Can Hillary Clinton win? Rivals question her ability

People who underestimate Hillary do so at they're own peril. You go girl!!!

With Bill Clinton, at least one could feel that some art, some thought, went into the thieving and lying. Not with Hillary.

In many ways, she is thus a proper representative of the modern Democratic Party, the party that has driven so many of its supporters away that it hasn't even achieved 50% support in the last 7 presidential elections.

I just don't get the attraction to Clinton. First, I think she is polarizing, and would probably do more to get out the REPUBLICAN vote than to galvanize her own party. Second, there is just so much baggage there. Third, I don't necessarily want a second Clinton admin. In many ways her husband was a fine president, and more or less the right man for the time, I don't think we need a redux. Finally, I just have this creeping feeling that this is all about Hillary, not about the country. I can't shake the feeling that this is an ego trip for her, not about public service.
Maybe he's just saying what I want to hear, but to me, Obama seems to be honestly trying to put what is right ahead of what he wants personally, something that can never be said about Hillary without a sideways glance.

The argument is so silly and needless, because it is an absolute impossibility that Hillary Clinton can be elected president. Why? Look around you. In provincial America, the majority of government, businesses and all other institutions are run by white males. Who put them there? The American people!

Conclusion: America is far from ready to elect a woman as president -- not a prejudicial statement by any means (I'll vote for Hillary), just a realistic observation.

God bless Hillary Clinton!

Not only is Hillary polarizing but she doesn't represent real change. In 2002 she voted for the authorization to use force which gave Bush a blank check to start the Iraq war. She would run into the same problems Kerry had in 2004 with that issue. Remember the confusing message Kerry had in 2004? ("I was against it before I was for it.") Clinton's Iraq issue dance would be no better. She is neck deep in obligation to lobbyists and hasn't done anything to take power from monied interests and give it back to voters.

And inevitably more voters are going to decide that something different is needed. Another 2 term Clinton president would give us 28 years of Bush and Clinton dynasties. We need REAL change and not a oligarchy. She has the most recognizable face right now of the Dems but independent minded Iowans and others will vote for a candidate who stands for something than a watered down version of Bush.

After 7 years of a divisive, imperial, closed-agenda king, we need somebody other than Hillary. Hillary is George Bush in lipstick and heels.

I study everything she says but I can't tell where she stands, or what she can be counted on to do. I don't know who she is, and I don't trust her. Her principal virtue seems to be her ambition.

I do trust and admire Barack Obama.

Hillary is the most polarizing politician to come along in many years; she stirs up more dislike than she does affection and for that reason, will not win the election. I will give her credit that the personality makeover her handlers have given her has been very good, but brighter minds see through it.

There are several great political leaders who are women, but Hillary is not one of them. Among many professional women and the "stay at home" mom crowd, she is perhaps the most disliked candidate in the party. Very few men can stomach her.

I like Obama, but will vote for Giuliani if he wins the Repub nomination. Hillary would divide us even more than we are today.

Clinton comes with so much sleazy baggage that she wouldn't have a chance in a general election. She's the only democrat that could lose the presidency for the party in 2008.

Hillary is telling voters what they want to hear. What the "average" voter doesn't understand is that Hillary and all the candidates can and will make promises that, for the most part will never be fulfilled. Any and all candidates will promise what people want and need to hear, but what the average voter doesn't realize, the candidates must depend on the members of congress and the senate to approve these promises. In addition to presidential debates, we need to hear from members of congress and the senate to "confirm" their votes on EACH AND EVERY PROMISE by the candidates!
Of course, both houses will go along party lines.
Whatever happened to all the promises made by democrats when they took control? I'm looking forward to all the "dirty laundry" that will be brought out during and after the holidays and just prior to all the primary elections. I do have one question for all of Hillary's supporters--how can she really run this country when she STOOD BY HER MAN and denied one female scandal after another? If Iran tells her there are no nuclear weapons, North Korea is suddenly our "best" friend, Sudan tells her it's a "peaceful" nation, will she be as gullible or stupid as she was with Jennifer Flowers, Monica, etc., etc.,etc.? VOTERS, PLEASE REMEMBER, ONLY CONGRESS AND THE SENATE CAN MAKE ALL OF HER PROMISES COME TRUE!!!

I agree with most of the sentiments expressed here. I hope that the Democrats wake up and smell reality. The potential for another 8 years of Clinton is bound to drive the Republicans to the polls in record numbers and Democrats who want a complete change (not a makeover) to support independent candidates or to not vote. Hillary/Bill is not change. Instead of her standing on the right of Bill as she did for 8 years, she will be standing on the left of him, and walking one step behind instead of 2 steps behind. At any rate he will continue to be the controller of their relationship. No one in America can be happy with that potential public role reversal and what it entails. Bill/Hillary presided over an era of relative peace, and despite that could not manage to stay out of deep kimchee from one week to the next due to poor judgment.

Every intelligent person was surfeited by Bill Clinton by the end of his tenure and were drained watching his departure from Washington after Bush's inauguration with the feeling "why doesn't he just go away. He couldn't, he can't. That's why he relishes the idea of Hillary being in the White House. It isn't about new ideas of governing, it's about being in the spotlight. Spare us, from the prospect that you pick a candidate who will lose, but more significantly, from the possibility of 4 more years of moralizing Republicanism.

Here is a much more thoughtful article on the subject of Hillary Clinton and her ability to win:

http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/18/the-clinton-surprise/

The only reasons that many Americans feel Hillary might be "polarizing" or will "energize the Republican base" is because the media needs a new twist of an election and the GOP wants everyone to believe she can't win...because they know she can! The Republican based is de-generized because Bush's policies have failed, the GOP has convinced the Republican base that they should be "moral-voters", and now there is not a true evangelical, ring-wing, Christian GOP candidate running. They have made their own bed over the last 20 years of GOP brainwashing of their own people...and now they fear they have sealed their own doom....and Hillary can do it!

Your opinions and 25cents will get you a phone call. Quite frankly I don't see how "any" republican candidate can win. However, I know what they say about opinions...so....

Jack Shepard running for President is not about Jack Shepard; this is about letting my delegates Black or White; Democratic or Republican, Liberal or Conservation throughout America use me to join together as voters for peace that will give your life a moral meaning:

I am reaching out to people from every walk of life who by voting for me, Jack Shepard stand up as people who are against war and will become my delegates to a new Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln- a party that represents all American equally to the RNC. The more votes I get the more delegates I will be rewarded with so they can pressure other republican candidates that wish my delegates to vote for them after the first round.

My delegates want a charge not what the present Democratic Party or Republican Party has done. My delegates wish a party of republican who it was when Abraham Lincoln was elected President. My new Republican Party will accept all, and will not be controlled by any radical groups with an extreme NeoCon Agenda. The new republican Party I will form will welcome all and work for peace through negotiations, diplomacy, and arms control; détente and containment can pressure the other Presidential candidates to promise to work for peace and give some clear peace plans of their own for the Middle East to get the votes of my delegates from all over America, which may be necessary to win the GOP Nomination for President of the United States at the RNC:

As the first registered candidate with the Secretary of State of New Hampshire; that tells you how important I think New Hampshire is to me. It also made me the first Person in America to be registered to be on a state primary ballot in for the presidential election by either major party, we must remember we are electing a commander-in-chief in 2008 not just a President.”

Now that I am really classified as a Presidential candidate I will periodically be issuing press releases like the other presidential candidates. I feel an Obligation to my fellow Americans to use my President Campaign and the massive media interest I have gained from my past three national elections in Minnesota to; periodical issue new releases, this is my first news release.

Republican Presidential Candidate Jack Shepard’s Press Release

All Major party candidates have Promised A Nuclear Attack on Iran I very urgently warn my fellow American do not vote for more of the same especially because of they now promises to attack Iran will start a World Jihad War, causing the price of a barrel of oil to reach over 250 dollars a barrel which would cause a world recession. www.jackshepardforpresident.com

Back in August, 2003 Nuclear Bunker Busters Bombs were declassified to only battlefield grade weapons. Such an American attack on Iran promised by all major party candidates would be hundreds of times more devastating for America, the world and our economy then the attack on Pearl Harbour was for the Japanese.

I warned that attacking Iraq would be worse for America then the bombing of Pearl Harbour was for the Japanese http://www.jackshepardforpresident.com/images/SyriaTimes.jpg

Ever since President Bush was elected I often fax the White House at a private internal fax number just down the hall from the Oval Office. Before the American invasion of Iraq I faxed my warning of the dangers of an American invasion of Iraq; as a Middle East expert with over 25 years experience just in the Middle East and Europe. Out of frustration because as I could clearly see the run up to our American invasion Iraq would be the disaster as it very sadly turned out.

But we are in Iraq and we just as much as we would like to we can not just get up and run which many presidential candidates are saying just to get more votes. My plan for Iraq can be seen and an email I received from Secretary of Defence Gates Headquarters considering to use it after the surge http://www.jackshepardforpresident.com/PlanforIraq.html All Reserve Military Personal and all National Guard personal will within 3 month be return to their normal life and with their loved ones and their previous jobs.

I even chose to publish my views and assessments of the danger of an American attack on Iraq. Which also proves my long term dialogue or mutual respect with the senior members of the Syrian Government which your newspapers often call into question?

I have gotten approval years ago from the Syrian Minister of Information to publish articles of my opinion, and views on Middle East Peace in the official Syrian Government English newspaper called the Syria Times. Every morning it is hand delivered to every Counties Embassy in Damascus besides being sold at all newspaper stands.

Now I am praying that through my candidacy for Presidency I can use the publicity I have gotten from past elections to prevent another expansion of the Middle East Conflicts that Hillary Clinton and the other major candidate for President has promised in their speeches of a Military attack on Iran and which would include Syria.

My candidacy for the Republican nomination of the President I pray gives the opportunity to organize all the Peace organizations; all the Christian, Jew and Muslim Peace groups to have a candidate in America as my delegates to the Republican National Convention. Presently several national Peace organizations are signing petitions across America to get my name on the Presidential primaries in many states. I have agreed to have the leaders of these Peace organizations as my legal delegates to the RNC so after they vote for me on the first round then on the second ballot when my delegates are free to vote for any Presidential candidate for their choice if I do not win; then the other Republican Presidential candidates to get the support of Peace delegate to win the republican nomination will have to make peace concessions.

To hear Hillary threaten Iran with a military attack please visiting my presidential web site www.jackshepardforpresident.com to hear on my videos.

Or go to You Tube at:
http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=k4eRIBITvQU
http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=IHC46E_RKfs

Please contact me shepardj@shepardjack.191.it and we can organize petitions from your state so I can get on the ballot of other states so the people with a moral meaning to their life against war and wish peace for America who collect the signatures need place my name, Jack Shepard on the Republican Presidential Primary election in every state, and be my delegates will be all Peace delegate Black or White; Democratic or Republican, Liberal or Conservation from every walk of life, to the Republican National Convention . God willing God will bless us with peace by their massive numbers, no more wars! No more of the same; which we have had for decades. I dream of a new Republican Party being formed from the ashes of the old Democratic Party and the ashes of the old Republican Party where well everyone is welcome as brother in peace. I would pray that Abraham Lincoln if he was looking down from heaven at us would feel proud; we could begin to hear those bells of freedom ring across the world freedom at long least this present nightmare is over.

These people against more new wars in the Middle East will be placed in a position to pressure the other candidate at the RNC who wish to be our next President of the United States to immediately take their threats of military intervention with Iran or Syria off the table.

If Iran and Syria are attacked the whole middle East will go up in flames. Iraq will be over run by Shiites. Over 40 % of the world oil transportation will be interrupted, causing a massive world recession, and igniting a spontaneous Jihad upraising which could wash away most of our allies in the Arab World. If this happened in Pakistan it would be like handing Radical Islamic terrorists the nuclear bomb and technology on a silver spoon.

Dr. Jack Shepard is a candidate for the Republican Nomination for President at the Republican National Convention Sept. 1-4, 2008
__________________________________________

It just occurred to me that Hillary might win because she refused to withdraw from FL.

FL! FL! FL!

Imagine this scenario.

The Dem nomination has no clear winner without the FL delegation.

Eventually, the party leaders agree to count FL to end the deadlock.

Hillary wins the nomination.

This would leave a sour taste in even Dems mouth and give the election to the Republican nominee.

Jack Shepard, a contender for the GOP Nomination for Persident

Your party started, mismanaged, and supported this war. You don't get my vote.

I'll take Hillary's skirts over Obama's smug smirks anyday.

Hilary may be ambitious, but why hold that against her? Do we really think that pretty boy John Edwards has a burning desire to help the poor--or anybody else?

Hilary is polarizing, but from what I read she may not be too anti-business. Obama has promise but almost no experience--he has only three years in national government more than I do, and I have none. Plus he is against free trade, a most ignorant stance that will hurt U.S. jobs in this new world economy. If he shuts us down, where will Caterpillar send its CATS, Deere its overseas tractors, GM its cars, or Apple its multinational sales?

I don't care that Hilary is a woman and Obama is black--actually I think that speaks well of our country. But they are not ready. My candidate is Rudy Guiliani--he has great ability at running things like NY, as U.S. attorney he put the mob in the slammer, and he has the right stance on social issues. If the Republicans nominate him, he can win. How is Hilary going to debate a guy who's done it all--or close to it? She married well, which is one thing Rudy has trouble with, but that's about as much as she can offer.

More on the Clinton campaigns fraudulent contributions, from the NY Post:

"HILL'S CASH EYED AS CHINESE-LAUNDERED
By CHARLES HURT in Washington and ELAINE CHAN in New York

October 20, 2007 -- Hillary Clinton's campaign has been raising huge piles of money in Chinatown, but some of it has come from donors who can't be located or who were improperly repaid for their contributions, according to The Post and other reports.

A search of Chinatown donors yesterday by The Post found several bogus addresses and some contributions that raised eyebrows.

Shin K. Cheng is listed twice in federal records for giving $1,000 donations to Clinton's campaign on April 17.

But the address recorded on campaign reports is a clinic for sexually transmitted diseases, hemorrhoids and skin disease.

No one at the address knew of a Shin K. Cheng.

Another donation came from a Shih Kan Chang on Canal Street. But the address listed is a shop that sells knock-off watches and other pirated goods. The sales clerk there did not know the donor.

Hsiao Yen Wang, a cook in Chinatown, is listed as giving Clinton $1,000 on April 13. Contacted yesterday, she told The Post she had written a check.

But it was on behalf of a man named David Guo, president of the Fujian American Cuisine Council, and Wang told The Post that Guo had repaid her for the $1,000 contribution.

Such "straw donations" are strictly prohibited by federal law.

In addition, yesterday's search by The Post also turned up several $1,000 donations from Chinatown that were made by cooks, dishwashers, a cashier and a college student.

The findings closely match a report yesterday by the Los Angeles Times that found a huge number of Chinatown donations from donors listing bogus addresses or in amounts unlikely, given the donor's occupation.

The Times examined 150 donors, one-third of whose addresses could not be found. As with the Post search, most of the donors are not registered to vote.

In April, for instance, the Clinton campaign raised $380,000 from a single fund-raiser in Chinatown, the Times said. By comparison, Sen. John Kerry raised $24,000 in Chinatown during his entire campaign."

Isn't it funny how the Democrats like the Clintons and Gore always get megabucks illegal donations from Chinatown dishwashers and vow-of-poverty Buddhist monks? And then when caught, try and pretend it never happened?

RNC Bruce,

Just post the link.

The RNC will pay you just the same.

Can Hillary win?

ABSOLUTLY, especially when you look at the Wingnut candidates:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKtuXmorlSY

...and the Republican platform:
http://www.bushflash.com/14.html

Can Hillary win is a stupid question that is being planted by the RNC GOoPers who realize that they have NOTHING to offer.

Isn't it time we forgot partisanship and elected a "good person" with decent values? One might say that about Obama and Romney, but certainly not about Hillary. Isn't it time to have someone in the Presidency we can be proud of and can trust, someone who won't lie to us, who really wants to serve the public, who can compromise and heal? Seems to me the country is thirsting for decency and an end to what's been going on in Washington. That's not Hillary.

Posted by: Bruce | October 21, 2007 1:02 PM

Hey RNC Brucie,

Do you really want to go there, Mr Roboto?

The Republics have their own problems, and I mean ALL of their top candidates.

Here's a sample:

RUDY'S DIRTY MONEY
from McClatchy Newspapers
Oct 6, 2007

In 1989 Giuliani joined the New York firm of White & Case. The firm had a list of controversial clients, including the government of Panama, home to drug-dealing dictator Manuel Noriega; foreign banks that gave large loans to the apartheid regime in South Africa; and an Italian construction firm that helped build a chemical weapons plant in Libya.

When Giuliani launched a run for mayor that same year, he was blindsided by bad press. "White & Case represented all sorts of dictators and scumbags," says veteran political consultant Hank Sheinkopf. "Rudy could never understand why that would be a problem." Politicians of both parties called on Giuliani to release his client list. Billionaire businessman Ronald Lauder, who ran against Giuliani in the Republican primary, aired a television ad featuring side-by-side pictures of Giuliani and Noriega. Nelson Warfield, Lauder's spokesman at the time and a current adviser to presidential candidate Fred Thompson, sees parallels between then and now. "It was an issue for him in '89, and it's an issue for him in '07," Warfield says of Rudy's clients. (Thompson, it should be noted, has his own questions to answer about his lengthy career as a Washington lobbyist.)

The Giuliani campaign is anticipating such scrutiny. In a leaked campaign dossier obtained by the New York Daily News in January, the word "business" appeared at the top of a list of potential vulnerabilities, ahead of his ex-wife Donna Hanover. The concern was justified. After the 2004 election Giuliani saw the nomination for Homeland Security czar of a protégé, former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik, crash and burn when the press uncovered Kerik's affairs, unpaid back taxes and ties to the mob. "Rudy will be held to a higher standard," predicts GOP strategist Tony Fabrizio. "This is stuff he did after becoming America's mayor."

Bracewell & Giuliani presents a host of potential sore spots, on the left and the right. Operatives from rival GOP campaigns were quick to exploit the fact that the firm represented Citgo, the state oil company of Venezuela, one of the current bêtes noires of the right wing. Bracewell helped Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. block "indecency" laws on television, thwarting a pet issue of Christian conservatives. The firm provided counsel to the defense fund of disgraced former House majority leader Tom DeLay--at the same time that it was lobbying DeLay and Congress to grant immunity to the makers of the toxic gasoline additive MTBE, which faces hundreds of lawsuits for contaminating drinking water. Clients abroad have included repressive regimes such as Saudi Arabia and Kazakhstan (Bracewell has two offices representing American oil companies in Kazakhstan; Rudy's Bracewell supporters recently held a campaign fundraiser there). A few years ago its biggest client was Enron.

Giuliani has accepted more money from the energy industry--$477,208 through the first half of 2007--than any other presidential candidate. These ties likely won't hurt him with GOP primary voters, who welcomed Bush and Cheney with open arms. But it could arouse the suspicions of moderate and independent voters in a general election, many of whom don't look forward to the idea of Halliburton clones dictating policy in the next White House.

Posted by: Bruce | October 21, 2007 1:02 PM

Hey RNC Brucie,

Do you really want to go there, Mr Roboto?

The Republics have their own problems, and I mean ALL of their top candidates.

Here's a sample:

RUDY'S DIRTY MONEY
from McClatchy Newspapers
Oct 6, 2007

In 1989 Giuliani joined the New York firm of White & Case. The firm had a list of controversial clients, including the government of Panama, home to drug-dealing dictator Manuel Noriega; foreign banks that gave large loans to the apartheid regime in South Africa; and an Italian construction firm that helped build a chemical weapons plant in Libya.

When Giuliani launched a run for mayor that same year, he was blindsided by bad press. "White & Case represented all sorts of dictators and scumbags," says veteran political consultant Hank Sheinkopf. "Rudy could never understand why that would be a problem." Politicians of both parties called on Giuliani to release his client list. Billionaire businessman Ronald Lauder, who ran against Giuliani in the Republican primary, aired a television ad featuring side-by-side pictures of Giuliani and Noriega. Nelson Warfield, Lauder's spokesman at the time and a current adviser to presidential candidate Fred Thompson, sees parallels between then and now. "It was an issue for him in '89, and it's an issue for him in '07," Warfield says of Rudy's clients. (Thompson, it should be noted, has his own questions to answer about his lengthy career as a Washington lobbyist.)

The Giuliani campaign is anticipating such scrutiny. In a leaked campaign dossier obtained by the New York Daily News in January, the word "business" appeared at the top of a list of potential vulnerabilities, ahead of his ex-wife Donna Hanover. The concern was justified. After the 2004 election Giuliani saw the nomination for Homeland Security czar of a protégé, former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik, crash and burn when the press uncovered Kerik's affairs, unpaid back taxes and ties to the mob. "Rudy will be held to a higher standard," predicts GOP strategist Tony Fabrizio. "This is stuff he did after becoming America's mayor."

Bracewell & Giuliani presents a host of potential sore spots, on the left and the right. Operatives from rival GOP campaigns were quick to exploit the fact that the firm represented Citgo, the state oil company of Venezuela, one of the current bêtes noires of the right wing. Bracewell helped Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. block "indecency" laws on television, thwarting a pet issue of Christian conservatives. The firm provided counsel to the defense fund of disgraced former House majority leader Tom DeLay--at the same time that it was lobbying DeLay and Congress to grant immunity to the makers of the toxic gasoline additive MTBE, which faces hundreds of lawsuits for contaminating drinking water. Clients abroad have included repressive regimes such as Saudi Arabia and Kazakhstan (Bracewell has two offices representing American oil companies in Kazakhstan; Rudy's Bracewell supporters recently held a campaign fundraiser there). A few years ago its biggest client was Enron.

Giuliani has accepted more money from the energy industry--$477,208 through the first half of 2007--than any other presidential candidate. These ties likely won't hurt him with GOP primary voters, who welcomed Bush and Cheney with open arms. But it could arouse the suspicions of moderate and independent voters in a general election, many of whom don't look forward to the idea of Halliburton clones dictating policy in the next White House.

Even if Hilary wins, she will loose to a republican,because all the voting machines are made and programed by firms owned by republicans. Voting is just for show, the outcome is already made by the military industry

There is no more mud to sling at them after all the stuff thrown their way over the last DECADE AND A HALF (by Fox Noise Channel, Rush Limpdong etc).
I can't believe how the Repubics have had nothing to hang their hopes on but smear tactics all these years, and now, Americans are so used to hearing it all, it is now background noise. HilBill must be drooling at the idea of spending nearly decade in the WH messing with the Repubics and releasing all the bad news (cost over runs, sole source contracts, halliburton overcharges, torture, etc) from Iraq that president chainsaw and earboy have been hiding all these days.

Say it slowly Wingnuts,
P r e s i d e n t H i l l a r y !!!

Jack,

I read your appeal, checked out your links and have a couple of suggestions:

First of all you don't look Republican enough and you certainly don't look presidential. Sorry, but true. Shave the mustache and find a better hair piece. Republicans want guys that look like farmers and grandpas.

Secondly, you need to find a better reason to avoid wars in the middle east other than the resulting oil crunch and subsequent recession. Kudos for the blood for oil honesty but maybe take a more humanitarian tack and impart some words like "values" and "honesty" and "family" when discussing things like war. Avoid words like "diplomacy" though, your supporters read that word as "defeat".

Also, good job with the less-than-subtle jesus angle. Always mention prayer and god no matter what you are discussing. Whether its the weather, sports, war or even a bowel movement, a quick reference the the almighty goes a long way with your base.

Oh yeah, a little less Lincoln and a lot more Reagan. Republicans have terribly short memories.

Good luck Jack!

Isn't it funny how the Democrats like the Clintons and Gore always get megabucks illegal donations from Chinatown dishwashers and vow-of-poverty Buddhist monks? And then when caught, try and pretend it never happened?

Posted by: Bruce | October 21, 2007 1:02 PM

More Lame propaganda from RNC stooge Bruce.

Very lame.

Compared to Rudy and his criminal friends, his many marriages, his cheating on his wife (wives?), his constant 9/11 fear-mongering, his promise of more, never-ending war, his own children not talking to him, his utter repulsiveness to the most fundamentalist fundies - and oodles of other stuff, I think Hillary will look good.

Granted, I'm sure there are HUGE SWIFT BOAT SCANDALS awaiting Hillary if she gets the nomination - probably concerning Bill - and on the eve of the election - but if the dems play it right and successfully portray Rudy as he really is, Hillary looks squeaky clean.

I think she has a good chance.

Well will ya look at that Bruce $380,000 from a single fund-raiser in Chinatown. I see Hillary has a promising quality about her. She shows the ability to have the Chinese help us out of the hole Bush dug us in with them, and my all she has to do is appear, no guns or threat of guns necessary, and they give. At this rate, I see our debt to China being completely given as a gift or written off with Mrs. Hillary's powers of persona. Hillary gets things done. I like her already and so do the Chinese. It will work wonders for us to build a bridge now that Bush has sold our soul to the Chinese.

Yeah, there will be slop flying back and forth no matter who wins each party nomination, but much will come down to who is likable and who we trust. HALF of the population cannot stand Hillary (me included), no matter how she fakes the smile and nervous giggle for the cameras. Humans have a sense about other people, and that is what hurts her. What helps her his her vast corporate machine of special interest groups and lobbyists.

Obama may not have quite as much experience, but he is more genuine, and I sense, still more honest than Hillary. I see that as a good thing. As one person said, Obama is the thinking persons candidate.

Unfortunately, we have elected some real losers in the past (too many to mention), and the corporate candidate will probably win. I only ask people to think down the road and having to hear her voice nagging and lecturing us for four years. Yuck!

Go Obama!

Hillary was re-elected to the Senate in a landslide. She had a majority in 90% of the counties. Why? Republican senators respect her. Why? She has broken out of the pack in this race. Why? Think about it, you mudslingers.

People who cry and cry that voters will not vote for Senator Clinton because she is a female are just covering their butts when she looses and they can blame it on prejudice, not Clintons weaknesses. Put a real, upstanding, honest, female in the run and she probably will take ir. People who expect Hillary should win because of her gender are just as prejudiced as those who would pass her over because of it. Most people who dislike Hillary Clinton have valis, demonstrable reasons which have nothing to do with her gender or her husband. She has worked very hard ot earn her own scorn.

I heard New York Mayor Bloomberg hates Hillary. If she looks like the nominee he will enter as a billionaire third party candidate. He won't win but he will stop Hillary.

"She raised eyebrows when the public learned she had turned $1,000 into $100,000 from cattle futures trading."

Only because she's a democrat and a woman. Isn't this a standard white male Republican w-- dream? The boys hate it when a girl crashes their little club.

I don't think anyone underestimates H. Clinton. Like most Democrats, I respect her and appreciate her work for Democratic causes.

I hope that fellow Democrats won't underestimate how polarizing she is. Until quite recently she has been an abrasive person and this, combined with an insensitivity to issues of power and corruption, lends to the feeling that something unpalatable is being shoved down my throats.

If I feel this way, how do moderates and Republicans feel? I think that H. Clinton's supporters should at least wonder where all the anti-Hillary sentiment comes from. Listen to Joe Biden. His concerns are not just politics. She carries some serious baggage.

Mrs. Bill Clinton won election both times in NY over weak competition -- Rick Fazio, who stepped in to the race after Rudy Giuliani dropped out due to prostate cancer. Her other opponent was the former Mayor of Buffalo. She's never faced a tough election. The Clintons bring along some heavy baggage. And whether voters want to think about it now or in the voting booth, a vote for her puts him back in the White House, should she get that far.

Clinton fatigue is a real factor and voters want change. That will become more apparent as the primaries move into high gear. Already she is trying to shed the mantle of "front-runner" to avoid a Dean-like demise.

Can she win? No. Watch for the "ABC" vote: Anybody But Clinton.

I'll be voting for Obama and content with my choice of the right man for the times and the job.

As a female democrat I have decided to leave my party if Hillary is the nominee.
and I am not alone.
The fact is that most of these stories fail to tell people that over 70% of the voters have yet to make up their minds.
They purposely leave people to think this race is all over and that everyone has decided.
Not so.
it would be nice to have a press that told the facts and not tried to influence the people's elections.

I am a woman and I support John Edwards. I am a New Yorker and I support John Edwards. I am a New Yorker transplanted from Texas 12 years ago. John will play in Texas, Clinton will not. Not because she is female. Because she is inauthentic. And besides, what about that Iran vote? Come on guys!

I don't have a problem voting for a woman, but it won't be Hillary! Too many scandals and lies. All she is doing is playing to peoples fears for popularity. I am in the lower middle class and I can tell you that the middle class is the one that will suffer the most from her tax hikes! Her husband is responsible for free trade which led to corporations outsourcing to other countries. That cost a lot of Americans jobs. Over the last seven years there have been tax breaks for small business becasue the employ Americans and stimulate the economy. Hillary is going to abolish these breaks and their taxes will double, causing some to have layoffs or go out of business. Is this really what we want? Its funny that terrorists and our enemies want her in office, not to mention that her largest contributor is from outside the US. That's very scary!

It's hard to imagine a worse candidate for president than Billary, but then there's always Nancy Pelosi. Both are tied to the Bush Crime Family and neither has a whit of credibility, let alone any competence to be president. America needs a president like Ron Paul who actually understands the crucial issues facing the USA and is willing to do something about them. Billary wants more war and loves the Military Industrial Complex and they love her - she's their #1 for contributions. Americans want peace, not wars. Particularly we don't want endless illegal undeclared wars, and since that's what Billary wants, she's a definite thumbs down.

Anyone who says Hillary is not a good person or an honest person just does not know her as we do.

She is the best candidate running for President in this election. Her policies are practical and "do-able". She does not promise the sky, just hard work and commitment to fix the mess Bush has put us in.

Obama and Edwards have not run effective campaigns and now that time is running out, it is obvious to anyone with a brain that they are even willing to lie about Hillary to gain traction.

It won't work.

The truth will prevail and so will Hillary.

Clinton/Clark

Are you guys insane...the Clinton's...minus the whole sex scandel had one of the best runs in office...it was the Rep.'s that keep trying to mud sling and tie them up in court rooms. Also if you voted for Bush, or think he is a good president you have no clue what you are saying. Hilary or Obama will get it. And if they would team up...well we might as well give them the keys to the white house now. Bush has ruined the idea of a southern white male being president for the next 20 years. So if your mad at anyone... be mad at him.

Terrorists want the republicans in power so they can keep their recruiting campaigns alive. They know that all they have to do is say they are for someone and the american public will go the other way. They assume all americans are fools. A democrat will will the presidency because americans have seen how corrupt both morally and politically the republican party really is. The extreme right wing has taken control of the republican party and has practically destroyed America. One more term of right wing fanaticism will bring down our country and every american should be afraid and on-guard. America has sunk so low that a country like Turkey can tell it what to say and threaten it if our congress doesn't do exactly what it wants. And this scarecrow of a president comes out on the side of Turkey. One more vote for Bush's christian morality. It was a very nice picture of the hanged Armenians! By all means let's not call these hangings what they were; and while we're at it we can give honorable mention to those valiant hangmen of the south too. Wouldn't want to upset any gentlemen in that area either. Mark my words: a republican will not occupy the white house for the next 16 years minimum and they brought it upon themselves.

I just can't believe the dems are willing to risk the whitehouse again.

It's mind boggling.

Their are so many other good dem candidates who would win the general in a heart beat, but the dems seem determined to fail. Again.

By the way, it's NOT THAT SHE IS A WOMAN.

It's that she is Hillary Clinton. Inexperienced, slandering, pandering, and warmongering, Hillary Clinton. Reciever of the most money from the Arms Industry than any other candidate running.

Nominating Hillary will bring out all the Hillary haters, and leave alot of dems and independants sitting at home on election day.

I just can't believe they're willing to risk it. It's so discouraging.

(Obama and Richardsen both do way better than Hillary in head to head republican matchups, and according to the latest Zogby poll, Hillary still has the highest negatives (50% now) of ALL the other candidates.)

I think everyone should send
Hillary some knee pads !!

The question the Democrats have to ask themselves is:

Has America really shifted enough to the left to embrace a Hillary Clinton presidency?

This is an important consideration. Think of what happened the handful of times the Democrats ran a candidate from the far left of the ideological spectrum over the past 40 years. Let me make this simple: only Jimmy Cater and Bill Clinton won during that time period, and Carter won only once.

Notice also, that Bill Clinton ran as a fiscal conservative (which, relative to many presidents, he was), and he did not campaign in favor of the far left agendum. The same is true of Jimmy Carter in his first run for President. Both were “Southern Democrats,” which is a distinction that used to carry the inference of social and fiscal conservatism.

In my opinion, these results can be explained by the fact that, historically, Americans have remained in or about the center of the political spectrum. They like enough government to take care of what governments are supposed to do, but they still cherish their liberty and fear the encroachment of too much government. It is that balance that keeps them in the center. This is why I believe the Democrats ran Bill Clinton as a candidate. They finally realized they needed to aim at the center to win.

In the case of George Bush, most people on both the right and left were quite misled by his appeal to both "American Values" and his willingness to maintain (and even expand) personal, government subsidies. He appeared to be a centrist within the tolerances of American voters. [His second election is better explained by the group fear suffered over the struggle with terrorism.]

So, unless America’s taste for centrism has been lost, and the entire American world view has shifted leftward, the Democrats are going to have a tough time electing a candidate like Hillary, with a “progressive” agendum. Her stated views are not the same as those that got her husband elected. To the contrary, they are far to the left of Bill’s views. To stand up to her, the Republicans or an Independent will only need to disavow Bush’s excesses, and appeal to the center’s concerns.

John W-

You realize that your "centrist" arguement actually works best against your chosen candidate, don't you?

Ron Paul, while he has many things going for him, can hardly be called "centerist".

Eliminating the income tax, eliminating the federal reserve, legalizing narcotics and returning to the gold standard are not positions anywhere near the center of the american political spectrum.

* * * * *

Posted by: AJF | October 22, 2007 6:01 PM

I respectfully disagree because I think you misunderstand a lot of what Congressman Paul stands for in the following respects:

1. Ron Paul is not in favor of legalizing narcotics. Of all the substances now on the controlled substance schedules, he only favors legalizing: (a) industrial hemp for the purposes of allowing its use in manufacturing, and (b) medical marijuana for use as a medicine. He is not in favor of legalizing any substances for recreational use.

What he does favor is ending the federal governments “war on drugs” because it is a failure (and it really is). He, instead, proposes allowing each State to deal with the issue of interdicting drug traffic and substance abuse in its own way, and to get the federal government out of it.

This is admittedly not a common view of the question, but its reasoning is not far from the thinking of “centrists.” Centrists don’t really care whether the federal or State governments deal with drug interdiction as long as someone does. The elimination of duplicate, more expensive government – as would result from having only ONE government chase after drug traffickers – definitely is a centrist view.

2. Elimination of the income tax and abolition of the IRS would not result in the end of all taxation. There are many sources of taxation other than from taxing income (e.g. sales tax, luxury tax, imposts, duties, etc.). The government has to pay its debts somehow, and it doesn’t earn any money. So, there will have to be some taxation. Imposing more of a tax burden on those who can afford it, and upon those who spend a lot of money on leisure activities, would make it easier for everyone else to save more, spend more, and live their lives more freely. I hear Democrats suggesting the same thing all the time – although they expect to do it through increasing marginal income tax at the high end. I don’t see how shifting methods of taxation makes his view so off-center.

Admittedly, however, his purpose is a little unusual – but not bad. One reason he proposes to eliminate income tax is that it would curb Congress’ power to spend as much as it does. He does believe in smaller government, and that we are flirting with disaster at the current rate of governmental spending and indebtedness. I don’t believe his sentiments are off center, even if his method of achieving it might be.

3. Also, one would not consider him way out in left field if one understood why he dislikes the federal reserve and prefers a gold standard. The abuse of the money supply by the federal reserve was ultimately the cause of the Great Depression. It inflated our money supply in order to prop up the British economy and prevent the operation of Gresham’s law (which would have sucked the gold out of the British economy and caused a European depression sooner). The inflation caused by the Fed’s monetary policy at that time made loans widely available through U.S. banks at cheap rates, which led to an overextension of credit. When the system corrected itself with a downturn in the economy, the entire house of cards fell apart. The banks went bust because they had overextended their assets, and they couldn’t collect their bad debts. Margin calls on Wall street sent insolvent debtors and stock prices plummeting to the ground. All of this is directly traceable to an irresponsible organization that has no political accountability whatsoever.

The federal reserve hasn’t changed its ways either. With the most recent housing crisis, it has pumped more money into the market than needed to represent the GNP (or GDP), and it lowered its lending rates. The result, by definition, has been more inflation. That explains why the dollar is dropping everywhere against all currencies, and why we are having a crisis with oil prices hovering around $88-$90 a barrel. It is this irresponsible practice of inflating the money supply that is still eating out the living of hard working people.

So, is it such an off center idea to want to get rid of an irresponsible keeper of the money supply? Under these circumstances, I hardly believe this is a “far left field” view of the question – even if it is an uncommon suggestion. It is hardly unreasonable or un-centrist when the remedy sought is to give control of the money supply to a responsible body.

The same is true of the gold standard. We were actually on a gold standard until August 15, 1971. Until then, the value of the dollar was pegged to the value of a certain number of grains of gold. This prevented the government and the Federal Reserve Bank from inflating the money supply without question. After that date, we went to a pure fiat currency which allowed the manipulation of the money supply. Congressman Paul believes, and rightly so, that returning to a gold standard of some sort would again rein in the ability of the government to manipulate the money supply and thereby impose a hidden tax, i.e. inflation.

Again, you may not be impressed with the “centrist” remedy suggested, but I am more than sure that centrists will actually understand and sympathize with it.

In any event, Congressman Ron Paul has to know that he may not get a lot of traction on some of these ideas. But at least he is willing to use the ideas behind them as the polestar for the direction he would take in office. We would certainly have someone in office to take the government off of our back, even if it doesn’t get as far off our back as he would like it. He would certainly be someone to make the government more honest in the way it approaches the economy, even if it wouldn’t turn out as honest as he would like it. The part that would still appeal to centrists is that he would begin the process of pulling it back to the place it ought to be.

"The elimination of duplicate, more expensive government – as would result from having only ONE government chase after drug traffickers – definitely is a centrist view."

No, making it a state issue would mean 50 governments would be chasing drug traffickers. Does each state then set up a customs point at it's borders with other states?

John, If you really believe that these positions are centrist you really need to get out and talk to some people. Seriously, go down on the street and ask a random selection of voters about eliminating the Federal Reserve and going back on the gold standard. You're not going to find much support for it. Ask those same people about how they feel about single payer health care. The tell me which position is closer to the center of the voters views.

I'm not arguing that they are bad ideas (although some certainly are) I'm just saying that they are well outside the center of public interest and opinion.

AJF:

1. That “50 governments would be chasing drug traffickers” still means only one government would be chasing them at any one place and time. That is still more cost effective than having two governments chasing them at that same place and time – which is what is happening now.

2. The "center" to which I made reference is not a moveable feature. It represents a mean between the extremes of totalitarian government (on the very far right edge of the spectrum) and anarchy (on the very far left edge). This is the classical "left" and "right" continuum given to us by European politics. Thus, in determining what is “left” and “right” it is not correct to speak about “the center of the voters views.” The center of the voter’s views might not be within that mean point reflecting a balance of government and liberty to truly make it centrist. That merely begs the question I asked at the outset.

Thus, when I referred to Paul’s views as being within the spirit of centrism, I wasn’t talking about taking a poll. Any sample of public views might well reflect a shift to the left or right of center.

3. It is not fair to suggest that one merely “go down on the street and ask a random selection of voters about eliminating the Federal Reserve and going back on the gold standard” to obtain an accurate picture of what people think. A lot of people do not know the trouble with the FRB, and an uneducated public opinion isn’t helpful. If, on the other hand, you informed people about the trouble caused by the FRB while administering that poll, they might not be as disinclined to see it functions handed over to a body bound by politically accountability.

John W-

1. And the coordination between the 50 groups? Do you have any clue how inefficient it would be if each state had to independently coordinate with 49 other states in order to track drug trafficking?

2. "Has America really shifted enough to the left to embrace a Hillary Clinton presidency."

Considering that you started a discussion with a question about where Hillary's positions stood with the american world view, I think it's right on point to discuss where the center of the voters views are.

3. I almost forgot how much you disdain the American public. Once again I'll remind you that YOU started this discussion in regards to Hillary Clinton policies and the American public's relationship to the centrism. For you to now say that the views of the public aren't important in this context is to completely negate your original thesis. A lot of people don't know details about how the health care industry works either, yet you did not suggest that it wasn't fair to question how the public would view HRC's proposals. Quite the contrary.

If the question is "Has America really shifted enough to the left to embrace a Hillary Clinton presidency?"

Then the question also must be "Has America really shifted enough to the libertarian right to embrace a Ron Paul presidency?"

I'll stick with my contention that the public has has a long way to shift before they're ready to embrace Ron Paul.

Is America ready for a woman?
Were we ever ready for another man? Hillary Clinton has personally interacted in
her campaign and in her years as a Senator, on issues involving men and women, giving great direction, or aid to either of the sexes.(Soldiers, for ex) So what's up, why are we being sexist in your jokes, your wise remarks....let a woman run the country? Well, men do not run this country alone, do they? Neither will a woman President. It's not that she is a woman, is it???It is all the rumors, the paparazzi, global magazines, that you all are still reading , isn't it? Where is the truth? Are you still stuck on her personal relationship? Where are your children? Can you pay your mortgage? Do you have insurance? Is your mother and father living with you or in qualified medical care? Can your parents keep working? Is your son or daughter in a wheel chair, a hospital, or no longer here? What did you support in the 60's and 70's? 80's? You can vote Your checkbook, or your education? Your vote? Hmmm? Are you looking into voting for issues that concern you now in your life? Your retirement? Will you be able to afford groceries? Will you be able to get a good job? Hmmmmm Hillary has
been a central figure educated and committed in her personal life, her educated life, her marriage, and her political life. She has never stopped, never faltered, never not to try, never not to admit a mistake. humbly proud to be happy of her accomplishments.. A key central figure reaching out for our children's issues,
everyones education whether on the job, or in school, or at home... The elderly, men and women at war, and coming home, disabled, and finding wayw to help the middle class survive. She has been constant in her decisions to create awareness of all important issues, in America most of all! Most of us, poor, middle class, and wealthy face day by day, year by year. (It's hard to imagine the wealthy facing problems, but there isn't a person in America that does not have their share.) After all, we are all finding out how "money has a root in all evil." Hillary has pushed for unity, for mediation between the parites, to help our government officials to go "all the way" to confront the issues. She has supported our Bill of Rights, our personal values, and has reached out, as her Husband did to face all the criticism within even their own followers, and faced it. I just don't see the Republican party members facing their mistakes, I do see them denying and running away, paying off, and hiding. I admire the persistence to work at a relationship, to work at issues that they do not give up upon. I admire Hillary for admitting mistakes, but in looking back at things she might have done differently, biting the bullet, and saying I will educate myself more....I will learn more before I go voting again...(like the Iraq vote), She looks forward to making more decisions, better decisions with the same decisiveness that has encouraged her from a young
age to help others, to go the 9 yards, to "learn from her mistakes as any great leader has...." She makes those decisions as a teen going into dangerous situations with a focused perspective, of "volunteering when there was a need". She knew getting under a refreshed political eye would bring up the skeletons of the past, would put her for a mountain to climb. America has gotten so down on voting, on patriotism, on looking at the positive and moving forward....what are we teaching our children? We do join the world of decension...decending into guttered beliefs that we are a bad people for our moving forward...to still create a great nation. When we were all in a loving movement of music in the late 60's and 70's, when our leaders were being killed....did we scream "they deserved it?" When 911 happened, did we scream the same thing? We are a good and great nation, we need to "teach our children to vote, to be apart of this great country. We are the melting pot of the world. We work and live around the world,....someone needs to bring as many of us back to reality, to giving respect when it is due.
How can a single or married woman look at the Clintons, and not respect this family, .....Bill, Hillary,
Chelsea.....going through the same paparazzi that some mom's go through with their children in high school at home! Our husbands and wives go through down the block? Our people need to look at the reflection, and go to the polls and vote, we need the competitiveness of our elections, to be a vote of the people. We need our children to understand the decent of deadly rumorizing, politics......still holding their heads up high...and respect themselves and this world in whole to see the opportunities we do have......and in this country with more people using common sense in focusing on this family's accomplishments, then in the bliss of listening to your neighbors gossip, and holding up "I hate....blah blah blah signs." we need to take the responsibility back.....and vote. If you are going to talk politics, read, vote, and really look into politics, you will feel more confident voting. Take a look at the accomplishments we the people respect, to turn a country to look forward into supporting your country. Get out of the rumor and look at the facts more available to you on the internet, than ever before in history.
We need to get health care going for everyone, we need to protect ourselves from all the deceit....we need to feel good about the country we live in.....well,
if it takes a mother, daughter, wife, to turn all our heads around, please "Let It Be...." Public Interest will always be for the people, by the people , and with the people...if we can turn the vote for the people. The rumors, will turn the people against themselves!
I hope that every woman and man will look at this family's life, and wish that they could stick together to create a family who loves their country as much as this family does. The Clintons didn't have to face the music again, did they? They could have retired , gone where ever and whenever they wanted to and Quit. They didn't need the money, the popularity, the exposure, the work. Hillary is running, the same reasons, that Bill did. Listen to their daughter, Chelsea....after all the marital (Personal problems) had been exposed and admitted, she said,"I'm glad you are my parents." Well, I am so very very glad that Hillary is running, and I will be the first to scream, "Thank goodness", when the Clintons are back in the White House, in November , 2008. The Democrats are at the Center of the best years for the people of this nation today.

AJF:

1. The States once enforced their own drug laws, and they did a fine job. Indeed, they once were able to define their own drug laws. The federal government's entry into the fray hasn't added a shred of efficiency. It has added, however, to the costs of government and the loss of civil rights. And you like this? And you say I have disdain for the public?

2 The original question I posed had nothing to do with defining “the center of the voters.” The question was where the voters are with regard to the center, and particularly whether they have shifted enough to support a candidate like Hillary Clinton.

The historical “center” doesn’t move.

3. I never said the public's views aren't important. It's just that such views do not define the center. Their actual views define their position in relation to the center. Again, it is the people who are either in the center, left or right because of their views. The center doesn’t move. That is why I couched the initial question regarding a shift as a pre-requisite to public acceptance of Hillary. I was suggesting that American voters were traditionally too conservative to accept Hillary’s ideas.

4. I never suggested that is WASN’T fair to inform the public regarding Hillary Clinton’s positions on health care and other issues. Where do you get the idea I suggested such a thing? I think anyone who votes or takes a poll ought to be informed of all ramifications of what they are being asked to choose. Otherwise there is no guarantee they would be making enlightened or intelligent choices. I do not believe people are well enough informed on any of the issues and their ramifications, in which I would never suggest that further information be withheld.

I only suggested informing people concerning the FRB in particular because of your stated belief that voters would not favor its abolition. This, also, was only in response to your counter-theory that the gravitational pull of “centrism” works equally well against Ron Paul and his views. In no manner did I suggest the exclusion of other issues from public debate simply by raising the subject of educating voters regarding the FRB.

Thus, your accusation regarding Hillary and her relative positions, in context, is a red herring. It had nothing to do with my answer regarding Ron Paul.

5. You may be correct that, to some people, it would take quite a shift toward a Libertarian state of mind to elect Ron Paul. But I balk at calling Libertarians on the “right” because they, more than anyone else, seek to minimize government involvement in our daily lives. In the classical European political spectrum, leftists were those who favored individual liberty and initiative, and opposed statism. Thus, Libertarians would be quite left of center and Democrats would be to the right of center. This is because Libertarians favor individualism and individual initiative, while opposing statism which needlessly intrudes upon individual liberty. In contrast, the Democrats favor the statist policies of classical-right wing politics, insofar as they always resort to more government intervention to accomplish their goals. [My previous reference to a shift to the “left” reflected the popular, albeit erroneous, belief that socialism is a left wing phenomenon.]

John there are some parts of the Constitution that I think you need to review:

From Article 1 Section :

The Congress shall have power to ... To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.

Section 9:

No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another.

If the Constitution is clear on any topic, it is that the regulation of interstate trade is a Federal function, not a state function. The Drug trade is clearly not only an interstate trade, but an international trade. Knowing your strong originalist views, I'm sure you would not for a moment consider ignoring that provision of the Constitution and deny that the Federal government has the primary authority to regulate such trade.

"The historical “center” doesn’t move."

Oh, nonsense. Complete nonsense. Of course the historical center moves. The "center" at one point condoned slavery. Then the "center" condoned "separate but equal". The center moves all the time, John. 150 years ago the notion that blacks and whites were equal was a completely radical position.

But again we've strayed from the point. The electabilty of HRC and Ron Paul as related to the "center" in American politics. Again, we don't get away from the fact that Paul's positions are far enough away from the center to make his electability as much in question as Clinton's if not more so.

? ? ? ? ? ?
Posted by: AJF | October 23, 2007 10:12 PM

1. Article I, Sections 8 & 9 give Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. That means they "may" regulate commerce. It doesn't mean they "must" regulate commerce. It does not mean that Congress and the federal government have exclusive jurisdiction over matters involving the regulation of interstate commerce – especially if they refuse to occupy the field with legislation.

Thus, if something is going wrong with some aspect of the government's regulation of commerce, there is nothing wrong with the federal government getting out of it.

That is all Ron Paul has ever suggested. He does not suggest, nor could he suggest, that the federal government's involvement on the war on drugs was or is unconstitutional to the extent it stayed within the bounds of its interstate commerce powers. He is simply saying it has been a failure, and that the states should handle it. That's all.

Furthermore, FYI, a lot of the “drug trade” involves purely intrastate activity. Many street drugs like marijuana and methamphetamine are cultivated or manufactured, respectively, in the same state in which they are consumed. Yet, the federal government has not refrained from getting involved with the intrastate trade on the untenable ground that anything that collectively has a “substantial impact” on interstate commerce is within the fed’s jurisdiction. We discovered more recently in the case of United States v. Lopez that such a theory doesn’t work so well any more.

2. There are two schools of thought regarding the various models of the left-center-right continuum. One school holds the continuum has “essential” characteristics and meanings, which allow the plotting of a particular political or social position on the scale at any time in history. This is because nothing is new, and everything under the political sun has already been done, thus allowing for some objective categorization and plotting.

The second school of thought holds the left-center-right continuum has no inherent or particular meaning, and that these terms only have relative meaning with regard to political and social phenomenon in existence at any given time.

I belong to the first school, i.e. the historical school, where the “center” doesn’t move – because the center always excludes, and is equidistant from, the extremes of absolute statism (totalitarianism) on the one hand, and anarchy on the other. [Which is why I made reference to the “historical center” that doesn’t move.] And you, with your example of slavery and civil rights as examples of how the “center” always changes with movement in politics and political views, are a member of the second school.

Ours are differences of ontology and, perhaps, semantics with regard to this issue.

But it does divert us from the issue. We will have to agree to disagree as to whether either Billery or Ron Paul are too far away from the “center” to be elected.

John W-

I have to ask you something, and I'm being quite serious.

Do you see ANY value in the Federal Government at all?

It seems you would prefer to disolve the union and have 50 separate small republics.

I'm not being flippant. I have never seen you say anything positive about the federal government, or seen you support any use of Federal power. You've now moved beyond your strong originalism to saying that the Federal Government should not use the powers that the Constitution clearly gives it. I am genuinely curious as to how you think.

* * * * *
Posted by: AJF | October 24, 2007 10:28 AM

The answer to your first question is: “Yes.” I see a lot of value in the federal government. I just wish it would function like the federal government the Framers intended (as modified through subsequent amendments), rather than the central mega-government it has become. The federal government has taken on many functions the Framers never intended for it to perform. Taking on these extra duties has resulted in the federal government being unable to adequately perform constitutional functions it does have.

I could sit here and spin example after example of what has gone wrong with the federal government largely because it has gotten too big – but I won’t. But this is why you don’t hear many favorable comments about the feds from me.

But that doesn’t mean I want to see the union dissolve into 50 separate countries. That would never work. The States couldn’t protect themselves, and they wouldn’t be able to protect each other even if they were so inclined. They would likely be at war with each other and other countries both literally and economically.

In other words, they would fall prey to the troubles the original colonies had before the union was formed. The fact that the federal government has the constitutional power to avoid these troubles, and, in fact, operates to avoid these troubles, is what I like about the federal government and the Constitution.

There, I said something positive about the federal government. Happy now?

And, no, I haven’t moved from my “strong originalism” in suggesting the Federal Government shouldn’t necessarily exercise every power given to it in the Constitution to the fullest extent possible. And that is all I have ever suggested.

A constitutional grant of a power does not require its exercise to the degree that it preempts all State efforts regarding the same subject matter. Congress may, in its discretion, expand or contract the exercise of its constitutional powers to allow for flexibility in meeting the nation’s needs. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld federal, regulatory schemes in which States are first given the opportunity to regulate an industry themselves, under federal guidelines, in lieu of direct federal regulation. So, the idea that the federal government, perhaps, sometimes shouldn’t fully exercise all of its powers is not a radical or “unoriginalist” idea. Flexibility in exercise of its powers, and the ability to operate with State governments, are two of the fed’s best “original” qualities.

See that? I made another favorable comment about the federal government.

In application, that means the Constitution imposes no barrier to the federal government reducing its own role in the “War on Drugs” or allowing the States to take on more responsibility in the matter. Where you got the idea that the constitutional order of government abhors or prohibits such a practice is a mystery to me.

More questions? Comments? Fire away.

Hillary offers sandwich...

Hillary's headin' out on the campaign trail.

In her recent e-mail, she notes,

Dear Julian,
You're my secret weapon.
All the other campaigns are busy talking about me. But with your support, I'm staying focused on what's important in this race. I never forget what we're working for when I'm out on the campaign trail. That's why I'd like one of you to join me for a day.

Ah, Hill, there's only "one" of me - to my knowledge!

She goes on to ask,

"Will you help me win these first few primaries and caucuses by contributing today? You could join me out on the campaign trail. We'll take a few minutes to grab a sandwich and talk."

Yup, her handlers are inviting voters like me to drop by the stumpin' grounds to grab a sandwich when she alights in our Havens, Towns, big City dins - wherever!

Ham & cheese on rye, with a little Grey Poupon, please!

You know, the mustard the impeccably-dressed driver in the Rolls craves on a quick pass in the rarefied air of an enclave, somewhat beyond my reach. (video below)

Of course, you're goin' to have to cough up some dough for the privilege of dining alfresco with Hillary and her clan.

The recent gala on her 60th Birthday Bash taught us one Noble truth...if you want to mingle with the high and mighty, jockey for lobbying power - even toss a kiss from afar - you'll have to pay through the nose.

No lookie-loo's please, or photo ops on the house...just ask Hill.

In a recent e-mail invite, Clinton's team noted that for $15.00 (just click on the link to pay by debit, credit card, or pay pal) I'll get to chow down on a sandwich with her and have a chat - yeah, talk is not cheap, not in Hillary's camp.

Well now, should I spring the bucks for the snack with Hillary Clinton, or upload my photo for inclusion on Edwards' "mosaic"? (Post, John Edwards "Facebook"; 11/07/07)

I mean, times are tough - just how far will my budget stretch?

Maybe I should wait to see what Obama has to offer...

With all these clever, money-making maneuvers underfoot, some sweet slick offer should be heading out from his camp, soon.

I mean, the man is quick on the uptake, isn't he?
Julian
www.ijulian.blogspot.com

I support Hillary because I trust she can and will deliver amid the DC muck. I feel Obama will have his turn and we win all around. The more folks are cruel to her the more I get angry and donate time, talent and treasure. She has earned my support. Regina