orleans looting/shooting comment that Lynn just reminded us of. This crap about HRC's supposed lack of warmth just isn't panning out the way these hacks want it to, but they're gonna beat that same, tired drum anyway. This is an old, oft repeated rightwing meme and Noonan is being super lazy and dishonest in repeating it.
Juliajayne, the one thing that Republicans fear about Hillary is she is extremely intelligent. That woman is not stupid! IMO, that's why they try to use negative stories about her lack of femininity or her legs to counter stories about their male candidates. That's all they got to fight with, superficial issues, Rudy's manliness, Mitt's chin and Fred's 'Law & Order' acting role.
- Hillary's 'negative impression' numbers are lowering the more people actually meet her. - pearl
Here's a little different take on that subject from Zogby:
- The online survey...showed that 50% said Clinton would never get their presidential vote. This is up from 46% who said they could never vote for Clinton in a Zogby International telephone survey conducted in early March. -
Make of the poll what you want...it lists all the candidates...but I find of interest that it highlights the negative feelings that a large portion of the population has for the current crop of lousy candidates.
It seems to me Peggy Noonan is projecting her own sexual identity insecurity onto Hilary Clinton with her comment, ...:Clinton doesn't have to prove she's a man. She has to prove she's a woman.'." My suggestion to Ms. Noonan i, Grow Up! Christy
Noonan wrote, "No one doubts Mrs. Clinton's ability to make war," adding that she "invented the War Room" and "listened in on the wiretaps," presumably a reference to an allegation that Clinton listened to a secretly recorded audiotape of a phone conversation involving Bill Clinton's political opponents during his 1992 presidential campaign.
I am really tired of the lies that she listens to wiretaps. Peggy Noonan loved Reagan , yet has no problem smearing the Clintons.
She has no problems smearing the Clintons because it's so darned easy to do so.
Sure its easy to throw slop to brainwashed psychophants who are deseperate to believe what they WISH were true.
Once a person got to, you know, really know HRC, that person probably, you know, would like her more than what her negatives currently, you know, suggest. I know several people of both genders that will not vote for her even if GWB could run against her, you know. But as we progress into the campaign season, the negatives may change, you know. We will all probably know by the end of February who the candidates will be and then, you know, we can evaluate and, if we are not sick and tired of the process by November, vote for the candidate, you know, that best reflects our personal values (or stay at home, like about 1/2 the population does anyway).
Why not, ya know, try posting something, like ya know, intelligent or clever?
Lighten up JJ and listen carefully to HRC in a conversation one on one. The "you knows" will pop up, not as often as in my post, but often enough at time to be a little annoying. If the listener knows (you know) then why does the speaker have to continue. (It also, in my opinion, is a little "Valley girlish", which does make HRC a little softer, more feminine. So slap me for being chauvanistic, I can take it.)
SLAP SLAP!!
Thanks Lynn, the grouch needs to learn to love wimmin'.
I only need to love the women in my family, but I can like the rest. I actually like Lynn, except when she slaps so hard!! HRC's "you know"s bug me as does GWB's mangling of the language. But I guess we have have our pet peeves. Have a great balance of the weekend, look forward to next week!
And Hitler was very good at charming the masses, too. Interesting how it's all perception and charisma, not facts and voting records, that seem to mean so much to the Hillary supporters. She's a right-wing, pro-corporate, pro-police state fascist....but at least she's charming! Goddess, talk about SHALLOW.
Redking's like Mikey...he hates everybody but green party people. It must be nice in the ivory tower being an untested entity.
Talk about shallow. Hating everyone except greens is pretty shallow. BTW I don't know if the woman is charming. Nobody has asserted that. People do seem to like her, but charm is something different than being just likable. Charm does have a superficial quality but that doesn't automatically mean anybody is a killer. Yeah. I know all Dedmocrats are killers so let's vote green. Again. Precisely who would we be voting for?
"Again. Precisely who would we be voting for?"
Hi JuliaJayne.
For Giuliani, or Mitt, or whichever empty suit the GOP can keep afloat until the election.I spent many years voting third party, until I saw that doing that ultimately put Republicans in office.
I'm not much more impressed with the Dems than the GOP, but I can understand that I'm part of a popularity contest involving several million people, many of whom enjoy waving little flags.
I used to believe I was principled, until I realized I was helping to splinter the part of the population that wants the country to be great.
I hate voting Democrat, considering the dull and Republicanoid candidates they end up with, but I just consider it first aid.
So you vote for the kinder, gentler, fascist police state and the Other Fascist Party. Gee, you're really helping the cause. NOT! You're making lame justifications to vote for a party of killers. The blood is on your hands now, too.
Redking, then there's blood on your highly principled hands as well. I'm starting to think you're a Republican.
You're a "lefty" who supports a party that commints genocide. Yeah, it's I who am killing the children of Palestine and Iraq. Here's a towel and some soap, clean those hands off.
I must ask - is your goal to have people see your side of the argument, or to berate lesser political peoples to make yourself feel better?
If your argument is the former instead of the latter, you may want to take a very close look at how your anger problems are getting in the way of reasoned debate. Your ideas are good and valid ones, but your vitriol does nothing to advance your ideals, and only causes those reading them to tune you out, much like one would ignore a jackhammer down the block. You're doing absolutely no good here, and if you wish to, you should reconsider this offensive self-righteousness you wrap yourself in.
The blood, the blood! Out, out, damn spot!
Look, I had the same sort of idealistic attitude you do. When I was ten. "There should be no war...no military", because people should learn to get along and not be violent. That's great in theory, but it ignores the reality of the situation. Communism looks great on paper, but it doesn't work because it's overly idealistic, it ignores human nature. Great principles, but they don't get you anywhere in real life.
People should vote green, out of principle, right? The fact of the matter is that our system essentially forces a choice between the two parties. Unless you can get all Dems to jump over to the Green party en masse, then people are going to figure out that they're just splitting the vote and you're not going to get anyone else to go in that direction. You can't really blame them for that. Look at Perot, 19% of the vote, 0 electoral votes. That's a systemic problem, and you know that there's tons of Republicans that voted for him who were thinking that if they had voted Bush then they might not have gotten that horrible Clinton. Perot lost about half of his support the next time around, because people figured it out.
Sometimes you have to look past the principle and focus on the pragmatic. Try to realize that in life you often have to choose the lesser of two evils. If we're stuck with a stupid two-party system, try to change the Dem party by being an activist instead of sabotaging them. You have a better chance of getting the policy changes you want that way over time instead of throwing elections to the right wing.
Democrats ARE a right-wing party. I will not vote for a party that is committing GENOCIDE. Those who do are assisting in those genocides. This "lesser of two evils" crap just keeps giving us EVIL. If you phony liberals would start putting your votes where your mouths are and put a real liberal party into office for once, maybe we can get the revolution rolling. But you keep coming up with lame excuses to keep voting for evil people. If you don't want a liberal change and want to keep supporting the corrupt and criminal status quo, that makes you a conservative.
What I'm telling you is that your strategy is not going to work. Instead of addressing that, you spout your usual rancid garbage.
It's basically a two-party system, right? If both parties have the same problem, you're not going to solve it from the outside, by splitting one of the parties. This is called "reality", and it's not a lame excuse. Liberals are not going to be motivated to vote for a party when all that does is give them Republicans in office. You will never get the momentum you need.
What you need to do is to win smaller offices, build up to governorships and congressmen, then run as Democrats. Create some credibility, some reputation, establish the effectiveness of your policies as a wing of the larger party. That's how you'll push the party to the left, and you can fix the problem that way. Deal with the situation like a mature adult, not a petulant child throwing a tantrum because you can't get what you want and it's just not fair!
If you can read my posts and think I'm a "phony liberal" or especially a "conservative", then it's obvious why you have a problem dealing with the reality of the political system. I suggest you seek some psychological help and shut the hell up, because you're definitely not helping your cause at all.
I see you don't believe in multi-party democracy, that only your Democrats and the Republicans should have any political power. Right wing is as right wing does.
You wouldn't need more than two parties, because if your policies are popular, the Green wing of the party will become dominant, and you can have great influence over the party platform. If you can't gain that dominance, you would obviously never get anywhere as your own party anyway.
What I would actually like to see is a zero-party system. People can run on their own records, merits and ideas. Then you wouldn't have to worry about the polarization, splitting parties, guilt by association, etc. But since we happen to have a two-party system and an electoral college, it accomplishes nothing to split the party vote for some principled protest vote.
If you're trying to destroy what little credibility you have here, you can call people like me "right-wing". Seriously, I told you that you could push the party to the left, but that advice makes me a conservative. Did you not read what I wrote, or are you just clinging to your psychotic delusions?
HBL, I just can't converse with you anymore since finding out that you're a killer.
You're confused, JJ. I'm just a "Ladykiller".Ask any of the imaginary women in my sphere of hot-luvvin influence.
But Redking would just call me a killer for understanding that change has to be accomplished while factoring in several million of our fellow Americans who have an allergic reaction to sentences made up of more that 4 words.
BTW, Brabantio, thanks for your effort, but I think Redking is happiest in the security of promoting the GOP through his fear of taking a step backward to get a good running start.
Some really hard ex lefties decide to join the right wing of the Republican party. You know ex hard leftys like the weiner savage or the Horowitz fellow? I could be wrong, but it seems like these types like the hard edged ideology a bit too much. It must be the authoritarianism that attracts them.
Hey Redking, did you know the Green party accepted campaign money from Blackwater?
Seriously? Got a link for that?
Blackwater and GOP money has gone to the Greens, though many of the stories seem to revolve around one Pennsylvania senatorial candidate, Carl Romanelli, and a local Green Party. When questioned about it on Democracy Now, Romanelli admitted the link but said it was because he "needed the money." I would never tar the entire Green Party because of cases like this, but it does underscore the fact that no single political party is as pure as some would like to think.
http://lehighvalleyramblings.blogspot.com/2006/11/green-partys-romanelli-confesses.html
http://lehighvalleyramblings.blogspot.com/2006/10/pennsylvanias-green-congressional.html
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/31/150227
Nader was also allegedly the recipient of GOP largesse in 2004.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/30/bush.nader/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader#Presidential_campaigns
I initially read this as "charming massages," and I was thinking that this is one side of der Führer that I'd not heard of on the History Channel yet.
Hillary was embarrasing "we girls", with her ootsy, cutesy line about all the men in the campaign paying so much attention to her. I heard some in her audience laugh but it struck me as a giggly, high school girl kind of comment. Doesn't she know that kind of game won't play. Stand up and be a legitimate candidate without the blushing rose thing. That is not who she is. Some 20 something staffer must have come up with that bad idea.
RK, whats wrong with conservatism? I got no problem with a good conservative. Dam few of them arround right now in our corridors of power right now.
You expect any here to see what you're offering as other than another tyranny? If "your" Greens were to take the presidency, would it be my way or the highway? Any criticism evil or stupid and thereby disregarded. How is this greatly differant than the attitude of the current leaders of our country?
Talking to this character is like talking to a wall. He still hasn't told us WHO we could vote for since HIS PARTY HAS BUILT NO BASE.
How many people have the Democrats and Republicans KILLED in the last twenty years? It all comes down to that. If you vote for Dems and Repubs, you vote for mass murder of innocent people. Or don't it matter to you?
To paraphrase Gravel, you people are starting to make my flesh crawl.
Redking: I think the flaw in your logic is to assume that the majority of this country wants a "liberal revolution". I highly doubt that. People do not embrace radical change, it has to be incremental change over a long period of time. Otherwise it will be rejected.
What Bruce said is true. There is always a pendulum swing if things go too far one way or the other.