Why should I enable a war-pig?

No more war-pigs, now or ever.

I'd just as soon stay home as vote for a repuke-lite Hillary.

She's a war-pig. No votes for her!

Tucker Carlson is a Rodham man, meaning he refers to the Dem front-runner not as Hillary Clinton or as Senator Clinton, but as "Hillary Rodham Clinton" which is Angry Authoritarian-speak for Feminazi, and thus places her with presidential assassins (John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald) and infamous mass-murderers (John Wayne Gacy). Wolf Blitzer, too, is a Rodham man, betraying his abhorrence of this uppity feminist. I suggest Salon readers note all further sightings of Rodham men (they're usually men), in the interest of identifying specific instances of corporate media bias.

...instead of a Democrat, you may as well have just voted for the Republican. Because that's the only result you will have achieved.

It's a political fact of life that every vote the Democrats lose is a gain for the Republicans.

I've voted Dem in every Presidential election since I could vote. But if Hillary is the nominee I'll be looking to thrid parties. I can't vote for someone who will divide the country. We need to be unified.

It's not as if she's running for the Green Party! Holy crap, you need to listen to what you're saying. The fact is, if Clinton or Obama (or any of the other candidates) happen to win the Democratic nomination, we'll be standing behind him or her (unless it was Lieberman, ugh).

Since when is the possibility or a female or mixed race candidate a "liberal" platform?

This is just silly, you people repeating like a broken record how the conservatives hate her to an unreasonable degree. Given her moderate stance, there's no LOGICAL reason for a conservative to roll their eyes back into their heads and start speaking in tongues at the mention of her name...that leaves only one possibility as to why...shall we guess the reason? If some stupid right-wingers are going to throw a shit fit over the possibility of a chick or (half) black dude in the White House, they can kiss my ass. You don't like their views? Fine. Just don't act as if they are any more "evil" than any of the other candidates.

So I guess "putting the good of the Democratic party" means always going for white males. Sorry hon, I look at the issues, not the gender or color of skin. It's one thing to loathe those voting Green instead of Democratic (for the greater good), but I'm sure as hell not going to err on the side of caution as far as misogyny and racism. If we as a country are really still this ass-backwards, we'll learn our lesson in the end I suppose...fuck 'em.

Hilary Clinton has once and for all proven herself to be the egomaniacal completely unappealing human being the Right has always declared her to be. Her inability to put the good of this country and the Democratic party first,and put energies into a Democratic candidate who can win in 2008 show her lack of care for anything but her destiny. I am disappointed. I had made myself believe there was some strategy behind all this talk, that she would never actually run in 2008. There is no longer any doubt. Whatever fascist Republican is dredged up is our new president for 2008, barring a dead girl, live boy or assassination. No woman will win as president in 2008,nor will any African-American. When will the Democratic party start acting like it cares about a little about America, not and not only its liberal platforms?

I can sum it up in three little letters: DLC. Electing anyone who's that affiliated with the DLC is, essentially, saying that more "free-trade" and more moderation of the New Deal will fix this country. Besides, if Hillary is really serious about her pet issue, health care, the only one that she's ever seemed even remotely invested in, then she'll stay in the Senate. She can do more to bring about a universal single-payer health care system in the Senate than she ever could as president. Of course, she's had six years to try to start that conversation, and hasn't opened her mouth on it.

Americans don't seem to have the first damn clue about how our government works. Legislators can't do much to stop a war, except cut access to money to wage it. So, we elected Democrats to Congress in 2006 to stop the war. I'm telling you now: presidents can introduce legislation, and they can sign it into law, but the bit in the middle, where the bill gets debated, changed and voted on is the province of the legislature. If Hillary is authentic in her desire to improve health care for American citizens, then she'll stay where she is.

I'm a fan of James Kunstler's writings, and read his web site each Monday for the weekly blog. Check out his opinon on Hillary and others for a different perspective.

What's wrong about Hillary is plain for all to see and hear in her announcement video.

"Let's talk about how to bring the right end to the war in Iraq and to restore respect for America around the world," and "Let's definitely talk about how every American can have quality, affordable healthcare."

No, Senator, let's not just "talk." Let's hear how you would solve these problems. This "let's talk" jive is just a smokescreen that makes her sound so terribly concerned, while offering literally nothing up in the way of a solution. Why? Having no policy equals no way to be criticized for that non-existant policy. This has always been Hillary's (non) plan.

Ah, the benefits of nepotism and sexism!

If Hillary Clinton were a man, and if her last name were not Clinton, yet she had the same views, positions and legislative history not one actual Democrat would take her seriously as a candidate.

Would you be willing to cast your primary vote for somebody who: was among the most hawkish Dems on the war, refused to call their vote for the AUMF a mistake, supports amendments to the Constitution that criminalize the terrible and oh so common act of flag burning, constantly rails against the evil effects of popular culture, kisses up to those who want to commingle religion and government, is totally in the grip of corporate interests, has no defined position on single payer health care but is guaranteed to look out for the insurance companies, is a long time part of the DLC and is known for taking positions only after making sure they are accepted by what they think are the majority of the public, or at the very least not going to be controversal, --if their name was John Smith?

If you would, would you vote for Joe Lieberman for President? Wait a minute, Joe is a least willing to take an unpopular stand in favor of expanding the war. Oh, that was only after he was re-elected, during the campaign he lied. Sorry.

If the answer to the questions above is "yes." than I would like to be in a different party than you.