"America Deserves Better Leadership"

[Texsox]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Americans deserve better leadership than what the Bush administration offers, South Carolina Rep. James E. Clyburn said Saturday in the Democrats' weekly radio address.

 

Clyburn, chairman of the House Democratic Faith Working Group and chairman-elect of the House Democratic Caucus, said recent legislation promoted by Republicans has done little to help the lives of many Americans.

 

"In order to have an America that is strong at home and abroad, we must have a government that is as good as the American people," he said.

 

Clyburn said U.S. troops in Iraq are particularly hurt by budget legislation that passed the Senate on Wednesday. The measure, which cuts $40 billion in federal spending over five years, reduces funding for student aid, Medicaid and other entitlement programs.

 

"Every time our nation has gone to war we've called on American citizens from all walks of life to make sacrifices. But not this time," he said. "While our brave young men and women fight to protect our freedoms, Republicans are cutting services to their families back home while giving people of great means unfair and unneeded tax cuts."

 

Clyburn also said the administration has done little to help victims of the Hurricanes Katrina, Wilma and Rita.

 

"This Republican administration refuses to provide housing for thousands of disaster victims, while fleecing American taxpayers by giving no-bid contracts to their friends and cronies as Americans along the Gulf Coast continue to suffer," he contended.

 

"In this time of giving and sharing, no matter which holiday you celebrate or to which, if any religion, you adhere, working together, America can do better," Clyburn said.

[kapkomet]

Woo f***ing hoo! YES! WE DESERVE BETTER LEADERSHIP!!!

 

YES!!!

 

Now where is it? It certainly is not from the Democratic party.

[Texsox]

Woo f***ing hoo!  YES!  WE DESERVE BETTER LEADERSHIP!!!

 

YES!!!

 

Now where is it?  It certainly is not from the Democratic party.

 

Wow, so there are no Democrats capable of leading?

 

Of course it's all set up for Hammer Time 2008

[kapkomet]

Wow, so there are no Democrats capable of leading?

 

Of course it's all set up for Hammer Time 2008 

It would be nice if the Democrats found someone worth a damn. I guess that almighty savior is Hillary.

[Rex Kickass]

There are a lot of New Yorkers who think she's doing a damn good job as their Senator. Republicans included.

[BigSqwert]

OBAMA!!!

[kapkomet]

There are a lot of New Yorkers who think she's doing a damn good job as their Senator. Republicans included.

All Hail Hillary - Our President from 2009-2017.

 

I'm not joking, either.

[Texsox]

All Hail Hillary - Our President from 2009-2017.

 

I'm not joking, either.

 

Not going to happen. Only the GOP could get the first black or first female elected. Unless both the Dems and GOP nominate females. Then it's a race. But a Dem "first" vs. a GOP old white guy, the GOP wins. Now a quality GOP "first", beats an old white guy from the Dems.

 

I'm not joking, either.

[kapkomet]

The whole infastructure has been set up for Hillary to win.

[Texsox]

The whole infastructure has been set up for Hillary to win.

 

Unless Bush leaves under a very dark cloud, and I doubt that, the race will not have any party hangovers.

 

I guess there are some scenarios where Hillary could win, but none seem likely.

A couple I can think of off the top of my head.

GOP nominates a female (Rice? Dole? ??)

GOP nominates an extremist (Pat Buchanan? DeLay?)

GOP gets caught in major scandal.

 

I think McCain beats any Dem on the horizon, and would easily beat Hillary.

 

Who of the possible nominees could Hillary beat, and outside of dyed in the wool Dems, who else is voting for her? GOP females? I don't think she can pick up enough independents and GOP votes to win.

[Rex Kickass]

The more New Yorkers have seen of Senator Hillary, the more they like her. I think she's not that likely to be the dem nominee as much either - because I think you're more likely to see a Governor Warner or Schweitzer rise to the top. Straight shootin' liberal from a red state.

[kapkomet]

Even the Republicans are bowing down and kissing her ass already. She's as good as elected right now, unless something REALLY changes.

[timotime]

Even the Republicans are bowing down and kissing her ass already.  She's as good as elected right now, unless something REALLY changes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

uh, what republicans do you speak of? SOURCE??? thats what i thought. also, are you seriously calling an election in '08 right now? that's rediculous, no matter which side you are on- thats more than two years from now. i will guarentee that damn near everything is going to REALLY change by the time of the next presidential election.

 

texsox said it best. if the election were tomorrow, mccain, being a soft republican, would beat anyone else, hands down. if you think that kerry got slammed with the flip-flop (justly deserved, by the way), you aint seen nothing yet for hillary. hillary might win in NY, and even the northeast, but she has got LOTS of work to do in the midwest to win more than one state (MI), and she doesnt stand a chance in the sunbelt (counting FL). she'll get CA, OR, and WA (WA maybe), but shes going to have a damn hard time with the other mountain region states as well. conversely, mccain is from the west, and is widely liked there. he's a war vet who was tortured in the hanoi hilton, which will get him tons of votes over hillary, who was dyking it out at welsely at the time and calling vietnam vets baby-killers. mccain stands a decent chance of grabbing some coveted west coast states (but not CA), and he also has a good chance of grabbing some NE states that lean a little to the right, such as PA.

[kapkomet]

uh, what republicans do you speak of? SOURCE??? thats what i thought. also, are you seriously calling an election in '08 right now? that's rediculous, no matter which side you are on- thats more than two years from now. i will guarentee that damn near everything is going to REALLY change by the time of the next presidential election.

 

texsox said it best. if the election were tomorrow, mccain, being a soft republican, would beat anyone else, hands down. if you think that kerry got slammed with the flip-flop (justly deserved, by the way), you aint seen nothing yet for hillary. hillary might win in NY, and even the northeast, but she has got LOTS of work to do in the midwest to win more than one state (MI), and she doesnt stand a chance in the sunbelt (counting FL). she'll get CA, OR, and WA (WA maybe), but shes going to have a damn hard time with the other mountain region states as well. conversely, mccain is from the west, and is widely liked there. he's a war vet who was tortured in the hanoi hilton, which will get him tons of votes over hillary, who was dyking it out at welsely at the time and calling vietnam vets baby-killers.  mccain stands a decent chance of grabbing some coveted west coast states (but not CA), and he also has a good chance of grabbing some NE states that lean a little to the right, such as PA.

 

Hillary would KILL on the coasts and midwest. She'd get tore up in the south... but the coasts and midwest is enough to get her elected.

 

If you watch the media - and some actions of things going on in Congress, they are kissing her ass left and right. And she's done her best to be appealing to the "moderates" - Independants who are swing votes.

[timotime]

Hillary would KILL on the coasts and midwest.  She'd get tore up in the south... but the coasts and midwest is enough to get her elected.

 

If you watch the media - and some actions of things going on in Congress, they are kissing her ass left and right.  And she's done her best to be appealing to the "moderates" - Independants who are swing votes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

once again, what you are saying is completely contrary to what recent history has proven. Hillary would kill in the midwest?? if by kill, you mean win wisconson and MI, and lose all other midwest states, then yes, she will kill in the midwest. OH has a lot of electoral votes, as the last election proved (the whole claim about voter fraud was sore losers, and i dont blame them, but OH is a red state). and the midwest piles up votes.

 

SOURCE??? you have absolutely no grounds to claim that hillary, or any democrat, will sweep out the midwest. I dont have one for what i say either, but the last election backs me up. you tell me when the last time a democrat cleaned up in the midwest. probably during the vietnam war is my guess.

[southsider2k5]

once again, what you are saying is completely contrary to what recent history has proven. Hillary would kill in the midwest?? if by kill, you mean win wisconson and MI, and lose all other midwest states, then yes, she will kill in the midwest. OH has a lot of electoral votes, as the last election proved (the whole claim about voter fraud was sore losers, and i dont blame them, but OH is a red state). and the midwest piles up votes.

 

SOURCE??? you have absolutely no grounds to claim that hillary, or any democrat, will sweep out the midwest. I dont have one for what i say either, but the last election backs me up. you tell me when the last time a democrat cleaned up in the midwest. probably during the vietnam war is my guess.

 

You are trying to tell me that Hillary Clinton would lose IL? LMFAO.

[timotime]

You are trying to tell me that Hillary Clinton would lose IL?  LMFAO.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

oops. s***, i meant to include that. that was a pirro-esque gaff! haha, damn you Obama!

 

regardless, claiming that she'll kill in the midwest, i cant see it happening. a lot can obviously change in more than two years in the politico game, but thats my two cents.

[kapkomet]

oops. s***, i meant to include that. that was a pirro-esque gaff! haha, damn you Obama!

 

regardless, claiming that she'll kill in the midwest, i cant see it happening. a lot can obviously change in more than two years in the politico game, but thats my two cents.

I know you're gone... (oops)... but IL, WI, OH, MI all go to Hillary.

 

Combine that with all the northeast, and all the west coast, and probably FL, she wins in a landslide if that's the case. The only big state she loses is TX.

[Rex Kickass]

once again, what you are saying is completely contrary to what recent history has proven. Hillary would kill in the midwest?? if by kill, you mean win wisconson and MI, and lose all other midwest states, then yes, she will kill in the midwest. OH has a lot of electoral votes, as the last election proved (the whole claim about voter fraud was sore losers, and i dont blame them, but OH is a red state). and the midwest piles up votes.

 

SOURCE??? you have absolutely no grounds to claim that hillary, or any democrat, will sweep out the midwest. I dont have one for what i say either, but the last election backs me up. you tell me when the last time a democrat cleaned up in the midwest. probably during the vietnam war is my guess.

 

In 1996, Bill Clinton won Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Iowa too, I think. That would be cleaning up. He also won Tennessee and Arkansas.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

In 1996, Bill Clinton won Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Iowa too, I think. That would be cleaning up. He also won Tennessee and Arkansas.

 

 

.........against Bob Dole?! Come on. Your mom would clean up in those states if she were running for re-election during good economic times against a tree stump like that.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Hillary would KILL on the coasts and midwest.  She'd get tore up in the south... but the coasts and midwest is enough to get her elected.

 

If you watch the media - and some actions of things going on in Congress, they are kissing her ass left and right.  And she's done her best to be appealing to the "moderates" - Independants who are swing votes.

 

 

No way in hell does she clean house in the midwest like you're saying.

 

You're also failing to recognize that Hilliary is an object of maximum scorn from Republicans from coast to coast. Our smear machine would drag her through the mud from the moment she won the nomination stopping only to piss in the mudhole and Id be loving every 30 seconds of it. No way does that socialist win anything but a trip back to Arkansas.

[Texsox]

No way in hell does she clean house in the midwest like you're saying. 

 

You're also failing to recognize that Hilliary is an object of maximum scorn from Republicans from coast to coast.  Our  smear machine would drag her through the mud from the moment she won the nomination stopping only to piss in the mudhole and Id be loving every 30 seconds of it.  No way does that socialist win anything but a trip back to Arkansas.

But New York is home

 

I'm with Nuke, no way can she win. Too many people aren't ready for a female Dem President.

 

I think the Swifties would seem restraint by comparison to what the anti-Hillary forces will bear.

[kapkomet]

No way in hell does she clean house in the midwest like you're saying. 

 

You're also failing to recognize that Hilliary is an object of maximum scorn from Republicans from coast to coast.  Our  smear machine would drag her through the mud from the moment she won the nomination stopping only to piss in the mudhole and Id be loving every 30 seconds of it.  No way does that socialist win anything but a trip back to Arkansas.

 

 

But New York is home

 

I'm with Nuke, no way can she win. Too many people aren't ready for a female Dem President.

 

I think the Swifties would seem restraint by comparison to what the anti-Hillary forces will bear.

 

You don't think they are ready for that? People have a short memory... and for some reason, the Clintons are adored by more then hate them. Hillary is throwing curve after curve to make herself more "moderate"... and the last two years is all people will remember except the fringes.

[Texsox]

I think that the GOP will not vote for her, the Clinton name still causes frothing at the mouth, 5 years after he left office. Rush would lead the attack. Traditional value types will have a quandry because of the "stand by your man" aspect, but that will hurt her with women who think she should have left Bill, and of course she will be attacked for placing her ambitions ahead of her morals in staying married to Bill.

 

Men will whisper do we want someone menstrating and in control of the "button". ha ha

 

If she runs, it will be the ugliest race we have ever experienced. If we thought Bush trashed McCain a while back, that will look like a Junior League social.

[YASNY]

If she does win, but can't turn over the congress, she'll be hogtied. The way the Dems are being obstructionists toward Bush, the GOP won't let Hilary accomplish anything.