posted on July 18, 2007 02:40:19 PM
Yep, she's a vocal one alright. One might draw the conclusion that her mouth might even hurt her husbands campaign....the opposite of what she thinks she's doing
The NYT put it a lot nicer than have other MSM reports. lol
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mrs. Edwards Serves Critique on Hillary
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
Published: July 18, 2007
Elizabeth Edwards is again making sharper comments on the presidential campaign trail than any of the actual candidates, giving a particularly pointed critique yesterday of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.
In an interview with Salon.com, Mrs. Edwards said Mrs. Clinton was not as vocal an advocate for women’s issues as she wished she were and lanced what she said was a suggestion by the Clinton campaign that people vote for Mrs. Clinton because she is a woman.
Mrs. Edwards also said Mrs. Clinton “needs a rationale greater for her campaign” than that she is in the race to win, which is what Mrs. Clinton said in January when she announced her candidacy. Mrs. Edwards said Senator Barack Obama of Illinois had no rationale either, but she spoke more extensively about Mrs. Clinton.
Her comments to Salon were her most overtly critical to date of Mrs. Clinton and seemed intended to puncture the Clinton campaign’s support among Democratic women. Polls suggest that Mrs. Clinton holds sway over unmarried, blue-collar women, the same voters to whom Mrs. Edwards’s husband, former Senator John Edwards, is trying to appeal.
Mrs. Edwards said that she was sympathetic to the pressures Mrs. Clinton faced in trying to make it in a man’s world, and that when she practiced law, she felt those same pressures.
“And sometimes you feel you have to behave as a man and not talk about women’s issues,” she said. But she added that Mrs. Clinton was “just not as vocal a women’s advocate as I want to see,” while her husband is.
Mrs. Clinton has discussed some cost-saving measures on health care, “but she acts like that’s going to make health care affordable to everyone,” Mrs. Edwards told Salon. “And she knows it won’t.”
Mrs. Edwards also criticized Mrs. Clinton as “not really talking about poverty,” which often affects single mothers. And she said Mrs. Clinton had created some “wiggle room” on her position on abortion. (At a Planned Parenthood forum yesterday, Mrs. Edwards said her husband “would never, and I mean never, equivocate on his support for a woman’s right to choose, to gain a few votes or to position himself.”)
The Clinton campaign had no comment.
===============
LOL....but let there be NO doubt....hillary will NOT forget this.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Jul 18, 2007 02:43 PM ]
posted on July 18, 2007 06:55:26 PM
I have to laugh at how she's made a new political ad. In addition to bashing hillary's health care plan, in the ad she calls john 'tough'. LOL
pretty boy isnt' the 'tough' one. Maybe she should run for the Presidency....and pretty boy can keep looking at himself in the mirror to be sure his hair looks okay.
Maybe they're playing good cop, bad cop. She throws the jabs at hillary and hillary can't claim john's getting combative since he didn't attack hillary. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on July 18, 2007 07:01:50 PM
Personally I don't view this as a 'slam' but as an opinion expressed by Mrs. Edwards based on her observations of Hillary. She has every right to speak her thoughts. Perhaps Hillary will even take into account what she's said and note if there is room for improvement.
Mrs. Edwards always was a career minded individual so probably got used to speaking her mind long ago. But ya, those that bow to their men and walk ten paces behind, speaking only when they allow them to, probably will make a big deal over this and think that John Edwards is making her speak out for him.
posted on July 18, 2007 07:49:21 PM
'those who bow to their men'...... maybe like hillary who puts up with an unfaithful man because she's too insecure to leave him. could be. 'Abuse me all you want to bill'....I'll remain and be your 'stand by your man wife'.
Or are you speaking about CC...or another liberal women here. Just WHO are you referring to with such nonsense, kaira? lol
Maybe yourself???
And that would be as opposed to those who can't get a man to commit to them I guess. Probably because they're too much of a feminist to ever give a man the respect he deserves - when he deserves it. Or they choose men who can't make committments...don't want a family and certainly aren't going to be tied down to one woman. Rock stars are like that....they LOVE their groupies.
And for the record, in all my years on the RT, I have NEVER read any women profess to such nonsense as you type.
You're seeing things again, hearing things again, pretending things again....all for desperate attention.
You and CC continue on with your 'love fest'....I don't have boots that can make it though that level of BS
posted on July 18, 2007 08:33:13 PMI have NEVER read any women profess to such nonsense as you type.
Gee linda, then you should get out in the real world and find out there really are 'career and family' women who speak their minds without the permission of their men even though they may love and adore them.
You promote articles written by control-freakish men who wish to dominate women and who always blame 'women's lib' for the downfall of society, blame them for the loss of their manliness and you agree with them whole-heartedly each time.
So what if Hillary remains with Bill? The men you stand behind and support through thick and thin all diddle other men, hookers, call girls, mistresses, they snort cocaine, have gay sex in bathrooms, etc and many remain with their wives - in fact they pray to God and then trot the little heart-broken wife out in front of the cameras to 'stand by their man'.
And exactly what do rock stars have to do with Mrs Edwards and Hillary? Or are you still so jealous and upset about what you imagine my personal life to be that you're near another breakdown over it even on this discussion?
posted on July 19, 2007 12:24:27 AM
I doubt Hillary Clinton got where she's at by being insecure. LOL! But linduh's comments about Hillary sure point to LINDUH'S insecurity!
And linduh and other neocons would've ragged on her if she had gotten a divorce...for being a quitter, for not taking her marriage vows seriously, for not taking marriage seriously, for not being forgiving, etc.
More babbling from a female doormat,
""And that would be as opposed to those who can't get a man to commit to them I guess. Probably because they're too much of a feminist to ever give a man the respect he deserves - when he deserves it.""
A feminist (female OR male) gives respect to those who give them respect, to those who earn respect....and simply having a penis is NOT a good enough reason(unless you're linduh )
Many feminists are in long term committed relationships and some non-feminists like Rudy, Newt, and Vitter are NOT.
posted on July 19, 2007 09:41:41 AM
Whatever? in an interview with the author Edward Klein( who is a leftist indepenent) according to him, of the new book: The Truth About Hillary: What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She'll Go to Become President" states after being asked "What's the most interesting thing you learned about Hillary while working on your book? The most disturbing?
Klein: That even today, Hillary is aware that Bill Clinton is carrying on sexual affairs with other women, and she doesn’t do anything about it.
The book quotes Senator Monihan's wife's view on Hillary and he has a recording to prove it.
The "L" word is mentioned often.
This book should be read by every voter.
The author has great credentials and is a "leftist".
He interviews friends, school mates, politicians, and people in the know.
[ edited by etexbill on Jul 19, 2007 09:43 AM ]
[ edited by etexbill on Jul 19, 2007 09:43 AM ]
posted on July 19, 2007 10:15:28 AM
What the neocons/repugs/religious right prefers .....
High Infidelity
What if three admitted adulterers run for president and no one cares?
By Steve Benen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last month, The New York Times published a 2,000-word, front-page dissection of Bill and Hillary Clinton's marriage. It contained no real news, few named sources, and plenty of gossip masquerading as political coverage. Observing that the Clintons typically spend 14 days of each month together--hardly unusual for a couple that includes a senator and a peripatetic former president--the Times opted for the half-empty conclusion that the two lead "largely separate lives." The story also made an oblique reference to a Canadian politician named Belinda Stronach, the significance of which would likely be grasped only by insiders and people who read tabloids at supermarket check-outs. In a cover article last year, the Globe claimed that Stronach and Clinton were more than just good friends.
If the Times had evidence to support the innuendo, it decided not to print it. But despite the vaporous quality of the story's facts, David Broder's Washington Post column just 48 hours later indicated that a new conventional wisdom was forming, one which sought to undermine Hillary's presidential ambitions. After describing his boredom at a substantive speech the senator gave to reporters on energy policy, Broder concluded that the failure of reporters in the post-speech Q&A to grill Hillary about her personal relationship with her husband was the "elephant in the room."
Of course, there was once a time when reporters believed that the sexual peccadilloes of American leaders were a private matter, and the nation was probably better off for that belief. In the late 1990s, Broder himself argued several times that these kinds of stories don't do voters any favors. But the rules were shifting, thanks largely to the mainstream press and the GOP's relentless pursuit of Bill Clinton. Now the Times piece suggests that we're in for three long years in which reporters will judge Hillary Clinton's character by rumors about her husband. But it may be Republicans who have the most to lose.
Lurking just over the horizon are liabilities for three Republicans who have topped several national, independent polls for the GOP's favorite 2008 nominee: Sen. John McCain (affair, divorce), former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (affair, divorce, affair, divorce), and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (divorce, affair, nasty divorce). Together, they form the most maritally challenged crop of presidential hopefuls in American political history.
Until relatively recently, a self-confessed adulterer had never sought the presidency. Certainly, other candidates have been dogged by sex scandals. In the 1828 presidential election, John Quincy Adams questioned whether Andrew Jackson's wife was legitimately divorced from her first husband before she married Old Hickory. Grover Cleveland, who was single, fathered a child out of wedlock, a fact that sparked national headlines during the 1884 election (though he managed to win anyway). There have been presidential candidates who had affairs that the press decided not to write about, like Wendell Wilkie, FDR, and John F. Kennedy. And there have been candidates whose infidelities have been uncovered during the course of a campaign: Gary Hart's indiscretions ultimately derailed his 1988 bid, and in 1992, during the course of his campaign, Bill Clinton was forced to make the euphemistic admission that he "caused pain" in his marriage.
But it wasn't until 2000 that McCain, possibly emboldened by Clinton's survival of his scandals, became the first confessed adulterer to have the nerve to run. Now, just a few years after infidelity was considered a dealbreaker for a presidential candidate, the party that presents itself as the arbiter of virtue may field an unprecedented two-timing trifecta.
McCain was still married and living with his wife in 1979 while, according to The New York Times' Nicholas Kristof, "aggressively courting a 25-year-old woman who was as beautiful as she was rich." McCain divorced his wife, who had raised their three children while he was imprisoned in Vietnam, then launched his political career with his new wife's family money. In 2000, McCain managed to deflect media questioning about his first marriage with a deft admission of responsibility for its failure. It's possible that the age of the offense and McCain's charmed relationship with the press will pull him through again, but Giuliani and Gingrich may face a more difficult challenge. Both conducted well-documented affairs in the last decade--while still in public office.
Giuliani informed his second wife, Donna Hanover, of his intention to seek a separation in a 2000 press conference. The announcement was precipitated by a tabloid frenzy after Giuliani marched with his then-mistress, Judith Nathan, in New York's St. Patrick's Day parade, an acknowledgement of infidelity so audacious that Daily News columnist Jim Dwyer compared it with "groping in the window at Macy's." In the acrid divorce proceedings that followed, Hanover accused Giuliani of serial adultery, alleging that Nathan was just the latest in a string of mistresses, following an affair the mayor had had with his former communications director.
But the most notorious of them all is undoubtedly Gingrich, who ran for Congress in 1978 on the slogan, "Let Our Family Represent Your Family." (He was reportedly cheating on his first wife at the time). In 1995, an alleged mistress from that period, Anne Manning, told Vanity Fair's Gail Sheehy: "We had oral sex. He prefers that modus operandi because then he can say, 'I never slept with her.'" Gingrich obtained his first divorce in 1981, after forcing his wife, who had helped put him through graduate school, to haggle over the terms while in the hospital, as she recovered from uterine cancer surgery. In 1999, he was disgraced again, having been caught in an affair with a 33-year-old congressional aide while spearheading the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton.
Despite the scandalous details, whether the press will air them is still an open question. When it comes to personal morality, liberal commentators have long argued that the press has one standard for Democrats and another for Republicans (and another one entirely for the Clintons). It's possible that the mainstream media will fail to apply the same scrutiny to the known transgressions of Gingrich, Giuliani and McCain as the Times did to rumors about Hillary Clinton's husband. But for that to happen, the press will have to resist four powerful political dynamics that will almost certainly be pushing to get the story out.
Cheat and greet
The first dynamic is the competition among the contenders in a crowded GOP presidential primary. Right now, at least 10 high-profile Republicans are eyeing the race. If a candidate with an adulterous past pulls ahead, the stragglers may be sorely tempted to play the infidelity card--if not openly, then through their surrogates. In 2000, George W. Bush's allies went well beyond raising McCain's affair--they spread bogus rumors in advance of the South Carolina primary that the senator had fathered an illegitimate black child. This strategy helped to deliver Bush a key primary victory and, arguably, the nomination.
But if GOP operatives dangle the infidelity bait, and the press fails to bite, its importance to Christian conservatives won't be so easy to ignore. Since the press awoke to the phenomenon of evangelicals in 2000 and so-called "values voters" in 2004, reporters have become fond of gaming out every possible permutation of evangelicals' political concerns. Evangelicals' attitudes towards the marital problems of McCain, Giuliani and Gingrich might actually deserve such an inquiry. In 2000, for example, James Dobson issued a personal press release specifically to "clarify his lack of support for Senator McCain." "The Senator is being touted by the media as a man of principle, yet he was involved with other women while married to his first wife," Dobson said. He also cautioned that McCain's character was "reminiscent" of Bill Clinton's--possibly the ultimate insult in conservative circles.
These remarks received little attention in 2000, possibly because reporters hadn't yet grasped the extent of Dobson's influence, but Carrie Gordon Earll, a spokesperson for Dobson's Focus on the Family, recently made it clear that the adultery issue hasn't lost any of its toxicity among evangelicals. "If you have a politician, an elected official, and they can't be trusted in their own marriage, how can I trust them with the budget? How can I trust them with national security?" she asked me. Although Earll was reluctant to discuss specific politicians, she noted that a candidate who "had an affair and then moved on and restored that marriage" might find forgiveness with Christian conservatives, but someone "who had an affair and then left his wife" would not.
If the press still doesn't focus on the GOP infidelity issue and one of the adulterers manages to win the nomination, a third dynamic will kick in: hopping-mad Democrats. After enduring the trauma of the Clinton years, and the indignity of John Kerry fending off baseless reports of a fling with a reporter in 2004, it's hard to imagine Democrats playing nice in 2008, especially in light of the high bar Republicans have set for themselves on "character" issues. What's more, there's not a single known adulterer among the 10 or so names most commonly mentioned as potential Democratic presidential contenders. What would any of them lose by unleashing their attack dogs on his or her opponent's checkered past (presuming they don't have a skeleton in their own closet)?
Finally, if the Democrats fail to plant this story in the press, one final force will be beating at their doors: liberal bloggers. Witness the indignation that swept the progressive blogosphere immediately after the Times piece ran on the Clintons. Hullabaloo's Digby fumed at the Times' "cheap, tabloid coverage of politics when the world is on fire." Matt Stoller at MyDD noted published rumors of a Jeb Bush affair with then-Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, adding, "Get ready for a slimefest." Bloggers are likely not only to relentlessly push the mainstream press to start covering Republican candidates' adultery, but may also ferret out new information about those past indiscretions that could prove awfully tempting to establishment reporters.
Of course, the right-wing blogosphere will be pushing back just as hard, aiming (along with GOP campaign operatives) to intimidate the mainstream press into not covering Republican infidelities. The party with years of experience exploiting "values" for electoral gain will no doubt dismiss the marital troubles of Gingrich, Giuliani and McCain as "old news" and the "politics of personal destruction," marking any reporter who brings up the subject guilty of "bias." Indeed, it's likely that establishment reporters will be grateful to have that argument as an excuse to steer clear of the subject altogether. But an excuse is all it will be. After all, in every presidential campaign, the press typically rehashes known facts about a candidate's past (think Bush's National Guard service, or Kerry's Vietnam record) on the theory that many voters aren't aware of them, and that new information relevant to voters often will emerge in the retelling.
It'd be dishonest to say that liberals won't take some satisfaction in seeing the Republicans undone by their own standards. But if the top three Democratic presidential hopefuls each had extra-marital affairs in their backgrounds, it stands to reason that Republicans would have something to say about it--and if the past is any guide, those concerns would find their way into the papers. Of course, you could argue that we'd all benefit if reporters didn't write about any of this. But you could also argue that the support voters gave Bill Clinton suggests that they can handle the truth and are capable of distinguishing between public and private behavior. Perhaps the very fact that Gingrich, Giuliani and McCain are even considering presidential runs reflects a growing maturity in American politics.
What you can't argue, however, is that it's OK for the press to scrutinize one party's candidates and not the other's. If Hillary Clinton's marriage has been publicly dissected on the front page of the newspaper of record, why should the marital infidelities of GOP candidates be off limits? The answer is, they shouldn't be, and despite the mainstream press' deep reluctance, they probably won't be.
Steve Benen is a freelance writer. His blog is The Carpetbagger Report.
posted on July 19, 2007 10:18:29 AM
Ahh, but mingo, Hillary's marriage and sexual preferences aren't the only thing discussed in this book. Read it and weep.
[ edited by etexbill on Jul 19, 2007 10:18 AM ]
posted on July 19, 2007 10:52:19 AM
Read it and weep???
You're projecting your reactions on to me....I couldn't care less what the book says. I am interested in Hilary's views but she is not my choice for president....I haven't decided yet.
But I notice that you, and all other repugs, are very good at ignoring the faults of what few candidates you have.
Again, I see repugs screaming about Democrat candidates but there's sure no one bragging about the Republican candidates.....
posted on July 19, 2007 11:07:55 AM
Hmmm, I'm, thinking of every one of the Republicans. All good.
But I could be persuaded to vote for someone else if I like what he/she stands for. (But certainly not Hillary). Eight years of Clintons is enough and then some.
I am an independent. Formerly a Texas Democrat back in the days when the word "Republican" was never heard in Texas. Now all major elective officials are Republican. What a difference 25 years make. And all because of a few lousy Democrats that turned the whole state Republican almost overnight.
[ edited by etexbill on Jul 19, 2007 11:10 AM ]
posted on July 19, 2007 11:53:12 AM
Here's a start :
Texas Districting As Illegal
Voting Rights Finding On Map Pushed by DeLay Was Overruled
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 2, 2005; Page A01
Justice Department lawyers concluded that the landmark Texas congressional redistricting plan spearheaded by Rep. Tom DeLay (R) violated the Voting Rights Act, according to a previously undisclosed memo obtained by The Washington Post. But senior officials overruled them and approved the plan.
The memo, unanimously endorsed by six lawyers and two analysts in the department's voting section, said the redistricting plan illegally diluted black and Hispanic voting power in two congressional districts. It also said the plan eliminated several other districts in which minorities had a substantial, though not necessarily decisive, influence in elections.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DOCUMENT
Section 5 Recommendation Memorandum This Dec. 12, 2003, Department of Justice memo shows that a team of lawyers and analysis determined that the Texas redistricting plan violated the Voting Rights Act (PDF).
Criticism of Voting Law Was Overruled
A team of Justice Department lawyers and analysts who reviewed a Georgia voter-identification law recommended rejecting it because it was likely to discriminate against black voters, but they were overruled the next day by higher-ranking officials at Justice, according to department documents.
Department of Justice Documents
Section 5 Recommendation Memorandum
This Aug. 25 Department of Justice memo shows that a review team decided 4-1 that Georgia's voter identification program should be halted. The next day Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and his aides granted pre-clearance to the program, allowing the initiative to go forward before it was blocked by the courts (PDFs).
"The State of Texas has not met its burden in showing that the proposed congressional redistricting plan does not have a discriminatory effect," the memo concluded.
The memo also found that Republican lawmakers and state officials who helped craft the proposal were aware it posed a high risk of being ruled discriminatory compared with other options.
But the Texas legislature proceeded with the new map anyway because it would maximize the number of Republican federal lawmakers in the state, the memo said. The redistricting was approved in 2003, and Texas Republicans gained five seats in the U.S. House in the 2004 elections, solidifying GOP control of Congress.
J. Gerald "Gerry" Hebert, one of the lawyers representing Texas Democrats who are challenging the redistricting in court, said of the Justice Department's action: "We always felt that the process . . . wouldn't be corrupt, but it was. . . . The staff didn't see this as a close call or a mixed bag or anything like that. This should have been a very clear-cut case."
But Justice Department spokesman Eric W. Holland said the decision to approve the Texas plan was vindicated by a three-judge panel that rejected the Democratic challenge. The case is on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"The court ruled that, in fact, the new congressional plan created a sufficient number of safe minority districts given the demographics of the state and the requirements of the law," Holland said. He added that Texas now has three African Americans serving in Congress, up from two before the redistricting.
Texas Republicans also have maintained that the plan did not dilute minority votes and that the number of congressional districts with a majority of racial minorities remained unchanged at 11. The total number of congressional districts, however, grew from 30 to 32.
The 73-page memo, dated Dec. 12, 2003, has been kept under tight wraps for two years. Lawyers who worked on the case were subjected to an unusual gag rule. The memo was provided to The Post by a person connected to the case who is critical of the adopted redistricting map. Such recommendation memos, while not binding, historically carry great weight within the Justice Department.
Under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Texas and other states with a history of discriminatory elections are required to submit changes in their voting systems or election maps for approval by the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division.
The Texas case provides another example of conflict between political appointees and many of the division's career employees. In a separate case, The Post reported last month that a team was overruled when it recommended rejecting a controversial Georgia voter-identification program that was later struck down as unconstitutional by a court.
posted on July 19, 2007 12:44:18 PM
Long before Tom, mingo. Years ago. Long before re-districting. Re-districting had nothing to do with the change.
Ever hear of Ben Barnes, Jim Wright, the Sharpstown Scandal, Billie Sol Estes and on and on and on. Let's not forget George Parr, "the Duke of Duval County" and the LBJ senate race scandal.
Democrats were the big losers in Texas after all this, and will be for a long time to come.
Long before re-districting. Thought you knew all about history.
[ edited by etexbill on Jul 19, 2007 12:45 PM ]
[ edited by etexbill on Jul 19, 2007 12:59 PM ]
posted on July 19, 2007 10:51:18 PM
I believe that's the problem with MOST who vote for/support the dem party. They DON'T KNOW their history. And in the past 40 years or more they've done nothing but continue to limit the teaching of our national history in the classrooms.
Remove our history from the school books....their indoctrination, imo, is why so many Americans look at America as the bad guy in their sick world views. Why they can't recognize EVIL when it's right in front of their faces. Why they tend to denounce most of what HAS worked....and continue believing that EVERYTHING can be 'talked' out. Then they can't acknowledge that 'talking' hasn't worked....especially with the terrorists.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on July 19, 2007 10:56:38 PM
MORE delusional statements from our resident canadian...who THINKS she knows my positions.
Her crystal ball has LONG been broken....but her assumptions get funnier and funnier...more crazy with each post she makes. What an odd PRETEND world she lives in...where everything her mind can imagine is true TO HER. Guess her own life is so VOID of living....she continues to have this NEED to make things up about strangers. LOL
sick, in the real world...but in kaira's world....all assumptions/false statements are true. LOL poor thing.
posted on July 19, 2007 11:56:58 PM
Ya, linduh, there was a huge liberal conspiracy to keep you from getting an education. LOL!!!! Hey! It worked!
Oh, Duke, is 25 years really "overnight" ?
Just because you can't face what Delay did doesn't make me wrong
And, of course , with linduh's flagrant double standards she's not screaming at you about your OLD news ... She's too busy making up nasty stuff about Kiara.
posted on July 20, 2007 12:12:44 AM
Oh my - a day later and that's all Linduh has to keep ranting about because she slipped up and started venting about rock stars in the midst of a Mrs Edwards and Hillary discussion. I wonder what she'd give to see a peek into my personal life? How about sending me a payment by paypal for each little tidbit I offer, Linda? Make it worth my while and I'll talk.
posted on July 20, 2007 06:28:16 AM
"Just because you can't face what Delay did doesn't make me wrong"
No, but the facts presented make you wrong. Texas had all Republican leaders long before Tom DeLay. Except for the brief period of our joke, the motorcycle riding, alchoholic, Anne Richards (God rest her soul).
posted on July 20, 2007 07:03:00 AM
AAAHHHHH! Couples! Bill and Hillary. Valerie and Joe. Elizabeth and John. Al and Tipper. John and Theresa.COUPLES
All being helpmates, best friends, lovers, supporters. All wealthy, successful....lose an election, lose a lawsuit...well, ya, but they still have each other
All together. How romantic.
If they bother you, linduh, just let me know and I may quit talking about them.....
posted on July 20, 2007 09:08:26 AMAll being helpmates, best friends, lovers, supporters. All wealthy, successful....lose an election, lose a lawsuit...well, ya, but they still have each other.
That's what Linda calls 'losers'. The thought of anyone enjoying those kinds of relationships makes female doormats turn even more nasty and bitter with time.
posted on July 20, 2007 12:58:25 PM
"No, but the facts presented make you wrong."
lol. The liberals NEVER allow 'facts' to enter into their mind-think. Facts just get in the way.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on July 20, 2007 02:00:42 PM
AWWWWW...no little "helpmate" for you ??????
And, linDUH, when YOU are faced with facts you don't like you start whining and screaming about stalkers and children and post another hate C&P about Hillary ....so jealous of her
posted on July 20, 2007 06:47:28 PM
linduh, you have no knowledge of what other people think especially honest ones.
Your meaningless attacks on Hillary and other successful, strong, intelligent, powerful women who HAVE HUSBANDS is pretty indicative of a broiling jealousy....
) 