It will be interesting to see how the conflict between gender affliliation and affiliation with principle regarding the war affects progressive voters. Hillary has long been depicted as the ultimate "radical" by the right and has gained some benefit from the principle that my enemy's enemy is my friend. On the issue of war that does not apply. She is being more of a politico than a leader.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cindy, She can't refuse to support the war because for who knows what reason, she sees her constituency as Israel. Free her from that and maybe, but one must still distrust her willingness to write off the rest of us for Israel. Who knows who will grab her fancy next. You would make a better candidate.
bikey

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not all females are women in the psychological sense. When we say that we want a woman in the White House, what is usually meant is that we seek a woman's sensibilities, her feminine perspective and comportment, her psychology and her values. Not merely her breasts and vagina.

Hillary is no more of a woman in this sense than the typical man is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As much as I wish it weren't the case, Hilary is a DINO, and it's time that we Progressives quit automatically genuflecting every time her name is mentioned.

Her performance (or lack thereof) on the recent Rape of the Bankruptcy Code was indefensible, and shouldn't be forgotten. She toed the Repugnican Party Line for the Banking Lobby.

She won't get my vote!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I won't vote for Hillary Clinton because when she worked for the Rose Law firm in Little Rock Arkansas she was legal counsel for and a board member of Wal-Mart. So I think from this we can deduce where Clinton stands on the issue of the corrupting influence of the corporation in the American politics. On the stump she'll call for a raise in the minimum wage but forget about that pledge if it interferes with "free trade" policy, like NAFTA, CAFTA, workers get the shafta.

If she isn't one of the architects of here husband's political theory of "triangulation," she is surly a disciple of it. In fact her position on the Iraq occupation stinks of "triangulation," as does her current position on abortion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary is about as radical as GM. I just don't see how any progressive-thinking person could look to her for political salvation because she's business as usual, just like every politico who's been sucking the people dry and shilling for the korporatocracy.

The idea that women will vote for any woman because she's a woman totally dismisses women's discernment and intelligence. An ass is an ass, no matter how much makeup she wears.

Gimme a REAL woman -- a real smart woman. Molly Ivins comes to mind...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillarys husband signed a document stating that the US was to remove Sadam from office in 1998.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The mess in Iraq is perfect cover for the Israeli government's continued occupation, oppression, building illegal settlements[colonies] and the continuation of the 'security'/apartheid wall that separates Palestinians from Palestinians, grabs their land and water and does not follow the Green Line.

All roads lead to Jerusalem and American policy of blind allegience for Israel is the major contributor to why many people in the world now hate us.

Three Billion American tax dollars go to Israel annually plus another three billion in indirect aid such as military equiptment goes to support a state that denies BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS to millions of citizens because of the actions of a minority who choose the evil that is violence.

The USA has exercised its veto 33 times in the UN to protect Israel from the consequences of her unjust actions and has provided over 100 Billion dollars to Israel since 1948.

Now Israel is concerned about Iran's nuclear capabilities and USA voices concern over Iran's human rights abuses.
Makes me wonder about the tail wagging the dog and the next war...

Israel has never had an International Nuclear Weapons Inspection in the 40+ year old underground Dimona WMD plant in the Negev.
Israel continues to deny basic human rights to millions.

Democracies only flourish when 'we the people' are vigilent and NOW is the time to demand our tax dollars only go to democracies that support the ideals of America: Basic Human Rights: such as freedom of speech and movement.

Please see the Do Something page on WAWA and do it:

www.wearewideawake.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thank you Cindy for saying what I have been feeling for the past few months. As one of Senator Clintons constituents I have been a long time admirer and since first hearing her speak in person in 1998 I have known that an attempt at the Presidency was probably in her future. However, I too cannot personally support her nor will I support any candidate that does not speak out against the war and actively seek an exit plan. The majority of Americans do not support this atrocity and we need to speak up now and demand that our politicans take a strong stance and begin seriously pushing for a firm exit date. I did not loose a child in Iraq but as a mother I know this cannot and should not continue. Ms Clinton is intelligent and she is in fact passionate. But unfortunately her passion lies in the need to say ahead in the political race.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

First of all: Cindy - thank you, thank you,thank you, thank you. All of us anti-war Canuks love you.

Discussions about whether Hillary is the right choice for the democratic nominee is irrelevant. It is irrelevant because the United States is a one-party democracy disguised as a two party system.

Both parties depend heavily on corporate donations. Senator Kerry was the recipient of close to 500,000 million dollars in donations. As president would he have ignored his corporate donors? More significantly, Senator Kerry and other Democrats have basically accepted the same ideology as Republicans when it comes to protecting American interests. After World War II, there was a Republican/Democrat Liberal/Conservative consensus about how to conduct the cold war and subsequent events bears this out. The same kind of consensus exists on the war on terror. How many Democrats have taken a strong stand against the war in Iraq? You could count them on one hand.

Consider the most recent Democratic Presidents. Even our much-loved elder statesmen and human rights advocate, Jimmy Carter, was supported by the Trilateral Commission. Carter supported dictators all around the Globe including Somoza, Mobutu and Suharto.

Then there is our great white hope's pseudo-husband, Bill Clinton, who was no enemy of big business. He has been in their back pocket ever since he ran for Governor of Arkansa. He committed war crimes in the former Yugoslavia and persuaded the UN Security Council not to help Rawanda.

So why don't we stop kidding ourselves and call our so-called two-party system for what it is: one party, the Republocrats, with two different candidates.

Author of "Lying for Empire: How to Commit War Crimes with a Straight Face"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cindy, it is time for all Progressives to forget about supporting Democrats (not any different from the Republicans) who voted for the war in Iraq, still support the war in Iraq. There is no difference between the Bush's or Clinton's in terms of the progressive agenda in this country and the world. There were 22 Democrats that voted for Roberts, and Harry Ried jumped on the Harriet Miers bandwagon immediately.

The progressives need to find those few existing members of Congress that have our Progressive values, support them and then find new candidates that truly reflect those values of the American people who support the 62% who want to bring the troops home now.

The only way the will of the people has a chance is if we can find the candidates that have our true values, not the corporate values that are in place with most of the Congress today.

It is time to take back America for all the people, not just the few rich and powerful.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I apologize for the above post. My frustrations with America have reached the boiling point.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't want to detract from Cindy's hard work on the front lines of mediated dissent against this administration, and I get the underlying objectives of pushing for a reversal of Hilarary's stance. However, even if Hilary came out against the war to garner votes (which she won't) isn't it time to truly support a regime change in this country, rather than supporting blatantly oligarchical rule? From all of the conceivable supreme rulers a country can choose from, we're stuck with the son of the 41st president and possibly the "wife" of the 42nd? Party politics aside, are we at such a loss for imagination, so thoroughly entrenched in celebrity culture and enomored with the ruling elite that Hilary's presidential passions no longer seem inimical to to a funtioning democracy? Thank goodness Neil and Roger are criminally compromised, otherwise the next decade or so would be cruelly lackluster.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I've been saying this all along. From the first whisper implying that she might run, I have been adamently against it. I am not technically a Democrat, but I have given them my vote more times than not. Not counting a vote for Nader in '96, I've voted Democrat in every major election. The original values of the Party are closer to my own than the Republican Party will ever be. However, lately, it's getting harder and harder to tell the difference between the two.

But, I wouldn't vote for Hillary, whether she came out against the war or not. In my opinion, it's too late for that. Anyone who still has to be convinced that the War in Iraq was a botched idea from the get go, doesn't deserve our vote, and chances are, they wouldn't be sincere in their change of heart. But that's just one issue. There are many more issues to consider, and Hillary has proven to be a centrist, at best, if not a Republican at heart. If they (Democrats) run Hillary in 2008, it will be their doom (not that they aren't headed that direction already).

I believe that now is the time for a strong, third party candidate to gain some ground. Republicans are quickly going down the toilet, and Democrats are so busy cheering it on, that they don't realize that as support for Republicans goes down dramatically, support for Democrats isn't exactly picking up the slack. People are over it. They don't want either one anymore. Democrats are no better at producing genuine candidates than Republicans are. Hillary is a prime example.

If she read discussion forums and blogs, she'd know that she has no chance in 2008, that people who support the true ideals of the Democratic Party scoff at the idea of her running for president. Not because she's a woman, but because she's not a Democrat. Based on what most consider to be the values of the Democratic Party, most candidates (minus a handful), who claim to be one these days....aren't.

Webster's Dictionary says that a Democrat is "one who practices social equality".....anybody seen one of those lately?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...is what the Dems will be if they nominate Hillary in '08.

Regardless of the rightness or wrongness of her stances, regardless of whether she's progressive or reactionary, she's utterly unelectable. If you thought Gore and Kerry were roughed up during the campaigns, this one will be far worse.

A Hillary candidacy is about the only thing that could save the Republican Revolution from "enough-rope-itis" right now--and the world simply cannot afford that. The Dems would almost be better off nominating Kucinich or Nader, electorally. Rule No. 1 of politics is "don't run a candidate that, rightly or wrongly, over half the electorate hates."

I would say this even if I agreed with her 100% (though I don't). She's political poison, a living swing-vote Republicanizer. Bad news.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I have to echo many of the above negative comments about Hillary. She ain't the kind of woman we're looking for. So if it's authentic females sensibilities you want, look elsewhere (but not at Feinstein or any of the other usual suspects). Indeed, instead of arguing about the shortlist of women we're given by the DNC/DLC, how about drafting someone we'd really like to see in the White House. Any suggestions?

As for Hillary's political stands, just check her history. She's a first rate, 24-carot shill for the crooks and hustlers who control this country. End the war in Iraq? No way. Her funders want those permanant bases in Iraq.

(Don't forget that her husband -- and sorry if this is guilt by association, but you can't be married all those years and be total opposites on such issues -- killed WAY more Iraqis than the two Bushes combined! I haven't heard Hillary distancing herself from THAT. Rather, she'd like to kill even more Iraqis. I guess it takes a village to raise American kids. Other kids can just go and die. That was alright with Madelaine Albright, after all.)

If Hillary runs, she'll get my none-of-the-above vote ... if I'm still even a registered Democrat by then. Which makes me sad. I'd truly love to support the first REAL woman in the White House. But the gatekeepers will NEVER let someone like that get near the big prize.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

that the comments I have thus far read would be typical of the sentiment toward a career politician such a Hillary Clnton. That should give me a bit of hope for the voting public and their intellect.

There are many opportunities to indicate that she is not of the character that would be strong to lead the American public out of a potentially dark future.

For me the defining moment I have against her was her support for her husband Bill as he dragged the office of the President of the United States through the mud. Yes it was only a sex scandel... OMG!!! and I still say big deal really but for myself I do not know of many self respecting women who after discovery of all the Deep, dark and sordid details of the affair/s her man had and probably still has, would have stayed with the man. Stand by your man my ass, with no political ambitions she would have done as most women in America would have and that would have been to clean him of everything possible had it not been better for her ambition not to do so. Yes a woman of fine character....

She did stay, alligator tears and all, and it is ever so apearant that it was for her political gain and nothing less. She could give a red rats @$$ about the people she would represent. Never has and never will...period.

I will predict she will win...

1. Because she is a woman and that will garner votes for her from the groups who know nothing about politics but see a woman. Would it not be wonderful to have the first woman.... (you know the rest)

2. Because most Americans are too lazy to educate themselves to the character of the candidates and it is easier to believe the lies as can be spun by the likes of a Hillary

3. She is a celebrity, and face it people, if lasts year american idol winner were to run they would garner millions of votes because of just being a celebrity. (and again wouldn´t it be neat if...)

4. Because we still have a system that keeps good people, people that are more than qualified to run and represent Americans and honor the position of this esteemed office from being able to campaign, ours is still a system that is all about the money. Country club members only....

5. Corporations will support a Hillary, they will not support a no name candidate as they can be quite unpredictable.

again just an opinion....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Anyone at all? - outside of Hillary herself?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In the meantime, let's focus on winning back the House and Senate in 2006.

Hillary is planning to raise $70 million for her campaign and the DNC. $70 million! What a sad state of affairs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I've had enough. There are a million liberal idiots, there are a million republican idiots. Find them all at the Daily Kos and Alternet. I'm through with politics on the web. Wake me up when it's time to elect the next Lord of the Idiots, so I can watch the battle that has all the intellectual depth of World Championship Wrestling.

AMERICAN POLITICAL DISCOURSE MADE SO SIMPLE THAT EVEN AMERICANS CAN UNDERSTAND IT

Your idiot is soft on defense!
Well, your idiot is in bed with the corporations!
And so is your idiot!
Hold on!
Are you sure we're not talking about the same idiot?
I don't know, are you on the blue team or the red team?
I'm on the red team.
Really? Me too.
Oh.
Let's go find a blue idiot and give them hell!
Okay!

http://pinhut.blogspot.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If Hillary really wants to pretend to be a "progressive" party democrat(meaningless) she must promote STOPPING the war. Even if she uses that strategy to win don't expect much more, her hands are tied by corporate interests like every other politician in this country......crap

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ah! If only the Clintons had stayed in the Republican Party where they belong and kept the GOP from selling its soul to the neo-Christians...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"I said it didn't really matter, because our view is right."

Wow. With thinking like that, who needs rational thought or anything remotely resembling logic?

Ms. Sheehan, I'm sorry your son is dead. I don't agree with the reasons behind the war, I think the current administration is the most corrupt and vile presidency in history, and I support every attempt to end the war as soon as possible.

But your ridiculous dismissal of anyone's viewpoint but your own disgusts me. You're not a voice of reason in a time of turmoil; you're just another braindead idiot threatening to hold your breath until you get your way.

I thought you were admirable, someone I could respect. Instead it turns out you're just another in a long line of asses who thinks you know what's best for everyone in the world and to hell with what anyone else might think.

Well, to hell with you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary Clinton must not be the democratic candidate in 2008. She will not win. Please. Can't take another 4 years of these democracy destroying criminals.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As a long-time Democrat and proud progressive, I will NOT support Hillary for president, no matter who the GOP candidate is. In fact, the only nationally known Democrat who is worthy of support, in my opinion, is Al Gore. And I hope that a "Draft Al" movement begins soon.

If the Democratic Party cannot show the courage that we so desperately need right now, and the DLC continues to control the agenda, then I have no doubt that a new third party will be born; a party with the principles, integrity, and leadership qualities that all progressives can be excited by. And I will support that party in every possible way...and its candidtate(s).

Unlike when Ross Perot founded a third party (receiving, by the way, 19% of the popular vote in '92), the Internet can and would provide the impetus for a new party, and I look forward to it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As a veteran of WW2, living in Switzerland with my wife of 51 years but still voting out of my old address in 8th district N.Y. I have been growing increasingly desperate at the despicable spectacle of a Democratic Party determined to aid and abet those quislings who are determined to destroy our nation, to whom Clinton, Schumer and all those other collaborationists of the Democratic Party belong . Thus reading Cindy's memo and, above all, all the supportive replies which are appended to it brought a bright ray of hope that we might yet accomplish something in stopping this dastardly erosion of our hard fought for liberties. In view of my impotence imposed by distance, I had determined to vote for anyone who will stand against Clinton in the primaries, and, should she be on the 2006 ballot, write in a vote for Lady Macbeth. At least that Scots lady had a conscience and saw the blood on her hands.
I know a write in vote is a vote for a Republican, but what's the difference? Was Quisling any less a Nazi for being a Norwegian, or a "Democrat" who votes Republican in those issues which count, war, civil rights and support of the Consistution any less a "neo conservative"?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why is everyone so surprised? After all, as a mere schoolgirl, she changed from a Goldwater Republican to a McCarthy Democrat...maybe many of you weren't born yet. A true chameleon in training.

Check out this link for a "history lesson":

http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=15652

A politician for life. Her conscience has long departed. For the Presidency? It's time for a true progressive, as stated by several wise persons above.
MM

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Male or female you should vote for the canidate that best suppoprts your interessts. Don't turn this into a sex war. Gender dosen't matter. If you want to teach your daughters that it's possible for them to become president also teach them that their gender won't be a deciding factor. Tell them that the deciding factors will be thier qualifications. Then demonstrate by voteing for the person whos best qualified without paying attention to the gender or race of the person.

I was talking to a Libertarian/Capitalist the other day and while I don't agree with him on a lot of issues he told me that when he does business he bases all of his dissions on what makes him the most money. I think that there might be something to what he said.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I would not actively support a H. Clinton candidate but I will not vote 3rd party or Republican. It will be a cold day in hell before I vote Republican and I've seen enough to know what a vote for a 3rd party can do. There's nothing for it and while some will claim a vote of principle.. well, we all know how that worked out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Republicans originated the idea of Hillary for pres. for Democrat party. It's the dumbest idea yet--trying to dictate that notion on to dim witted Democrats. Jack

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's hard to tell if Senator Hillary Clinton will run for the Presidency. But if she does then I probably will be voting Independent. I think America deserves leaders who not only preach but practice ideals that promote the common good. The world indeed is become a complicated terrain, and will only survive with leaders who recognize the power of peace, deft diplomacy and consensus building. Many of our American red and blue politicians have strayed from these values, and are playing to the gallery of greed, corruption and mass subjugation. As a result the world is in a deeper mess than it was five years ago. As much as I like Hillary, in order to earn my vote she must eschew doubletalk and come clean for Peace.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

For the Democrats, Hillary could have been their lightning rod for real change in our government, and what did she do? She supported the illegal war against Iraq.
I can remember during the Democratic convention how New York delegates held up "Hillary" signs during her run for the New York senatorial race. I thought she would be the person I would vote for.
But now I know, as we all know, she went along with the war. I was crestfallen.
I am a man who would love to have a woman as President, but I want a person, gender notwithstanding, who will stand up and say, enough violence against people! We have to find a way to end world conflicts, and give diplomacy (it's called communication) a chance.
I stopped supporting the Democrats a long time ago and I'm waiting for the day when we have a politician speak out against social injustices.
And my dear Hillary, you blew it. Just like the rest of your Democratic comrades who voted for this horrible war.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here is another Democratic activist who will not support Hillary Clinton. She has obviiously sucked up to the corporate wing of the party--she recently appeared as a GM spokesperson--and has refused to stand for an end to the illegal occupation of Iraq. The flimsy excuse that she does not want the soldiers to "die in vain" is absurd. They died in vain when they entered Baghdad in pursuit of an insane vision of American hegemony in the Middle East. She would simply prolong the agony of American exodus. Echos of Vietnam are now too loud for the American public to listen to so called "strategic arguments". We will be mired in a civil war of indefinite duration, much as the Israelis are immersed in the 40 year Palestinian war of liberation.

So I say, DRAFT GORE! Because he won the first time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I say Oprah For President. She's got the stuff, the money, the brains, the high profile, the energy and the "balls." Remember how she stood up to Big Beef in Texas?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Poor, deluded souls. To think that party affiliation makes a difference in whether we go to war or not. We are a warrior nation. Economics demand it to be so. We have been engaged in a permanent state of warfare since World War II and the days immediately following, when Truman and his advisors acknowledged that it was only that awful conflict that brought the U.S. out of the Depression. They feared that peacetime would send the nation back into depression, so they launched the Cold War, without any evidence that the Soviet Union posed a threat to the U.S. (sound familiar?) And it has been that way ever since. Any leader taking the helm in the United States is taking the helm of a warrior nation. Don't like it? You'd better be prepared to tackle your own values and economic system, because war, for all its waste, horror, and tragedy, is good for business. And since corporations have captured the hearts, minds, and souls of America, and the military is its muscle, it will also be viewed as good for America. Get used to it because it's a venture into insanity that won't end until the fuel runs out ... and even when we're out of oil to grow crops, the military and the elite will still claim their share.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This woman is a fit role model for us all. I admire Cindy Sheenan with all my heart. These beautiful young lives are being lost and damaged for a lie -- whether for a platform from which to run as a "War President" or for financial gain -- no matter the reason.

We must end this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So then how about cindy sheehan endorsing Russ Feingold, the only potential democratic candidate to call for withdrawal of troops (and vote against the patriot act).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I sometimes get radical right pubs & e's as I was a RlNO who finally changed registration last year to work as demo precinct leader. Anyhow, I got a sample of "American Compass" (a right wing rag) 2 day & Ann Coulter is proudly pictured on the cover & quoted: "I am often asked if I still thinkwe shoud invade their coutries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity. The is: Now more than ever." Unbelievable!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thank you, Cindy, for all that you've done, and now for bringing up this topic. I can't say how many times I've screamed at the talking heads on the Sunday morning shows when the topic of the 2008 election comes up and it seems it's a foregone conclusion for them that Hillary will be the nominee for the Democrats. We can't let the media decide who will win the election. Why not Feingold? Why not Governor Richardson? I only know that I could never, ever vote for someone who voted for this war when I knew it was wrong. How could I be so much smarter than they?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I spent a recent Sunday morning on the beach in Santa Monica watching as the Veterans for Peace assembled their ever growing weekly memorial of small white crosses, stars of David and crescents, row upon row , one for each fallen American soldier. ED Ellis, the L.A. president of Veterans for Peace, was there,and he , seeing my FEINGOLD 2004 Senate campaign shirt, began a positive discussion of the WI U.S. Senator, beginning with President Bush's non-meeting with Cindy Sheehan. He suggested that Feingold was the one Cindy should meet with, if she already hadn't. Feingold's 2004 Senate shirt has a vetebral column imprinted on its backside and this pretty much typifies the guy. He voted AGAINST the WAR.. he ALONE voted AGAINST the "Patriot" Act.. And he even went toe to toe with Hillary when she nailed Feingold in front of a bunch of Democratic senators for his Bi-partisan McCain -Feingold Campaign Reform Act. "Russ,Live in the REAL world!" she shreiked. With his typical aplumb, the Senator reached for his water glass, took a sip, and replied "I do live in the real world, and I'm doing quite well there. " NOBODY has bought Senator Feingold's soul. He's our best hope for President in 2008.... It's time for an updated t-shirt ..FEINGOLD FOR PRESIDENT 2008.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cindy, when speaking with Hillary, you forgot this suggestion: TELL HER TO SEND CHELSEA TO IRAQ! AND WE MUST WORK TO SEE THAT HILLARY IS ELIMINATED FROM THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS. WE DON'T NEED PEOPLE WHO DELIBERATELY CONTRIBUTE TO MURDER LEADIING OUR COUNTRY. OUST HILLARY!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I would give an arm or leg to see a woman in the White House, but NOT Hillary. One poster said she could not understand exactly why she didn't support Hillary, she couldn't quite put her finger on it......I'm here to tell ya, honey, THAT'S called INTUITION! The woman is not trustworthy. She's a corporate a$$ k