BS: Hillary Clinton?

Subject: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Nov 03 - 10:53 PM

People are becoming concerned that no one person at this point has captured the Democrats' hearts and minds and energies to put up against the Bush in 2004. Each of the current nine candidates has some good points, each has some major flaw or weakness.

So my proposal is, how about Hillary Clinton? At the very least, her entry into the race would get out the vote, probably in historic numbers.

She is tough, knowledgeable, articulate, has connections, experience with the office...

What say you? (Slinging mud is fine, but expect to be able to define and defend your reasoning!)

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 25 Nov 03 - 10:56 PM

I'll put my money on her for 2008, but not 2004 -- I don't think she wants to go in with the Bill Clinton rep hanging over her.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: artbrooks
Date: 25 Nov 03 - 11:03 PM

If I recall, she made a pretty clear pledge to serve out her term in the Senate. Going back on a promise wouldn't be the best way to start a campaign.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Rapparee
Date: 25 Nov 03 - 11:15 PM

Not now, if ever. Too much baggage from Bill, too much "she only moved to New York so she could run," too much -- well, hate towards her. And there would be the "this is Bill's way of getting back into the White House." She's intelligent, articulate, and tough but I don't think that she could get elected.

I do think that the Democrats had better get their act together and start attacking Bush instead of each other.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Amos
Date: 25 Nov 03 - 11:15 PM

The general tide on the Democratic side is to support Howard Dean, who is building up enough momentum to make a difference. If we're lucky!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Nov 03 - 11:16 PM

I agree that a race in 2008 would (probably- but we know from the B. Clinton years that some people will NEVER get over it) be less rancorous but, concerned as I and a lot of other people are as to the potential ramifications of a Bush win, isn't it quite possible that others are also deeply concerned? If the powers that be become convinced that Clinton was the only candidate that had a good chance to trim the shrub, don't you think heavy pressure would be brought to bear upon her to run?

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Nov 03 - 11:32 PM

it would not be considered 'nice' to swear NOT to run, and then step in late, after the blood-letting....unless there is a REAL groundswell/grassroots demand. (not likely) She could likely do just as good a job as most of the men running, IF she could get the job...but there may still be too much baggage, and many men would simply vote for Beelzebub rather than a woman. (I, personally) would have voted for in an instant, if the chance had come!)

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Nov 03 - 12:00 AM

Why risk an '04 loss which could tarnish her image....

'08, if we still have elections...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: DonMeixner
Date: 26 Nov 03 - 12:15 AM

There are a lot of people in New York state who are really pissed that she is doing a pretty OK job of things. Nothing to really complain about and they can't stand the thought of her running for President with a winning track record behind her.

I don't care for her much myself but I will vote for anyone who will fire John Ashcroft.

Don

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Nov 03 - 12:59 AM

I can't vote for her, but I'm still hoping to serenade her from beneath her balcony and wangle a date.

"Oh, Hillary, sweet Hillary...be mine forevermore..."

(I say these things in order to drive Amos slowly mad...)

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Nov 03 - 01:16 AM

I'm shocked, Little Hawk, shocked, I tell you.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: michaelr
Date: 26 Nov 03 - 02:15 AM

For HRC to run in 2004 would be handing Bush the re"election". There may be a slim chance that Joe Sixpack comes to his senses and votes en masse for a Democrat, but neither for a woman nor a Clinton.

I think Dean/Clark may be the ticket. Or Clark/Dean?

Cheers,
Michael

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Cluin
Date: 26 Nov 03 - 02:19 AM

Waiting till 2008 will give enough time to make a couple of hit action flicks, where she kicks non-American bad-guy butt with as much explosives as you can fit into a 2 hour movie.

Then she'll be a shoe-in.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: DougR
Date: 26 Nov 03 - 01:26 PM

Too late for 2004, Ebbie. Not enought time to build a campaign staff, raise the necessary money, stuff like that. Anyway, I don't think she could beat Bush. That's the real reason she didn't announce earlier, I believe. She and Bill have their sights set on 2008 (but I doubt she can beat Jeb either).

I hope the Democrats pick Howard Dean myself, and Clark would be a good one to have on the ticket with him I think.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: mg
Date: 26 Nov 03 - 01:41 PM

I smell a rat on the Clark campaign and the rat's name is Hillary...something fishy there...maybe she has cut a deal to be his running mate and de facto president, God forbid. I lean towards Kerry, Lieberman and what's his name, the blond Midwestern man..would love to see a woman v.p...(or president)anyone else..hope Rice teams with Bush and Cheney leaves the team...mg

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Nov 03 - 04:02 PM

And there would be the "this is Bill's way of getting back into the White House."

Weren't there lots of polls indicating that, if he'd been allowed to run again, that is just what an awful lot of Americans would want?

Actually is there any constitutional bar on him running as Vice-President?

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Nov 03 - 06:54 PM

I would imagine there would be a bar, McGrath, since the VP is constitutionally first in line for the presidency.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Nov 03 - 07:27 PM

Amendment XXII says someone can't be elected President more than twice - but it doesn't say anything getting in the backdoor, so to speak.

I suppose in theory the Supreme Court, being a law unto itself, could arbitrarily decide that a Vice -President automatically succeeding a President who had died or resigned was to be deemed as "elected". I'd think that would be a serious contortion of the normal sense of the word, but that wouldn't necessarily stop them.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Nov 03 - 09:49 PM

oh, pooh! I didn't double check yesterdays post..I 'tried' to say I would have voted for Barbara Jordan in an instant, given a chance...

(I have always thought the 22nd amendment should have allowed someone to run again after a 4 year break...)

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: SINSULL
Date: 26 Nov 03 - 10:32 PM

If Hillary runs, I will vote Republican. The woman is basically dishonest and, as her stint as first Lady proved, will do anything for power.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Nov 03 - 10:40 PM

Well, I gotta agree with my pal, Dougie....

Dean/Clark can win. Hey, I ain't wild about 'em but I'll pound doors fir 'em.....

They are electable if they carry 55% of the vote because that should be enought a buffer to offset the election corruption of the Bushites...

What a lot of folks don't take into consideration is the fact that on election day, every right winged nut votes but the average working class stiff doesn't. Hey, he's got to work that day... So Bush can't squeeze any more votes than the last time and maybe less. That means that if the same folks that voted for Gore and a few energized unemployed or underemployed get on Bush's case then maybe the 55% to override the corruption is possible....

Hey, got to start some place. Getting these facists out is at good start...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 26 Nov 03 - 10:51 PM

Don't you have a law in the US that requires your employer to give you sufficient time to vote? Or aren't your polling stations open at least 12 hours?

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Nov 03 - 11:19 PM

Heck, no, pdc........ Hey, if they made Election Day a holiday then Boss Hog's boys would never win any elections....

Now that would make Boss Hog very grumpy.....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Nov 03 - 01:24 AM

Naw, Bobert, I bet there are lots of people on the right who don't vote come election day...but it would be interesting to see the comparative proportions of those who do or don't on either side of the political divide.

People who are older and more financially secure tend to get out and vote (because they're used to doing so), while those who are on the low end of the economic scale and in ghettoes tend not to, I think. This means that those who have the most vested interest in maintaining a system of privilege and maintaining the status quo are far more likely to vote than those who are suffering worst under the status quo...and that does favour a right wing economic agenda.

While in Communist Russia, it would have favoured a left wing (hardline Communist) agenda.

Ironical, isn't it? The well established in any society will generally support a repressive system, because one hand washes the other. (There are mavericks, though, among the young and rebellious...Fidel Castro grew up in a rich and privileged family in Cuba, with every reason to support the Batista government, but became a revolutionary. It's relatively rare, but it happens. It happens when idealism and principle weigh larger in a person's mind than immediate advantage and sheer greed. Castro could've had anything he wanted. He chose to risk his life, suffer tremendous privation, and fight against tremendous odds, and he won....just like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson did...and they were among his heroes!)

I suggest a reading of several good books about Cuba, for an overview of what I've said above. Castro anticipated support from the USA for his revolution, but he underestimated the power of large corporations and the Mafia to influence American foreign policy. He kicked them out of Cuba...they made him a pariah in Washington.

He could have been a valued US ally all these years, if principle outweighed the dollar in America. It doesn't, sadly enough. It doesn't in most other governments either.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Nov 03 - 02:57 AM

Hey, Bobert, did you overlook pdc's question? Yes, the polls are indeed open at least 12 hours on election day, so most people can stop in and vote on their way to work or on their way home, or during their lunch hour, or vote absentee several weeks ahead. I have never had a problem. You can even vote in a different precinct if you don't mind a questioned ballot. (All that 'questioned' really means is that you will have to prove your identity, you won't be able to vote on District candidates and your ballot will be looked at more closely.)

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: John Hardly
Date: 27 Nov 03 - 05:34 AM

there is, to me, something unsettling about the way things seem to be shaping up in presidential politics...

The USA is proving that mankind demands a monarchy. How ironic (G. Washington is spinning).

We could concievably have a Clinton or a Bush for the forseeable future -- and with no other qualification than the name(s).

A country of 200M and we can't find ANYONE more capable than a Bush or a Clinton? God save the....

We seem to be under the collective illusion that president=king. what I think it stems from is a childish notion that government=daddy/mommy -- a huge parent whose job it is to care for all of us in our minutest need.

Give me a weak president and a strong congreff any day.

As for Dynasties -- I didn't even like "Dallas", much less a hack spin-off.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Nov 03 - 10:43 AM

The media and the political parties like a "monarchy", John, because it's easy to market it. It's a simple concept, and it permits endless photo ops, and turns elections into a popularity contest rather than a serious look into real (and complex) issues.

For this reason, all the parties are obliged to select a potential monarch, and they are all obliged to lie to the electorate while campaigning and make a long list of false promises which can't possibly be honoured once in government, because they are unworkable.

Thus, I favour banning all political parties forever, and voting for local, known individuals who all get an equal amount of funding for their campaigns (from a public trust)...on the basis of their character and their ideas...NOT their party.

Either that, or select qualified individuals by lot and form a governmental assembly, which then chooses a cabinet, etc., and governs as a single cooperative body (with different opionions among the members, no doubt), not as 2 or more competing party structures out to discredit and destroy one another. I frankly think it would work better than the present system and be far more honest and responsible. Service would genuinely become service...and would be considered quite a privilege, I would think.

But what a blow to the media.... :-)

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Nov 03 - 12:18 PM

The woman is basically dishonest and, as her stint as first Lady proved, will do anything for power. Are you suggesting that that doesn't apply to Bush, Sinsull?

How about Carter for President with Clinton as Veep?   That'd be an example of Narrative politics, which seesm to be the way to win elections these days - "a rough rule of narrative politics is that the candidate whose life story makes the best Hollywood movie will win the race."

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: GUEST,Frankham
Date: 27 Nov 03 - 01:56 PM

There seems to be a good deal of Hillary bashing from the right wing these days. She was right, however, in saying that there was and
is a right wing conspiracy against her. It's all too obvious.

She is not dishonest. I read her book "It Takes A Village" and
was impressed by her concern for children. Those who accuse her
of dishonesty have no proof of this and are merely mud-slinging.
Whether they like her style is another question. I think she
handled the right-wing attack on the minor infraction of her
husband with great dignity. Clinton's "big lie" which caused the
taxpayer much money due to the Grand Inquisitor from Pepperdine
College and the sargeant-striped supreme court justice is quite
small compared to the immense mendacity of the current administration.
She was right about the right wing.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Kim C
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 01:51 AM

I just don't like her. I never have. She seems to me to be cold, calculating, and manipulative. That is simply an impression I get. And I don't like the fact that she purposely moved to New York for no other reason than to run for the Senate. It wasn't that she cared for New York so much; I imagine she might have moved anywhere if there had been an open seat.

Now, if Tipper Gore wanted to get into politics, I'd be all right with that.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 01 Dec 03 - 07:36 AM

I'm still curious what the correct response to McGrath's question is: Could a two-term president run as VP later or not? My guess is that Ebbie is right, but why?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: kendall
Date: 01 Dec 03 - 08:13 AM

Sinsull, if Hillary runs, you should stay home. If you vote republican, you can just cook your own friggin' turkey dinner next year!

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: John Hardly
Date: 01 Dec 03 - 11:05 AM

a two-term president couldn't run as VP because he couldn't constitutionally fill the presidency in the event of the death or incapacitation of the sitting prez.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Peg
Date: 01 Dec 03 - 11:09 AM

I like her. She is   smart, compassionate, and seems to see the big picture (like her husband).

I do not comprehend the accusations of "carpetbagger' against her, since the vast majority of state senators   serve states other than those they were born in...

I am not sure why anyone would call her dishonest. What has she lied about, exactly, that has affected her constituency in a   negative way? Investments that are no one's business? Isn't it also dishonest to, say, lie about trading arms for hostages, or undermine women's reproductive rights with a series of cleverly-rhetorical bills designed to infuse fetuses with civil rights, or to invade a poor country where some Saudi Arabian terrorist MIGHT be hiding (that country invaded is not Saudi Arabia, oddly enough) just to show a propensity for revenge, or to claim there are weapons of mass destruction where there aren't any?

There are lies, and there are damn lies. And there are lies that will bury us.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: GUEST,Kim C no cookie
Date: 01 Dec 03 - 11:23 AM

It isn't that she wasn't born in New York. It's that she never lived there for any length of time. I personally would not vote for someone in Tennessee who just moved here to get the senate seat. I prefer someone who has lived in the state for awhile and knows the state and its people. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me. But I don't live in New York, and the people there elected her, so there you go.

I saw her on Good Morning America this morning. Her rigid demeanor reminded me of Lilith on the TV show Frasier. She didn't smile one single time.

But here's the thing. I don't think she is really like that. I think she is putting that game face on, for whatever reason. She doesn't seem to me to be "authentic," as it were. That bothers me.

Now, if she did decide to run at some point, I would at least listen to what she had to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Dec 03 - 11:40 AM

One thing I like about Hillary. One of those crazy newspapers you see in the supermarket (News of the World?) ran a cover story claiming that she was having passionate nightly trysts with a space alien aboard his flying saucer...and they had an apparent photo of Hillary and said alien (handsome chap with conelike head) at some fancy restaurant!

When quizzed about it by the press, she said: "That story is untrue. We simply went out for dinner."

Ha! Good answer, Hillary, and it proves you have a good sense of humour.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: GUEST,Kim C no cookie
Date: 01 Dec 03 - 12:31 PM

She ought to show it more often, and use it to her advantage.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Mark Clark
Date: 01 Dec 03 - 01:19 PM

In the U.S., a Vice President who succeeds to the presidency at the death (or resignation) of a President may still be elected to the office two times.

It's common for people to move to another city, congressional district or state to seek public office there. Elizabeth Dole moved her husband to North Carolina rather than return to their home in Kansas precisely to run for the Senate under favorable circumstances.

Sinsul wrote: “The woman is basically dishonest and, as her stint as first Lady proved, will do anything for power.” I don't recall anything that would lead one to the conclusion that Ms. Clinton is dishonest. As for the power thing, that is exactly what is admired in a male candidate. If a woman runs for the presidency, do you want her to know her place and stay there? Maybe she should wear an apron and have publicity events showing her taking the kids to the dentist.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Amos
Date: 01 Dec 03 - 01:30 PM

Little Hawk:

I am honored to have been picked out for your target practice in the battlefield of relative sanity, but I do not think even your most direct hit could succeed in your stated goal of driving me mad, slowly or otherwise. Not unless you upgrade your ammunition dramatically. Your proposal to serenade Hillary Clinton meets with my full approval and I only hope to someday recieve a Quicktime movie of the event, in all its ...umm... fulfilling details!!

Regards,

Amos

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: GUEST,Kim C no cookie
Date: 01 Dec 03 - 01:32 PM

Wasn't there some question of her honesty regarding some stock trading or something? I don't remember what that was all about.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Peg
Date: 01 Dec 03 - 02:17 PM

Exactly. Most people who think she is 'dishonest' tend to mean it as a general impression and don't actually have any specific facts or evidence to base it on...so far no one who has offered that opinion has offered anything solid to back it up.

As for her demeanor on TV, I saw her on a Sunday Morning segment yesterday in a piece about her friendship of four decades with a woman she has known since grammar school. They both smiled and laughed together and were physically affectionate with one another. I am sure if she showed this side in public more often people would think she was "too feminine" or "emotional." She talked a great deal about the Lewinsky thing prompting her to wear a neutral expression, etc.in public because she knew that if she ever appeared angry or emotional, the media would have a field day with it, and the Republicans would eat it up and point to it as proof that Bill's infidelity (which was only her business, and his, and no one else's) was clearly monstrous and indicative of an evil heartless ruler who would ruin the country. They tried to do that in any case.

Kinda hard for her to win anyone's approval when so many people are just looking for reasons to be against her. This seems to be true of so many women in the political arena. Why?

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Dec 03 - 03:09 PM

". . . some stock trading or something? I don't remember what that was all about."

Accusations only, Kim, nothing proved. The right-wing character assassination team went to work on the Clintons the instant Bill was elected (actually, before) and it didn't let up for a moment. Hillary was especially targeted because she didn't just do "wifely" things like busying herself with redecorating the White House. Knowing her interests and capabilities, Bill asked her to help in developing a health care plan, and she came up with some very good ideas, which, unfortunately, got trashed right from the start. You see, Hillary was (and is) an "uppity woman." That's intolerable!! Also, I think the right-wing is scared s**tless that she might actually run for president someday, so they make it a point to keep dumping on her, just in case.

The right-wing character assassins operate on the principle (or lack thereof) that if someone is accused of something—anything—the public will assume that there must be something to it. In short, "to be accused is to be condemned." The dislike of Hillary that you and many other people have—without being able to pin down a real, specific reason for it—shows that the right-wing character assassination team is very good at what it does.

A very simple (and very mild) example of the kind of thing I'm talking about was the constant drumbeat in the last presidential campaign that "Al Gore is boring!" Al Gore is a very intelligent man (reading any of his books, such as World in the Balance amply demonstrates this, but how many people actually read them?) and he's not particularly flamboyant, but he is definitely not boring. Yet I'm sure that oft repeated epithet affected a sufficient number of unthinking voters to cost him many thousands of votes.

Look for a lot of "put-down" sound-bites and character assassination tactics in the coming campaign. Karl Rove in particular is a master at this, and that's one of his functions in the White House. It's already going on, but it seems a bit diffused right now because with so many Democratic candidates vying for the nomination, the character assassins have to scatter their shots in several directions. It will become very obvious when one candidate is selected and they can really target their venom.

Don't be politically naïve. They count on that.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: GUEST,Kim C no cookie
Date: 01 Dec 03 - 04:14 PM

Thanks, Don. I didn't keep up with it the first time so I didn't remember. It seemed like a bunch of hooey.

I'm not looking for reasons to be against her. As she is a prominent woman in the political forum, I would like to have a reason to be FOR her. Perhaps I just don't know enough. She just strikes me as being cold. If she is just putting on a face so people won't think she's "too feminine"...... well, I don't care for that. If she is, in fact, feminine, then she ought to Be Who She Is and Screw What Anyone Says About It. Isn't that what the women's movement was supposed to be about anyway?

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Dec 03 - 04:38 PM

Damned if she do and damned if she don't. I suspect that women in the U.S. are as biased against women as are the men. Who was it who said (paraphrasing here) that women have to be twice as good as men in order to get half the respect. Personally, I'm tired of the mindset- I wish we'd grow up.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 01 Dec 03 - 05:03 PM

I posted these links on another thread but they belong here also:

The billionaire financing all of the lawsuits and other troublemakers during the entire Clinton administration: Richard Mellon Scaife

Go here for the chronology of dirty tricks and harassing lawsuits and charges. All of the Whitewater stuff was found to be baseless in court. ALL of it.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 01 Dec 03 - 05:12 PM

And if Hillary's health care plan (that she took so much flak for when she worked on it as an "unelected official") had been allowed to go into effect, it would be a heckuva lot more efficient and fair than the monstrosity that the republicans have just forced through (in which the government is NO LONGER allowed to negotiate with drug companies for lower prices for Medicare patients, along with other equally spurious boondogles).

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 01 Dec 03 - 05:23 PM

May I start a political movement right here please? Just a small one to keep in mind for when the mud starts to fly. Don Firth is absolutely correct when he states that much of the muck will come from Rove. Start putting out the word: "Oh, that's just a Rovism,"
"Forget it, it's a Rovism," "C'mon, you don't take a Rovism seriously, do you?" etc.

Given word of mouth and the Internet, if we start using that term now, by the time of the primaries, the phrase might well have defused a lot of stuff that will be done by the GOP, Rove especially.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 01 Dec 03 - 05:26 PM

NO, NO I was wrong -- here's an improvement. "Forget about it, that's just a Rover." "What's a Rover?" "A lie put out by Rove that he hopes will spread around the country. A real dog."

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Dec 03 - 05:31 PM

"..She didn't smile one single time."
...she smiled a lot in the many interviews I have seen, and was interesting and witty....and seemed brighter and better informed about the issues than several of the MALE candidates!

I don't know if she'd be my ultimate 1st choice, but I'd have no problem taking a chance on her IF she were the nominee..(which does not seem likely). Yes, she acts like a politician sometimes--hard to get elected without playing that game, but nothing I see makes me feel she is "basically dishonest".

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton?
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Dec 03 - 05:38 PM

Well, gol-danged?!?!?!.... Ain't this sumthin'?.... Hillary Clinto fir president?.... You all jokin' I'm sure... You know that womenz can't be no presidents... Says so right there in the Bible... Plus they're moody and bossy and okay, answer me this one... Like there's Hillary in some kind o' important meetin' repersentin' the united sates of America and well, I don't know no other way to put it but, ahhh, its that time of month... See where I'm going with this one, don'tcha, boys... So like some one says somethin' that they thought was nice, like, ahhh, "yer hair looks nice" an' next thing you know a danged stapler is zinging by yer danged ear at 95 miles an hour!!!... You all want that??? Heck no, you don't... Presidentin' is men work... Says so right in the Bible... Okay answer me this one, will ya?... Why the heck do they say *Mister President* anyway... Well, gotcha thinkin' now, don't I? Huh? Admit it...An' everybody knows that no woman can lie like a man, right? An' if yer gonna be a President yer gonna have to lie real good, right? It's right there in the Bible... I mean look at George Bush, will ya!... Now that5's the ways its done, folks. No pussy-footin' around with him, no sir... You think Hillary Clinton can lie like that?!?!?... No way... She don't hold a run down flashlight to him... That's some serious presidentin'!... Serious... And lastly, I never met a woman that liked a good ol' fashion war!?!?!?... Now you can't have that. War's good for the economy... Says so right in the Bible... Yup, you want to keep the econmomy rollin', don'tch?... Well then don't electercate no womens 'er it'll be 1929 all over again... I promise... I hope I've gotten you all straightened out so I don't gotta give you all no refresher course on this subject... geeze...

Bobert