Mrs. Clinton drones on endlessly about her "experience" and everything she did in the White House during her co-presidency, but she forgets to mention that under the Clinton Administration foreign policy we were attacked on our own shores for the first time in history with the World Trade Center attack in 1993 with absolutely no response from the Clintons. This foreign policy or lack thereof led to 9/11/01. I am sure "she simply does not recall" her co-presidency being guilty of anything  which is why Sandy Berger was dispatched to steal the incriminating documents from the National Archives and destroy them. When will we see her white house papers that Bill Clinton had locked away until 2012? I forgot, they are working as fast as they can to release the documents. If  you believe that one, I have a bridge I would like to talk to you about.

"...she is entitled to say and do whatever she wants and if you point out a mistake you are just someone who has it in for her ..." 

Of course she feels like this, and for exactly the same reason that Obama feels this way. Hillary knew going into the primary race she had an advantage over both the other Democrat nominees and the eventual Republican nominee. She is, after all, a woman, and any attack could be represented by her campaign as an attack on her sex, and therefore invoke sexism, and all the attendant baggage of that particular 'ism' would then play in her favor.

Any critic would be labeled a sexist, and spend the remainder of the campaign defending himself against that pejorative name, rather than discussing the valididty of the critique itself. Let's face it, Hillary has no accomplishments as a senator, other than getting elected, in large part because of her name. However, defending yourself by claiming your attacker is biased against you because of your name, has far less impact than claiming it's because of your sex.

Unfortunately for her, a funny thing happened on the way to the foru- er, nomination. She ran up against Barack Obama, a young black senator running on exactly the same senatorial experience, which is to say none. He had going for him the same thing she did - an 'ism' on which to blame all attacks about his utter lack of qualifications. Although 'sexism' and 'racism' are pretty much a toss-up when it comes to placing blame and ducking the real issues, he also had the gift of gab, coupled with the charisma of any old time huskster, despot, or con man. He also knows he is immune to criticism on his record, at least so far as he can blame the criticism on racism.

Since his presence so far over shadows her lack of presence, she has become increasingly shrill and bitter, demonstrating the only difference between the two, his charisma, even more. But, lurking in the background of both candidacies is the same enforcer...if you don't like what I am, stand for, or say, it's because you are guilty of  '-ism,' and the sycophantic media, the over-aged hippies and the sheeples of the Democrat faithful dutifully bob their heads and march off to protest something, somewhere, all the while ignoring the critique - because, after all, you are an '-ist.'

V/R

Clyde 

"...the aspirants to tyranny are either the...men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues,... or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure.." - Aristotle, Politics, c350BC

50 First Dates is such a "spot-on" analogy and reference, motherbelt!

Life can be a real b*tch... so why vote for one?

Carter and be sweet while backstabbing Americans who have different political beliefs just like Carter. The whole Carter thing worked so well that he wants to do it again.

I thought he has made his "plan" very clear all throughout the entire election process.... Soundbite, soundbite, soundbite, help fainting woman at rally, soundbite, photo op, soundbite, help fainting woman at rally, soundbite....get elected! And of course, proceed to efing-up the country to suit his liking.

Life can be a real b*tch... so why vote for one?

If Obama is elected, it will be Obama's pockets getting lined by the lobbyists instead of someone elses.
I think that's the only specific that he's worked out yet.

The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.

Gat, you're right...no stage presence. And unlike her husband, she has NO natural political ability. No matter what she says and does, she comes across as a lecturing professor at a podium. Everything she says is scripted and rehearsed, probably in front of a mirror.

The "change you can Xerox" line was so stilted, it bombed big-time (she actually got boo'ed). It would have had more effect if she had turned it into a joke. However, she's not good at humor either; even the writers' strike quip she did for Letterman that time, came out fake and forced, as if she had rehearsed every inflection and facial expression ahead of time.

She's a disaster as a politician, and as a candidate. But you're right...she's never had to compete and win.... everything's always been handed to her. The media made a big deal about how hard she worked during her Senate run....what a joke. That was a given from the moment they kicked Nita Lowey to the curb. Ditto her re-election campaign. She's probably furious at this little upstart for robbing her of her manifest destiny.

Obama definitely hasn't been tested yet so he could crumble easier in the General. I think either candidate will be hard to beat with McCain as our front man.

I would vote for Hillary if I lived in TX because she would be the lesser of two evils as President. She is more moderate than Obama by a long shot.
My preference would be McCain, then Hillary then Obama as president but they all suck.