From global warming deniers to people who say global warming will not make fires more likely and bigger.

No one said this fire was caused by global warming. But higher average temperatures mean that low-water areas like SoCal will get less water and high-water areas will get more (warm air sucks up more moisture drying out dry places and has to dump it somewhere).

Yes, CA is a fire-prone place and always has been. Yes, stupid to build houses in the middle of matchsticks. But it is tantamount to being a flat-earther to deny that global warming a) exists; and b)exacerbates forest fires.

She says what she's not doing (calling for war) and what she thinks it will do (strengthen diplomatic position -- but god knows why). But her memo does not say, despite its marketing, why the Iranian Guard is a terrorist organization.

Pretty fucking amazing that a memo on why someone is called a terrorist has nothing to do with why they are a terrorist. No big surprise since that word has no meaning anymore.

George Bush ran a "strong campaign." For me it's not about whether someone runs hard, it's about whether they represent me. Clinton does not, and I'm done with voting against my interests by degree.

She also may be a loser in the general because (as others point out) she will turn out the GOP in hoards while people like me -- liberals -- will leave the presidential box blank. Her candidacy will have to depend on voters who support the Democrats like a sports team rather than a political party, and that number is ever dwindling given the Democrats' shameless support of everything they campaigned against in 2006. (Imagine how popular the Red Sox would be if their pitchers threw soft balls and their players stood motionless as Colorado rounded the bases.)

The Republican base hates her because they run on emotion, not logic. Republican initiatives (destroy free-market competition and use big government to tip the scales) were never what Republican voters thought they were voting for, and so they don't realize that the "liberal" Clinton they hate is the same -- pushing proposals remarkably similar to what Newt Gingrich was pushing in the late 90's (see Clinton healthcare and retirement savings plans).

All these posts for Hillary from handles I've never seen that ignore what everyone against Hillary has written. Looks like someone on blog patrol for the campaign has sent out the word.

I agree with the other poster who said these are Clinton campaign volunteers posting. Let me make this clear:

Hillary Clinton supports right-wing proposals and takes vast amounts of corporate money (for god sakes, versions of her healthcare and retirement plans used to be part of Newt Gingrich's agenda in the 90's -- that's how far we've come). The GOP is clearly on its way out, so big money needs a winning horse on the Democratic side and the Clinton machine served them in the 90's and will again. Clinton may win the nomination, but DO NOT TRY TO BLACKMAIL ME INTO VOTING AGAINST MY INTERESTS.

This is a corrupt, war-crime committing nation, and the fact that my tax dollars support that is bad enough. I will not let my vote do it too. I'd rather have Rudy win without my vote than have Hillary win with my support. I have no idea what she stands for and what she'll do when elected, but I'm pretty damn sure I don't want to be responsible for it.

I am getting sick and tired of those who think she's just so damn smart and hard campaigning using that as some kind of reason to support her. Talk about her policies (which I'm sure you've got no clue about); there aren't many of them, and those that she's articulated suck.