I consider it important, she's the only democratic candidate who does that. It's a problem when lobbyists are more important than people. I think the fact she tries to lie about it says alot too. She said something like "They represent real americans, nurses and firefighters and corporations that employ your average american." Which according to some data, I can't remember where I'll look it up if you want, that statement was pretty inaccurate. Some did but for the most part the lobbyists contributing to Hilary's campaign were big industries. It's total bullshit that lobbyists represent every day people like she suggests, she cares more about businesses than american citizens which is a horrible quality in a could-be president. I don't care for Edwards on alot of things or Obama much at all but they were right in saying she shouldn't accept money from lobbyists. She's a corporate whore who will do whatever she's told regardless of who in her eyes she stamps on, which could be her own people for all she cares.

I'm voting for Clinton, and here's why:
Under Bill Clinton, we had a better economy, and we were more peaceful. We did have disputes, and unnecessary bombings in other countries. In fact, our foreign affairs weren't very good, but at least we didn't have any full scale wars.
I don't like the fact that she received money from lobbyists, but I truly believe her when she says she wants improved health care, and wants to fight for the poorer and more underprivileged Americans.
John Edwards has never accepted any money from lobbyists, but with all due respect, he probably never needed to. He does say he wants to fight for poorer Americans, but I hardly believe him. He teams up so much with Obama in the debates, and I don't even think he wants to see a Democrat win the upcoming election.
I'm passionate about a president who would fight for the poorer people, because they realize as it is right now, a lot of them can unnecessarily live off of unemployment and disability, and who wouldn't want to. We don't believe in the leaders in this country-from the president, down to CEO's of companies, to managers at the local fast food chain.
They've had a saying in this country for a long time, that the current president embodies the nation, and then we the people of the nation, come to not only fight for, but resemble our president in many ways.
Well, that's probably why our country is so divided right now. We have the most unpopular president in our country's history.
I was in Texas the other day, and some dude wearin' a cowboy hat, who looked like he could have been one of Bush's close friends, came up to me and said, "We've got a woman running for president, can you believe that?" I told him yes, and I was voting for her. He responded "Shoot, women can't handle the stress. Men are made to handle stress. Women get all (makes idiotic distressed sounding voice) I pretended to listen to him for a while, then walked away.
Yeah, women can't take the stress. That explains why women perennially outlive men by about 6 or 7 years. I'm so sick of idiot traditionalists thinking that a president crying and showing vulnerability would encourage terrorism.
Yeah, I can just imagine the Taliban watching videos of her crying, and immediately linking that up a weak military and poor national defense. "Jeez, we could probably take over the whole country with her running the damn thing." Just because you're frozen inside, and had your feelings beat out of you doesn't mean crying is a weakness. It justs means that it's different. And we need a change.

Hillary isn't Bill Clinton.

If he doesn't want a democratic win why wold he be running?

Hillary is a walking talking slave to the corporations. She isn't the presidential equivalent to Robin Hood.

I don't think that sexist attitude is much different than saying she's going to be the same president as her husband.

Hey Crowquill, who would you be supporting in the upcoming election. I'm guessing that it would be a Democrat, based on a lot of your arguments.
I'm not sexist, but I like people who express their emotions, and wear their heart on their sleeve.
They say that emotional and irrational go hand in hand, but I doubt that, because emotional people are also very often introspective. An introspective candidate is the number one thing I'm looking for in the upcoming election. We have a lot of problems facing our country, and I want a presidentwho will not be afraid to admit they are wrong if their policies are not heading in the right direction. I see all the other candidates as being way too stubborn, and Hillary as a person who could actually admit she is wrong.

I don't really know, since I'm not voting I haven't put super much thought in it but I like Gravel and Kucinich a lot.

"It's not a very big thing to say, "I made a mistake" on the war, and typical of Hillary Clinton that she can't. She's so advised by so many smart advisers who are covering every base. I think that America was better served when the candidates were chosen in smoke-filled rooms." - David Geffen

"Everybody in politics lies, but they do it with such ease, it's troubling." - David Geffen once again, a man who signed Neil Young, Joni Mitchell, Bob Dylan, Tom waits and a former friend of the Clintons. I trust his insight into them more than I trust someone who's never met them and is displaying some obvious ignorance of Hillary, she IS a corporate whore. Once again, I don't really understand why you seem to think she's the presidential equivalent to Robin Hood, she's not.

I'm trying to narrow it down to who are the most likely R Candidates and D candidates, then choosing who I would like between those 2.
If I felt like America were looking for enough of a change that they would elect an independent, I wouldn't have a problem with that.
However, I don't feel we are at that point yet, so we just have to pick the best of 2 evils.

That's such a lazy and horrible attitude though. Too many Americans are comfortable with just settling for the lesser of two evils while perfectly good candidates sit there getting nothing. Why vote for any evil when you can vote for good? It makes no sense to me.

i didnt even know who Dennis Kucinich was, but i just looked him up, and i am rather impressed with his ideas and plans.....i will have to reasearch him some more, he seems quite good

umm accually i think i should tell you new hampshire is konwn for being pretty good at predicting the out come overall

I'm gay and no, I believe no one would bitch too much. ;)

So, what? They're supposed to get married...and pretend like it's not marriage? Why don't you pretend like it's not marriage? You're the ones bitching, you fantasize.

You're missing the point entirely. That isn't equality, it's not even close to equality. You can bitch all you want about it being equal rights and securities but if it's not the same title it's not the same thing. By encouraging this sick idea homosexuals are different from normal people by doing things like making their marriage different you're just ensuring that prejudices can stick around for an even longer time. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

Stop with the stupid analogies. Starving to death and getting married aren't the same thing nor are they even close to being the same thing.

I did notice you said some women but most women I talk to are not voting for Hilary because she is a woman. they are voting for other people because like you said , she's just not the right one for the job.

Do you support his assertion that we should dismantle our nuclear weapons?

And the "not a huge issue" I was speaking about a few posts back was that she campigned in michigan, not the lobbiest action.

The problem with "marriage" is ten fold.

1. Firstly, the contention a lot of leftists have as well states-rights, anti-federalists is that the government doesn't have to know this sort of thing and ultimately it should have no bearing on "my life."

As Ron Paul once stated in debate, the whole reason the government even started issuing marriage licenses is for tax purposes. And that’s really what we're arguing over. I don't think homosexuals want to be recognized as married in the eyes of the catholic church. And I don't think homosexuals care about the taxes really either. Its equality. And we have a history in this country of understanding that "separate but equal is inherently unequal."

They know that too well and their aware that the only way that people get treated the same is if they get the same things. If the change the rulings on marrige and everyones married then everyone changes.

My question to you would be: If homosexuals get the same rights in a civil union as they do in marriage, then why do you care if they are recognized as married?

This is a very hollow issue in my eyes. Its not the economy where people lose jobs over it, can't feed their kids and have to sell their homes. Its not the war, its not immigration, and its not healthcare.

If those things change, your life changes. If two ***s call themselves married nothing happens to you. Nothing. There is no reason to not have them be "married", especially when that argument (once its proved to be sound) has to fend off the equality argument.

Now lets talk about anything substantive.

Kind of, I can sort of see what he's saying but I think he's only looking at one side of it. In support of it, as the richest country in the world and all that shit we set examples and I think in doing that we would set a very good one for the rest of the world and hopefully start a trend in dismantling them. Of course some countries wouldn't follow but even if a few did it would be a very good thing but the ones that didn't follow would be a threat and a problem and with nuclear weapons on our side they'd think twice so yeah.

Just my position on abortion...I don't consider a hunk of flesh without a brain, incapable of thought or feeling to be a person. If anyone cares it specifically says that killing a fetus isn't murder in the Torah.

"I am watching Hillary Clinton in her victory speech in new Hampshire...they just threw a bunch of college kids behind her, and had her talk about student loans, and had her daughter come out for a long awkward hug...does anyone actually buy it? Surely young people are too media savvy to be fooled by this kind of shit.
do we live in a democracy so we can just keep electing the same families?"

Win Butler<333

In a word, yes.

The United states will have failed yet again if they elect this woman, I am not against woman, but honestly, this cold bitch should not be in office, her health care plan is Bull****. Kucinich would be grand, but i still am anti leadership, Being a nasty libertarian that I am. I wont be voting, because im not registering either.

Id be happy if he won, but theres hardly a chance, and then there would be thousands of militaristic protesters, and right, and left wing ****balls all over the place.

No one does win in a nuclear war, but what’s that got to do with dismantling our nuclear weapons?

And on another point, what does being rich have to do with setting an example? I’m missing the inherent point on which being rich means being responsible. And I’m not saying that the U.S. shouldn’t but I don’t think that’s the argument. The pound is kicking our ass, the Euro is beating us out, so I’d refute our “richness” to begin with.

I’ll just pose a question to you, there were a few seasoned Hawks in the country saying that invading Iran was necessary. My opinions on this will be removed but I want yours, is the U.S. more likely to invade Iran when they do have nuclear weapons, or when they do not. And if your answer is “when they do,” don’t you think that the act of having the capability prevents nuclear war more powerfully than not having them?

We dropped an Atomic bomb on Japan because they couldn’t do it back. Would we have if they had the ability to? I’m not the first one to suggest that every countries foreign diplomacy is a self interested one but I certainly agree with it. The threat of retaliation keeps more at bay than the foolish ideology that we can all get together under the umbrella of Democratic Peace Theory and get over our differences.


Kucinich would be a nightmare that would plunge the country into vicious disarray. DK is the foolishly left candidate that all the apolitical, unrealistic children vote for. And I’m well aware that sounds snotty but I also believe that it sounds true.

And if I may, the “The U.S. will fail again” comment back up my statement that a self-hating American is not anyone I’d want voting. America did bad things? Revelation! I’ve got news for you. Every country does ****ty things, and still do and you’d be hard pressed to find any country that plays by all the rules amazingly well. Whether it’s the denial of homosexuals, the holocaust, or violations in whaling and the suppression of free speech, even your minute Norse lands can’t claim the idiotic perfection that you believe countries should live up to.

I’m massively pro-western and find more comfort in the ability to change things than the ability to feign perfection. The U.S. is still more liberal with regard to immigration, class structure and education than roughly 99% of the world. The U.S. fails quite a bit, but you fail constantly when you don’t ever see its positive features and judge it on a scale that no country will ever achieve.

Did you even read his speech on why he'd want to do it? Because if you're asking what that has to do with it then I don't think you have I think you just saw he wanted them dismantled and decided you were going to start making everything else up on his motives from there.

Well I assumed I wouldn't really have to explain the important of the US and how influential we are.

Honestly I don't think having them or not would effective whether or not we went in. It's not like we go into countries and bomb the shit out of them with nuclear weaponry once we invade them.

I understand that, I even said that, I never said I was one way on this issue you're just trying to argue for the sake of it.

Because of his stance on nuclear weaponry? Maybe you should list more examples than that one because it probably won't even be passed.

So basically we shouldn't strive to be better because "every country does ****ty things?"

I heard him interviewed but regardless of reasoning, I've laid mine out as to why we shouldn't.



I'm afraid you'll have to. Assumptions and conventional wisdom is how people arrive at some ill-thought of conclusions in my opinion.



No, we don't. But our use of the bombs is irrelevent. We've never invaded a country or bombed one while they had nuclear capabilities. For example, we invade Iraq which had nothing, and we have "peace talks" and "non-proliferation agreements" with North Korea because they not only have them but they fired one into the sea of Japan. Its less of a "will we use it" and more of a "will they use it?"



I'm merely pointing out the flaws in your logic.


I shouldn't. The very idea of his foreign policy is unrealistic and naive. In a time where foreign policy is brutally crucial to the sanctity of the globe, I don't want DK healing it back with renewable energy while he gives it away in foreign policy.



No, we should always strive to be better, but if we don't achieve it the "america is so corrupt and do you know what their doing to [third world country]" arguments should at least acknowledge that we certainly move in the correct direction a lot more than we do not. I think far too much is taken for granted here. We can do better, but we could also do much worse.

Okay, well were one of the richest countries in the world, fact. Governments and other countries tend to listen to rich countries. We're also one of the most powerful countries in the world. We also have the strongest military in the world, people tend to listen to those kind of countries.

What flaws? You just said what I said in more words.

So you're allowed to make sweeping statements that are pretty insulting without backing them up? I don't see what's wrong with his foreign policy either. "We need to understand the connection between peace and the environment. We know that life on our planet is threatened by the twin threats of global warring and global warming. They are linked, and we have to understand that as we cognize the world as being interconnected and interdependent, we know that resource wars are passe and that the focus on sustainability will create peace." Seems pretty solid and agreeable to me, maybe you should point out all thats terrible about it though.

I never said we were worse off than Africa.

Pretty insulting? Really? I want you to show me what was insulting. I wanted to have an intelligent discussion about this and refrained from insulting comments. Show me.

I have no problem with his environmental positions. Those I agree with, but if he thinks that the solution to global destruction is dismantling our nuclear weaponry then all of his green-minded positions seem to be null en void.

No you didn't, Gates did. Or at least he implied it and usually does in every other post.

"DK is the foolishly left candidate that all the apolitical, unrealistic children vote for. And I’m well aware that sounds snotty but I also believe that it sounds true." is pretty insulting and I no longer agree with his dismantling our nuclear weaponry even though I completely get where he's coming from. It won't even get passed anyway even if he did become president which is a small chance seeing as he doesn't have the giant media cover Edwards, Obama and Clinton have.

Hey now, he has 100 gigs of music you've never heard of are you sure you want to get into a fight with him about this?

I no longer agree with his dismantling our nuclear weaponry even though I completely get where he's coming from.


When are people going to read about the weapons in space program introduced in the Reagan years. If you guys don't care to read about this, then you are sounding like hypocritical, blind Americans who you claim to decry. The Weapons in Space Program developed technologically advanced weapons similar to the laser beams seen in the film Star Wars. In fact, it's often referred to as the Star Wars program. You guys probably think this is some deluded fantasy, but it's real. I would provide a link, but I'm unable to do that from my truckstop, hooked up on an idleaire computer(not even a real computer), so please read that, so you, and all Americans can stop worrying about a nuclear war that isn't possible.

With that in mind, there is no reason we shouldn't dismantle our nuclear weapons.

With 3 consecutive victories in New Hampshire, Michigan, and Nevada, Clinton is on a roll. For anyone who calls her 'cold' or 'b*tch' keep in mind that people who are constantly in the spotlight need to set boundaries, and need to see the difference between media relations and reality. Would you rather she walked around with a fake plastic smile like Barack Obama or Mitt Romney just so she could be impressionable in person only to stick the knife in their back when they walk away? Also, please, a little bit more respect for the first woman who has ever competitively vied for a nomination to one of the 2 main parties. Can any of you imagining any other woman running for president right now? Honestly? Who? She's being as strong as she can be right now under this considerable amount of pressure.

if Hilary wins, I'm moving to England.

Kucinich dropped out of the race and I see Hillary/Bill are getting alot of crap, well deserved imo.