Comments on: Yet another reason why Hillary Clinton should not be Commander in Chief

By: Great White Rat

Great White Rat — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 14:42:48 +0000

It’s the old Clinton triangulation technique. She’s trying to find a position that doesn’t get anyone too annoyed with her. If you opposed to the war, she’s for pulling out – maybe not as far as the other guy, but better than the eeeeevil Republicans. If you’re for winning the war, she’s for staying. Not as much as you’d like, but better than the complete nutroot candidates.

Of course, that means you have to sacrifice any principles, but they’ve never been very important to her anyway.

By: Severian

Severian — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 13:13:14 +0000

Hillary is living proof of why there aren’t more women in politics, it’s just too difficult to have to put makeup on two or more faces every morning.

By: NC Cop

NC Cop — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 12:08:42 +0000

She was for troops in Iraq, before she was against it, now that she’s for it again. Does that sound right? Basically check the polls to determine your stance, or at least check to see what special interest group your conning that day believes.

I truly cannot believe what is going on in this country. The dems are wasting time and money over a complete non issue like the firing of the federal prosecutors. I guess since their last non issue died out, the Plame fiasco, they need something else to keep themselves in the headlines. Especially since the surge of troops in Iraq seems to be working. How disappointed they must be.

By: camojack

camojack — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 05:26:27 +0000

Hillary for runner-up in '08!!!

By: Baklava

Baklava — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 04:16:31 +0000

I think I’m now in love with Hillary. She’s a hawk. She’s a strong protector of American interests. She’s what this country needs. A strong woman for president.

I’m duped.