Except Hilary has been a total hypocrite, still funding the war while proposing exit strategies, just like her unexperienced war-mongering counterpart Barack Obama who is quoted as saying "All options are on the table for Iran" (or something close to it).

Not only is Hilary known to sell bullshit to the voters like it's her job, she's also (same with Obama, once again) a slave to the corporations; a person who would sell out her people for a higher bidder.

No argument from me against that.

Excellent point, Ben,

On top of that, showing women can fill mens shoes is a terrible way to look at the situation for three reasons:

1. This isn't a high school student body we're running, its a massive country with multiple important issues going on at once. You don't say "its time for a woman" you say "we need a leader." Gender should be irrelevent and frankly I don't give a **** if a woman is never elected. It would be nice, but who care? Aren't there a million other more pressing more legitimate issues we could be dealing with? Will Hillary erase the corporate glass ceiling? Will rape stop, will it solve domestic abuse? No, it won't and lets look at it from the converse of your liberal idealistic position. We had a woman governor here in Mass and it was celebrated by all the lefties that thought this was just the greatest thing ever. She ****ed up so bad that it set back women in politics here for 20 odd years. Its not all peaches and cream in the shark tank, this is politics not candy land.

2. how do you want these shoes filled? Just in the position? Because what you get with Hillary is business as usual. She's not just going to be in the position, shes going to act as if any other 50+ white male got into the position. And as I said before, that is going to completely **** woman in politics. Can you imagine if Hillary goes the way of the last 3 to 4 presidents? Just look at any administration and think what it would be like if they could tack on "and shes a woman" to any of those arguments?

"read my lips, no new taxes"

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman" (easy MJ)

"Mission Accomplished"

At least if you had a woman who did something different and got chastised, it would be a case for a "grass is always greener" approach, but Hillary is set to pull the same ol' ****, and frankly its not going to look good for your Netherlands utopia.

3. This might be a conglomerate but what i find most times when a group (usually the democrats) say "we need a [minority/woman/homosexual/alien] to step up and take charge", they rarely give a **** how qualified the person is, they just what that statistic up there, and theres terrible all over the place. Not only will the same situation happen as I mentioned before, but what kind of faith is that in a candidate? We don't care what you think, or what your message is, just lob yourself up there and smile pretty so that we can all feel good about ourselves and lose some white guilt. Its ****ing bull****.

If you want a woman to take office, have her be a woman second, and qualified for the office first. If you truly want some equality, perhaps you shouldn't pay as much mind to the gender or color of a candidate.

Oh and Ben, keep in mind Obama knows rhetoric, and the "all options on the table" maneuver is most assuredly stated to show that he's not weak. The democrats are fighting to get back their strong stance on National Defense that they had prior to the Carter administration. It was reinforced when during the debate, Obama had to back pedal after Biden and Richardson gave tougher stances on how they'd handle a terrorist attack.

The democrats are in the unique position of having locked up their base already due to GW being in office. Can you imagine any democrat voting republican? Probably not. This may be the primaries but their already swinging for the Midwestern swing voter. I had some other point I wanted to make but its gone...damn. Anyway, that might be enough for now.

I think that just goes to show how inexperienced Obama is to come out and say something as stupid as "all options are on the table". Not only is he cutting out his anti-war base (at least the ones paying attention, there are so many liberal sheep out there), but also alienating active duty and reserve soldiers who in all likelihood DO NOT want to go back to the Middle East after their jobs are done.

I agree with the statements about Obama, before he was completely advocating an end to the war, that was definitely not a good move.

For Clinton, a lot of what Big3 said is true.
Still, if she:
1. Gets higher approval ratings than GWB.
2. Is in office when the war ends.
3. Acts the same as those 50+ white male Presidents who were all corporate whores, and manages not to **** up too bad.

It would show America that some sexism could be cut back.

Big3, you saying this isn't a student body is partially true, but comparing how many view the President as a figurehead to how many actually note everything they're doing for the country is ridiculously outnumbered.
Besides, how many Presidents actually tackle everything that needs to be accomplished in America while they're in the White House?

I'm not saying you should just tack on "she's a woman" to any statement, all I'm saying is that she is definitely a major candidate in the election.
And, with the Democratic party supporting an end to the war in Iraq, and her being seen as a lesser evil, if she doesn't screw up if elected, then it will definitely be good for women in America.

Overall, my stance on the 2008 election is anything that gets GWB the **** out of D.C. is for the common good.

I also won't be able to vote in 2008 by a month.
:(

That's such an Americanized attitude in itself. Picking the one who won't suck as bad (thanks 2-party system), when perfectly viable (and better) candidates are left out to dry is ridiculous. Its not even like she is any different than a Republican candidate. She will bolster big business, **** over middle class, and still continue to destroy America's image and economy.

The Americanized attitude is not my fault; do you think I would willingly admit to better candidates being lost in the flood of the race? No, that's ridiculous.
Chastizing me just because I'm picking the lesser of two evils is ridiculous, and frankly, I think you're a bitch for it.
America's elections (especially Presidential) are completely reliant on corporate funding, the Republican Party's main sponsor being Walmart, (the biggest whore out our employees and leave them stranded just make money company) and even though there are better candidates every election, they are always overshadowed by the two main party candidates.
This irony almost parallels the definition of separation of church and state, so why would you meet my logic with malice after I am only thinking in accordance to the way it is?
I'd like to be more idealistic Ben, but that's outside of political elections, not political debate, just elections.
When it comes down to it in elections, especially Presidential, it's the lesser of two evils, not going to change in the near future.
Besides, just because Clinton bolsters big business, it doesn't mean she'll destroy America's image.
An end of the war is where the Democratic party is headed, that's better than where George Bush's veto ended up.
But I agree with her not being ideal, the economy will still be in an even greater recession if she is elected.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/images/chart0306.gif
Halliburton Watch

I mean seriously. Which senator(s) running for democratic nomination do you think helped that one out?

As Kucinich has put it MANY times "The democrats have the power to end this war right now."

They choose not to.

A Democrat is certainly going to be elected 2008, don't you think they're going to be stonewalled into ending the war based on their political mission statement to do so?

Just out of curiosity, how could the Democrats end the war right now? Even with some Republicans against the war, I doubt that they could get enough votes to overturn Bush's inevitable veto of such a bill. Otherwise they would have overturned the veto of the Iraq spending bill.

I'm not saying its not true, because I guess it could be, but I'm just wondering why he thinks they can.