I heard it. I saw the cartoon. Evil Evil Evil! What a monster she must be! And what a lot of crap to make a big deal out of a perfectly honest answer. What is it with the Hillary haters?

melhausner

When the phone rang to say there is a genocide happening in Ruanda, what did Hilary do? When the Cole was bombed, did she wake up and do something? Other than tell the world that everyone was ganging up on her errant husband? When our embassies were bombed, what did she do? Hilary's experience is in striving for power at all costs.

"Obama's a poopyhead because he didn't wait his turn."

Funny thing about that whole "it's so-and-so's turn": Anyone remember how that worked for John Kerry or Bob Dole? Just curious...

Do you have that short of memory? Obama was going negative on Hillary back in Nov./Dec. And he portrayed her as "Bush-lite". It was successful, and now the idealists of the Democratic party look at Obama through rose-colored glasses, and say nasty things about Hillary. Just as nasty as republicans.

Obama supporters have jumped the shark when it comes to how they attack Hillary. Why I have seen negatives thrown at Obama from Hillary supporters, I do not see the level of vitriol from them, or the willingness to characterize him so negatively.

I don't know what you've been smoking, but Nancy Pelosi is one of the lame-duck Democrats largely responsible for sitting around and doing nothing, even now that they have the majority in Congress. Plus, she has only held office since 1987 or thereabouts. It you include Clinton's experience in both the White House and the governor's mansion of Arkansas, she has been involved in politics since 1978. And please make the argument that being the first lady of either a state or a country isn't a job in itself. You'll just be making yourself look more dumb.

The sad fact is that Nancy Pelosi was a stay-at-home mom and descendant of American aristocracy with too much money on her hands, so she ran for office. She proved a capable House Minority Leader but as Speaker she's been less than impressive and has been much more of a Bush lapdop than anyone would ever accuse either Clinton or Obama. I love when people find inane excuses to note vote for someone... "I'd totally vote for Hillary... if she were this OTHER woman whose name I heard on the news once!!!"

To responsd to juneausmog, was the Democratic party supposed to hand the nomination to Hillary Clinton because she was entitled to it?

In case you didn't notice, Obama wasn't the only guy running against Hillary for the nomination. Did Edwards, Biden, Richardson, Gravel, Dodd, and Kucinich also threaten to split the party with their bids? If Hillary was indeed the overwhelming favorite, NONE of those other candidates would have even bothered. To suggest that Obama's campaign alone is splitting the party has no logic. Neither the party nor the country should be voting for the first black or the first woman, they should be voting for the BEST CANDIDATE to be President of the United States. It's that simple. It's not about candidates taking turns to make history. Afterall, Obama is not the first black man to run for President (Jackson, Sharpton, Keyes). He's just the first one at a legitimate shot of getting the nomination. If voters simply wanted to make racial history, they would have done so with the other black candidates that have run before him. People aren't simply voting for race.

Besides, if I were to vote for the first female President, I would vote for Nancy Pelosi. She has more experience in ELECTED office than Hillary Clinton ever has or ever will. Pelosi has experience that actually matters. Pelosi has built her reputation on her own terms without pinning her clout and reputation to a powerful spouse. Now if she were running for President, I may actually pay some attention to the experience argument. If anything, if anyone needs to wait their turn to make history it should be Hillary. Pelosi should be the first female President.

As 2006 came to a close, it was known that the republican party would be in the gutter, and that HRC would be making a historical candidacy for president as the first woman president of the United States.

She was well liked by the majority of Democrats, she had wide support, and we all knew we could unite behind her and tackle the problems that the Bush administration constructed. But bottom line, this was to be a huge change for America and especially, for the women of this country.

Then, Obama, a freshman senator decided to enter the race. He is young, very young, JFK Jr. young. In his mid-40's, he could have waited knowing that the first viable woman was to make the run. But he didn't. And he took that first step to dividing the party.

Democrats knew that the first woman president and african-american president would come from our party. And so the juxtaposition of these two candidates tore us apart from the beginning. Then Obama began his negative campaigning in Nov/Dec of '07. He said she was divisive. He said she was not an agent of change. He said that she was the status quo. And the idealists of the Democratic party began to become emotional, and listened to Obama's grand rhetoric and decided that he was right. She won't bring change. She is divisive. She is the status quo.

And the Democratic party has been divided since. The irony of Obama's campaign is that his message of unity divides our party. He has divided the party into the idealists and the pragmatists. He has portrayed a capable, noble and progressive woman as a person who will continue on the same course as Bush.

I think that he is young and is smart and able. But his ego is incredible. He knew HRC was going to run and she campaigned for him and raised money for him. And he did it anyway, and purposely divided our party in order to climb as fast as he could.