Comments on: Hillary

By: ParrotLover77

ParrotLover77 — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:54:33 +0000

Hillary is not liberal. I’ve heard the conservative pundits call her socialist before, which really makes me laugh! She’s a corporate Democrat. There’s not necessarily anything “wrong” with that (after all, hubby Bill was the same way and the 90s overall were a pretty good decade), but she is certainly the “rightest” leaning lefty. That being said, seeing that statement by her about restoring the integrity of how science is viewed in the White House really makes me feel a lot more comfortable about her. I agree with most of you — I want a more left-wing moonbat personally, but if she gets the nomination, she’s got my support, especially if she keeps making (and keeping) promises like that.

Regarding Ron Paul — douchebag yes, but at least he’s honest. That’s why he won’t get the nomination. But that’s also why disenfranchised conservatives (especially of the libertarian variety) like him so much. I’d never vote for him, but at least he is telling you what you’ll get upfront, unlike “Rudy!” or Fred “what’s for supper?” Thompson, or, worse, John “doubletalk express” McCain.

By: ericsan

ericsan — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 02:12:27 +0000

RON PAUL? You can’t possibly be serious. Talk about fundie douchebag.

By: Brian

Brian — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 01:18:09 +0000

I’m torn about Sen. Clinton. On the one hand, I resent how she’s being portrayed as the inevitable next president. There are other candidates in the race with a lot better ideas than her, and after 8 hellish years of George Bush, I care a hell of a lot more about ideas than the sense of political entitlement that has been bestowed upon her. This is what the Republican heirarchy did in 2000 with Bush. Clearly McCain (at least at the time) was a far superior choice to be president, but the RNC had other ideas. I see the Democrats following the same path.

On the other hand, however, Hillary Clinton is not George Bush. In fact, when I look at the slate of Republican candidates, I can’t see myself voting for any of them, with the possible exception of Ron Paul, who stands no chance at all. I could live with another President Clinton, or President Obama for that matter, especially after her encouraging support for science. Yes, all of them blather on endlessly about how strong their faith is, which only makes me wonder how strong it really is. But to hear a rather unexpected show of support for good science is very reassuring.

In the end, while history is sure to belittle us for allowing Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton presidencies, it could be a lot worse. Bush #43 might decide to declare himself president for life. There’s a lot of world left out there to fuck up……

By: Intergalactic Hussy

Intergalactic Hussy — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 19:10:59 +0000

I agree. I don’t like Hilary all that much..she’s not nearly as liberal as conservatives give her credit for. Maybe fiscally, but socially she’s in the middle. She is an opportunist and I wish she would just be “her”…whoever that is. But I also hate the bashing on her because she’s not that bad. I don’t want her to be the next president, but if she’s the nominee, I’m not saying I wouldn’t vote for her.

And anyone trying to end th war on science deserves some credit in my book. The Bush administration has been the worst for scientific and medicinal (not to mention social) advancement. (Well, its hard to compare and say “worst”, George Washington could never had foreseen stem cell research. But Bush is definitely taking us backwards.)