Hillary Clinton: Wrong on Just About Everything

If you'll remember, Hillary Clinton was the only Democratic candidate who didn't want to make the correction to crack/cocaine sentencing disparities retroactive.

Apparently reeling from her recent drubbing in Iowa, her campaign is now attacking Barack Obama for his opposition to federal mandatory minimums and his "liberal voting record" on criminal defendants' rights.

I'd say both of those positions make Obama sound pretty good.

Is there a single issue where Hillary Clinton doesn't support giving more power to the government? Abortion, I guess. But any others?

Comments

SIV | January 5, 2008, 10:28am | #

"Is there a single issue where Hillary Clinton doesn't support giving more power to the government? Abortion, I guess. But any others?"

I would think Hillary would support abortion as a "positive right", thus giving more power to the government.

Edward | January 5, 2008, 10:29am | #

She voted against banning gay adoptions in Wash D.C. Does she support building the fence along the Mexican border?

P Brooks | January 5, 2008, 10:31am | #

Is there a single issue where Hillary Clinton doesn't support giving more power to the government?

I think we can assume she doesn't want to give more power to the *Legislative* part of the government. Does that count?

J sub D | January 5, 2008, 10:37am | #

From the linked article -
Hillary Clinton signaled that she intends to play on Obama's as yet unexploited political weaknesses: "Who will be able to stand up to the Republican attack machine?" she asked at an appearance in Nashua.

joe?

joe | January 5, 2008, 10:42am | #

Good answer, J sub D.

I think I've demonstrated by ability stand up to the Republican Attack Machine just fine. At least in its Hit & Run format.

bigbigslacker | January 5, 2008, 10:44am | #

Edward, she only did that because she happens to be gay.

And building a fence is not giving more power to the government. The government already has the authority to build a fence on the border. That is not a power grab.

But you knew that. Is it that hard to come up with something stupid? I'll help:

She supports the individual right to receive free healthcare at the expense of the government.

Was that so hard?

bigbigslacker | January 5, 2008, 10:50am | #

If Obama can survive the Clinton attack machine there should be no problem with the Republican attack trinket.

The problem for Hillary is Obama heard loud and clear he would not be chosen as Hillary's running mate if he were to lose the primary. Its been obvious for some time the back seat will go to Edwards. Now Hillary fears not even making first lesbian VP.

P Brooks | January 5, 2008, 10:57am | #

she [Hillary] faces a popularity contest against Mr. Obama. There were empty seats, for instance, at a rally Mr. Clinton held with students at the University of New Hampshire on Friday afternoon. -today's NYT

Could those empty seats represent people at the rEVOLution, and not at ObamaWorld? Such a scenario would never even occur to the know-it-alls at the Times. College kids vote strictly Demo.

Michael | January 5, 2008, 11:00am | #

Is the United States 'stuck' with these two 'characters' until they die? Don't they have enough money, from one form or another? It is time for both of them to take a very very long vacation in another part of the planet and 'get to know one another again'. But leave the rest of us alone. Obama is all about CHANGE, hillary is all about the status-quo. She represents the same old same old. The OLD way of doing business, its time to move on from all that arcane mentality. Go Obama Go.

Edward | January 5, 2008, 11:01am | #

bigbigslacker

I didn't think gay bashing was big with libertarians. Are you a fellow traveller from some Nazi grouplet?

Cesar | January 5, 2008, 11:01am | #

I have the audacity to hope Obama completely crushes Shrillary.

J sub D | January 5, 2008, 11:03am | #

Good answer, J sub D.

I think I've demonstrated by ability stand up to the Republican Attack Machine just fine. At least in its Hit & Run format.

Huzzah. What else can I say?

JW | January 5, 2008, 11:03am | #

Is there a single issue where Hillary Clinton doesn't support giving more power to the government?

Um.....Ummmm.......Uh.....

I got nothin'.

If it comes down to the Huck v. Obama, I may have to cast my first Democrat vote in over 20 years. If it's HRC v. [anyone but RP], I'm just staying home. No point in voting at that point. Looking at the LP's list, why bother?

Cesar | January 5, 2008, 11:05am | #

For everyones enjoyment, heres my meta-response to Edward since he never responded to it on the thread. About the policy positions of Ron Paul:

"Gay Rights"-Don't really disagree with him because we do both agree its best left to the states. On the state level, I'd support it "gay rights" if by that you mean taking government out of marriage period and letting people come up with whatever domestic arrangements they want.

Abortion-Abortion is the most over-rated issue to ever gain such prominence on the national stage. I'm mildly pro-choice, but even overturning Roe v. Wade would accomplish nothing for the pro-life people. States, even if they outlawed abortion, don't have the resources to enforce the law anyway. Most likely scenario: doctors continue to preform abortions and call it something else.

Evolution: Since Paul doesn't believe (as I do) that education should be a federal concern, it doesn't really matter whether we agree or not. Its a personal belief, not a policy position.

American responsibility for 80% of the shit in the Middle East: Agreed

I agree with Ron Paul on foreign policy. I agree with Ron Paul on the Second Amendment. I agree with Ron Paul on taxes. I agree with Ron Paul on the need for a drastically reduced federal government. I agree with Ron Paul on civil liberties. I agree with Ron Paul on a strict interpretation of the Constitution. Thats what matters to me.

The things you listed in your previous post are red herrings. They are either personal beliefs which Ron Paul doesn't believe the government should force on anybody, or things best left to the states. End of story.

JW | January 5, 2008, 11:08am | #

Cesar-- If you just ignore it, it'll eventually go back under its federally funded, crumbling bridge.

Really. You don't have to read what it posts at all.

Gary | January 5, 2008, 11:22am | #

FYI, Hillary is a member of the CFR,TLC and a Bilderberg. It's all about the power!

Cesar | January 5, 2008, 11:22am | #

Gary, you forgot the Bohemian Club.

Warren | January 5, 2008, 11:23am | #

Is there a single issue where Hillary Clinton any candidate besides Ron Paul doesn't support giving more power to the government?

There, fixed that for you

Daze | January 5, 2008, 11:29am | #

Clinton is less statist than Obama on outsourcing and international trade.

But agreed that "libertarians for Hillary" looks less and less tenable. Oh for a Dem candidate who tacks right on the right issues, and holds his/her ground on the issues where the Dems are actually pro-freedom.

J sub D | January 5, 2008, 11:29am | #

FYI, Hillary is a member of the CFR,TLC and a Bilderberg. It's all about the power!
You left out the Trilateral Commision and International Jewry. Back to Conspiracy 101 for you.

bigbigslacker | January 5, 2008, 11:31am | #

"I didn't think gay bashing was big with libertarians. Are you a fellow traveller from some Nazi grouplet?"

Yes, Edward, I'm part of the vast right-wing conspiracy. Did you hear Hillary is one of them faygs?

bigbigslacker | January 5, 2008, 11:37am | #

If you want proof of who is really a Nazi, look at the top photo of www.drudgereport.com right now. If that isn't proof, I don't know what is (Shut up. Don't say it. Resist)

too many steves | January 5, 2008, 11:40am | #

Obama to Hillary:

"Is that all you got? Don't be bringin' that weak-ass shit up in here!"

figuratively, of course.

See, the reason Kerry, Gore, Dole, Bush I, and every other POTUS loser were vulnerable to the vast whatever-attack machine is that they had a blind spot to their own weakness(es).

Let's use Kerry as an example, he thought the whole veteran thing was an unmitigated, unchallengable good. But he overplayed it, to the point of misrepresentation, because he believed no one would question his military service & hero status.

Hillary is similarly blind to her basic weaknesses; many people don't like her because she is schoolmarm-ish and shrill. And what does she do? Attack Obama in a schoolmarmish and shrill manner.

So far Obama has not shown any such blindness. He's made some mistakes, particularly on the topic of foreign policy, but generally demonstrates he knows clearly what he is and is not. Thus he easily anticipates the attacks and is armed, jujitsu-like, to deflect them.

crimethink | January 5, 2008, 11:44am | #

Is there a single issue where Hillary Clinton doesn't support giving more power to the government? Abortion, I guess.

No, that's a power grab also. Being "pro-choice" means you want the government to have the power to discriminate on the basis of birth status in the enforcement of its murder laws.

Gene Trosper | January 5, 2008, 11:54am | #

A libertarian for Obama? I am seriously thinking about kicking in a few bucks to his campaign.

Ken Shultz | January 5, 2008, 12:04pm | #

"Is there a single issue where Hillary Clinton doesn't support giving more power to the government? Abortion, I guess."

I think her support for Roe v. Wade should be interpreted as support for more power to the federal government on the abortion issue, at best.

Gimme Back My Dog | January 5, 2008, 12:06pm | #

If Obama can survive the Clinton Attack Machine, the GOP is gonna seem like a walk in the park.

Ken Shultz | January 5, 2008, 12:08pm | #

There's little question about Hillary Clinton being the candidate, from the major parties, most hostile to libertarian ideas.

Cesar | January 5, 2008, 12:08pm | #

First poll out of New Hampshire done totally after the Iowa results were known (Rassmussen):

Obama 37
Clinton 27

Goodbye Hilldog.

BakedPenguin | January 5, 2008, 12:14pm | #

Oh for a Dem candidate who tacks right on the right issues...

Dodd and Richardson were pretty good, IMO - at least on MM, and they both made the right noises regarding executive power. The last one is a big reason I'm happy to see Obama beat down HRC & Edwards.

joe | January 5, 2008, 12:16pm | #

J sub D,

Just to sweeten the deal, I promise I won't play the gender card.

James Carville | January 5, 2008, 12:16pm | #

Goodbye Hilldog.

Mrs. Clinton was never serious about Iowa and New Hampshire. Her strategy has always been to win big on Super Tuesday states like NY, FL, and CA.

Do I win? | January 5, 2008, 12:19pm | #

Is there a single issue where Hillary Clinton doesn't support giving more power to the government?

The prosecution of Bill Clinton?

joe | January 5, 2008, 12:20pm | #

OMG! OMG! OMG! James Carville!

Mr. Carville, there's something I've always wanted to ask you:

What's Leon Panetta really like?

crimethink | January 5, 2008, 12:23pm | #

joe,

He's a douche to me, but Mary says he's great in the sack.

Cesar | January 5, 2008, 12:23pm | #

Joe-

Would you support Obama playing the gender card if Hillary plays the race card first? And have no doubt, she will.

crimethink | January 5, 2008, 12:23pm | #

D'oh!

Damn "Remember me" box!

crimethink | January 5, 2008, 12:25pm | #

Cesar,

If Hillary plays the race card, she's dead meat in SC and many, many other states.

pdog | January 5, 2008, 12:25pm | #

I just woke up from a nightmare this morning. It was election day and my choices were Mike Hukabee and Hillary Clinton.

crimethink | January 5, 2008, 12:28pm | #

pdog,

Don't worry, you can always vote for Libertarian blowhard Howard Phillies.

joe | January 5, 2008, 12:28pm | #

Cesar,

That depends on how the cards are played.

I've got absolutely nothing against showing a little excitement about "We're going to elect the first __________ president, woot woot woot!"

But I don't want to see anyone cowering before the terrifying specter of Ohnoes the Republicans will be means to us!

Yes, the Republicans are going to find ways to use Obama's race to tell a story, and they'd use Hillary's gender to tell a story, too. I don't want to see any of the Democrats helping them out. Hillary's troops have already gone too far down that path.

sage | January 5, 2008, 12:35pm | #

Here in WA state I've seen a lot of Obama bumper stickers. Only one for Clinton though. And it wasn't a real campaign sticker. It was one with "HRC" in black lettering on a white background, and it was one of those oval shaped stickers you see on VWs that the owner wants people to see where they've been.

Yeah, I know. Long but pointless post.

joe | January 5, 2008, 12:42pm | #

Are you sure that wasn't a "Human Rights Campaign" sticker?

Cesar | January 5, 2008, 12:48pm | #

Theres one good thing I can say about Obama on domestic issues. He and Tom Coburn (!) worked together to stop irresponsible earmarks from people like Harry Byrd and Ted Stevens.

Cesar | January 5, 2008, 12:49pm | #

I meant Robert Byrd. Too many Byrds in the Virginias, hard to keep them straight.

J sub D | January 5, 2008, 12:52pm | #

Hillary's troops have already gone too far down that path.

If the Obama or Clinton start attacking each other they will only hurt the party, not help themselves. But oooh, the temptation.

joe | January 5, 2008, 12:56pm | #

When Barack Obama was in the Illinois Senate, he sponsored a bill requiring that police videotape all confessions.

Then he talked the police unions and chiefs into supporting it, and now it's the law.

Mr. Nice Guy | January 5, 2008, 12:59pm | #

Cesar
What is Paul's position for gay rights at the STATE level? If someone one wants to say that in general things should be decided at the state level because then folks can "vote with their feet" to teh state that suits them best, then I guess I can see that. But then I have to ask that candidate, where do you stand on that in YOUR state? If Paul says, and I don't know, that he would f*ck with people's basic rights in his state I'm not gonna go "Yipee, that guy will only screw [er, figuratively of course] folks that are a minority in a different state!" I mean, Guliani thinks gun control should be decided not only at the state but at the local level. Federalists here cool with that?

I think it is way, way too easy for candidates to take a pass on hard questions by saying "it should be decided by the states." BTW-I'm not saying this is what Paul is doing on gay rights or any other issue, I don't know what he has said about it.

Gilbert Martin | January 5, 2008, 1:02pm | #

"Hillary Clinton signaled that she intends to play on Obama's as yet unexploited political weaknesses: "Who will be able to stand up to the Republican attack machine?" she asked at an appearance in Nashua."

Her attempt to spin herself as a tough survivor of Republican attacks is hilariosu.

If it hadn't been for the the liberal mainstream media coddling and protecting her for her entire public life, she would have been sunk long ago.

J sub D | January 5, 2008, 1:02pm | #

When Barack Obama was in the Illinois Senate, he sponsored a bill requiring that police videotape all confessions.

Then he talked the police unions and chiefs into supporting it, and now it's the law.

I'm gonna take your word on that. I'd require videotaping all interrogations, but a half a loaf is far better than none. IOW, I'm happy to give credit where credit is due.

Mr. Nice Guy | January 5, 2008, 1:02pm | #

"No, that's a power grab also. Being "pro-choice" means you want the government to have the power to discriminate on the basis of birth status in the enforcement of its murder laws."

Right crimethink, I'm pro-choice and that's exactly how I see it...

Not.

I for one am waiting about when those murder laws are applied to the "gleam in her eyes" against many a cockblocker in my past...

Mr. Nice Guy | January 5, 2008, 1:05pm | #

"If it hadn't been for the the liberal mainstream media coddling and protecting her for her entire public life, she would have been sunk long ago."

Gilbert
Do you live in a medecinal reefer state, cuz I want some of what you are smoking! The press has been giving serious kid gloves to Obama. I don't hink there is a "liberal mainstream media" (I usually find a lot of unnuanced thinking behind anyone who uses that Luntz-approved phrase, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong), but even if there was they like a horse race better than anything. And they hate any "annointed" candidate.

Mr. Nice Guy | January 5, 2008, 1:07pm | #

"I think her support for Roe v. Wade should be interpreted as support for more power to the federal government on the abortion issue, at best." I dunno Ken, ar you a federalist or libertarian (the two are not always synonomous, you know?). If the federal government prevents some states from f*cking around with someone's basic privacy rights (or property rights for that matter, think federal tort reform) it can be crapping on states rights while striking a blow for liberty...

J sub D | January 5, 2008, 1:11pm | #

Gilbert Martin -

Maybe you missed the obituary. The "Liberal Mainstream Media" is dead. Dan Rather gave the eulogy. It was a beautiful service. Afterwards, we all went over to Cronkite's place, had tea and told funny stories. You shoulda been there.

Meyer | January 5, 2008, 1:11pm | #

Is there any doubt that, regardless of what she says on the campaign trail, a Hillary presidency would be a carbon copy of her husband's?

Is there any doubt that Bill Clinton was the most libertarian president this country has ever seen?

joe | January 5, 2008, 1:12pm | #

J sub D,

It's great that Barack Obama supports that, but just as important, he was able to talk the police, who were initially very hostile, into supporting it, too.

The Chicago PD. Think about that.

joe | January 5, 2008, 1:14pm | #

Is the liberal mainstream media the one that kept telling me that Saddam Hussein was going to give Osama bin Laden a nuclear weapon, or the one that keeps referring to the 2/3 of the public who want us out of Iraq as "the far left?"

Sam Grove | January 5, 2008, 1:17pm | #

Is there any doubt that, regardless of what she says on the campaign trail, a Hillary presidency would be a carbon copy of her husband's?

But who was responsible for "Hillarycare"?

Mr. Nice Guy | January 5, 2008, 1:19pm | #

It's a little funny to see the more right-leaning folks here and elsewhere with their hate towards HRC relative to Obama. It really shows you how little they take the time to objectively look at the party they don't like.

News Flash: Hillary is easily the more conservative Democratic frontrunner. Edward and Obama are running like New Dealers, Hillary is running like her husband (free trade, tough law enforcement, working with rather than against business interests, etc.). She represent the DLC.

A libertarian reveling in her losses to Obama is in for a BIG surprise.

Mr. Nice Guy | January 5, 2008, 1:21pm | #

I should have said "a right-leaning libertarian", because I imagine those who honestly value their social liberties as much as "economic" liberties have a lot to like in Obama or Edwards relative to HRC...

Cesar | January 5, 2008, 1:27pm | #

MNG, I admit my Hillary Hate is mostly irrational. I don't like her smug inevitability, the fact shes riding her cheating husbands coat tails, and her cynical triangulation.

BakedPenguin | January 5, 2008, 1:30pm | #

joe - it's the one that asks if the corporations are paying their "fair share", and if "we" are "giving enough" to educate "our children" in public schools.

MNG - Obama, I can see. What's to like about Edwards? He strikes me as Huckabee - (50% Jeebus) + (15% Ralph Nader).

crimethink | January 5, 2008, 1:30pm | #

MNG,

The only issues on which I'm "socially conservative" are abortion/ESCR and possibly gay marriage (I support civil unions). Hillary isn't any better than Obama or anyone else on those issues.

And she's absolutely noxious to me on plenty of social issues where she takes "conservative" stances (drug war, video game censorship, etc).

joe | January 5, 2008, 1:30pm | #

You all might find this funny. It's a comment on a local political blog.

Real Democrat Says:
January 5th, 2008 at 2:14 am
I find it rather amazing that certain individuals believe mainstream America suddenly wants to adopt the OPEN BORDER SOCIALISM advocated by Barack Hussein O’Bama. Hussein may have won in ultra-liberal farm country, but that is where it stops. Educated Democrats do not support this marxist b.s. that comes out of his trap.
Amazingly, anyone who does not vote for O’Bama is readily questioned “Why not, are you rascist?” Yet, anyone who proclaims hatred for Clinton is never accused of being sexist. Face it, those who voted for O’Bama pretend to be progressive. The “I want to vote for the first Black President” club. This man is nothing more than an African-American Dennis Kucinich. I believe I speak for mainstream America when I say NO THANKS. Why not just nominate Al Sharpton. They’re equally qualified and promote the same brand of socialism.
I know, let’s raise our taxes to build schools in Mexico, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Peru, Uruguay, Uganda, Mozambique …
Then let’s raise our taxes to build some new hospitals. Not here in the U.S.A. fools! We build them in Iraq, Mexico, Afghanistan…
I suggest all the Barack Hussein phonies go find another country to dismantle. America is for Americans, as in U.S.A. Everyone else get lost, and no drivers licenses, free college tuition or any other hand outs to illegal aliens. Save the world on your own dime.
Real Democrats support Hillary Clinton for President. The best eight years of your lives have been during the Clinton Adminstration. Don’t ever forget that.

My favorite is "ultra-liberal farm country." What's yours?

Mr. Nice Guy | January 5, 2008, 1:32pm | #

Cesar-That's what I hate about her, to be honest. She's the Dems Romney (replace "cheating husband's coattails" with "rich families moneybags" and "cynical triangulation" with "willingness to enthusiastically swallow any party line that he thinks will help him in his current election.).

"Is there any doubt that Bill Clinton was the most libertarian president this country has ever seen?"

When I first saw that I thought, sh*t even the most able devil's advocate couldn't make that case with a straight face could they? But they I remember this story about Bill Clinton that said, or quoted from him, his biggest accomplishments as 1. NAFTA 2. Welfare Reform and 3. Balancing the Budget. Well, not exactly libertarian (balancing the budget via tax raises not so much), but it's an interesting list of accomplishments for a man who is decried here and elsewhere by r-wingers as a hippie-communist...

joe | January 5, 2008, 1:33pm | #

Baked Penguin,

joe - it's the one that asks if the corporations are paying their "fair share", and if "we" are "giving enough" to educate "our children" in public schools.

OK, you've demonstrated the "mainstream" part, but I was wondering where the "liberal" bit came in.

Cesar | January 5, 2008, 1:34pm | #

Bill Clinton is an Eisenhower Republican, not a libertarian. If it hadn't been for the Republicans taking control of Congress in '94, he would have been to the left of that.

I give Newt Gingrich credit for the balanced budget, NAFTA, and welfare reform as much as Clinton. They worked well together when they stopped their partisan bickering.

crimethink | January 5, 2008, 1:34pm | #

free trade,

NAFTA / CAFTA isn't free trade by any stretch of the imagination. Free-er trade, I guess, but it's not much to offset her disgusting positions on many other issues.

tough law enforcement,

You'll find me not terribly supportive of the Clintons' idea of tough law enforcement either (Waco, Elian Gonzalez, stepped-up drug war)

working with rather than against business interests, etc.

Big Government in bed with Big Business. Maybe Putin can give her some tips.

Mr. Nice Guy | January 5, 2008, 1:36pm | #

Baked-I will have to admit finding Edwards to always be such a lightweight p*ssy that will not matter I don't know his specific stands on many issues, but I would betcha he is pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-rights of the accused, pro-speech (protection of porn, flag-burning, other controversial ideas [though probably terrible on "hate speech"]), anti-torture, etc...

As a union supporter I should like Edwards. But he is a lighweight like Obama, and I can't even prove how un-racist I am by voting for him!

Mr. Nice Guy | January 5, 2008, 1:41pm | #

crimethink
Let's put it in right-leaning libertarian speak:

Hillary Clinton's platform calls for MUCH less violation of people's "economic liberty" than Obama or Edwards. From corporate taxation, to minimum wage, to outsourcing, to regulation, etc. She's Democratic Leadership Council and they are (ironically since I think Edwards is a member of DLC) almost New Dealers. Have you listened to the three of them talk or read their policy position papers?

Just ask an economic liberal (not in a Hayekian sense mind you) like myself or joe (don't want to categorize or speak for you joe but I imagine you could agree that HRC is more "economically conservative" in her positions and rhetoric than Edwards or Obama?) or what not.

joe | January 5, 2008, 1:42pm | #

Cesar,

All Clinton and Gingrich did to balance the budget was stick to the budget deal laid down by GHW Bush and the Democratic Congress. That's where most of the credit belongs.

Voodoo economics was right, and it took a brave Republican to face reality.

bigbigslacker | January 5, 2008, 1:43pm | #

Meyer, there is significant doubt BC was the most Libertarian president ever.

The "assault weapon" ban.
Firing Joslin Elders.
Paramilitary raid in Waco.
Support for Hillary Care.
Opposing medical marijuana grown and used in same state on the basis that might suggest the 10th amendment means something.
Kosovo.
Maintaining disparity of sentencing.

These are not Libertarian actions.

On the plus side we have renting out the Lincoln bedroom and NAFTA

crimethink | January 5, 2008, 1:43pm | #

It also probably helped that the economy was booming, thus increasing the tax revenues.

bigbigslacker | January 5, 2008, 1:45pm | #

100,000 cops

joe | January 5, 2008, 1:45pm | #

Hillary is somewhat more economically conservative than Obama, who is more economically conservative than Edwards.

If Ron Paul is a 10 and Dennis Kucinich is a 1, the Clintons are a 6, Obama a 5, and Edwards a 4.

crimethink | January 5, 2008, 1:46pm | #

I thought the Jocelyn Elders fiasco was due to her pushing 'masturbation education' in public schools, as if kids don't figure out the nuts and bolts of that on their own.

Whatever their own personal habits, I don't think that's really a big libertarian issue, is it?

joe | January 5, 2008, 1:48pm | #

100,000 cops

100,000 community police, as part of a program that pushed cities to reform their policing procedures in line with community policing model.

When you're talking about the police in terms of the threat to freedom, it's worthwhile to distinguish between community police (cops walking beats, being on a first-name basis with the people they pass on the street) and the SWAT/Los Angeles "occupying army" model.

crimethink | January 5, 2008, 1:50pm | #

In any event, while Obama and Edwards might be more socialist-leaning than she is in economic matters, that's made up for by her far more pronounced authoritarian streak on social issues and her greater likelihood of following a pathologically interventionist foreign policy. (Though Obama is starting to worry me on that front recently as well)

joe | January 5, 2008, 1:51pm | #

It also probably helped that the economy was booming, thus increasing the tax revenues.

Sometimes you need to notice the dog that doesn't bark. Spending was restrained even as revenues went up. We can debate whether it was restrained enough, but the fact that it was restrained at all is an accomplishment.

crimethink | January 5, 2008, 1:54pm | #

joe,

Funny, I didn't get that impression of the Clintonian approach to law enforcement when I was standing in front of the Supreme Court on the 25th anniversary of RvW (1998) with snipers and cops in full riot gear staring at me.

joe | January 5, 2008, 1:54pm | #

Hillary is to the right of Obama and Edwards on economic issues, but I'm not sure I'd say she's more libertarian.

joe | January 5, 2008, 1:57pm | #

crimethink,

I'm sure the amount of security around political rallies is very important to you, but to present that as if it reflects anything more than a tiny shred of the operations of law enforcement in this country is a screaming bit of solipsism on your part.

J sub D | January 5, 2008, 1:58pm | #

joe | January 5, 2008, 1:30pm | #

Funny stuff.
My favorite - I didn't know until now that Barak was Irish (O'bama).

BakedPenguin | January 5, 2008, 1:59pm | #

joe - admittedly, you don't have to subscribe to Z magazine to agree with those things. But you also don't have to be a libertarian to question them, or the collectivist ideas behind them. That the question gets begged is the issue. I've never heard a newscast where they stated that people who oppose Iraq are left wing, but then, I don't get Fox News. I will say that what I've seen of CNN, they seem to have shifted a bit to the right over the past ten years.

MNG - I went to his website, but there was no info I could find on Medical Marijuana. He had pretty standard liberal ideas on GLBT issues, the only item you listed I could find anything about. I'm sure he's pro-choice. The point(s) made above about HRC being pro (big) business hits it on the head.

joe | January 5, 2008, 1:59pm | #

FYI, crimethink, policing on Capitol Hill is controlled by Congress and the District of Columbia.

But you already knew that when you implied that President Clinton was giving those police their daily briefing.

Daze | January 5, 2008, 2:03pm | #

Would you support Obama playing the gender card if Hillary plays the race card first?

Obama has already resorted to race-baiting with his "Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab)" crack.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/120893.html

J sub D | January 5, 2008, 2:04pm | #

If Ron Paul is a 10 and Dennis Kucinich is a 1, the Clintons are a 6, Obama a 5, and Edwards a 4.

Huckabee's a 5 (or less). Romney's a 6.5, McCain's a 7 and Giuliani's a ???

crimethink | January 5, 2008, 2:07pm | #

joe,

I'm sure the president had more to do with the DC cops than the GOP controlled Congress.

They also shut down escalators at the underground Metro stops near Catholic University and the National Cathedral, where the vast majority of marchers attended services before the march. Nothing like watching thousands of pregnant women and elderly folks struggle up and down steep, narrow, slick metal stairs.

Then the DC motorcycle cops would speed down the streets where the sidewalk was packed with marchers, about 2 inches from the curb, and if they clipped you it was tough luck for you. Not a very welcoming place.

Meyer | January 5, 2008, 2:10pm | #

The "assault weapon" ban.
Ok. I'll give you that one.

Firing Joslin Elders.
crimethink already answered that.

Paramilitary raid in Waco.
I'm not sure nutcase child molesters are a big libertarian issue either.

Support for Hillary Care.
Hillary's brand of Medicare reform would have been more libertarian than the monstrosity Bush and the Republicans passed in 2003.

Opposing medical marijuana grown and used in same state on the basis that might suggest the 10th amendment means something.
Name me a president that has supported medical marijuana.

Kosovo.
Are you kidding me? I didn't know Slobodon Milosevic had such a large libertarian following.

Maintaining disparity of sentencing.
The keyword here is maintaining. It wasn't something he came up with on his own.

I fail to see how any of these issues (with the exception of the assault weapons ban) make Clinton less libertarian than any other former president. On the plus side you forgot to mention a general freeing of trade that went beyond NAFTA, a reduction in the size of government, reforming welfare, presiding over an incredible economic expansion and promoting a more socially liberal agenda. Name me a president who has come closer to the libertarian platform than that.

J sub D | January 5, 2008, 2:12pm | #

Obama has already resorted to race-baiting with his "Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab)" crack.

It is sooo easy to get offended if you want to be. IOW, I didn't see race in the topic at all. Protectionism, economic stupidity? Yeah. Racism? Nah.

crimethink | January 5, 2008, 2:17pm | #

FYI, Meyer, I agree with everything else on his list. I just piped up about Joycelyn Elders because the very mention of the name always brings a chuckle.

Kosovo.
Are you kidding me? I didn't know Slobodon Milosevic had such a large libertarian following.

::yawn:: So, anyone who has a problem with the Iraq War must be a follower of Saddam Hussein?

crimethink | January 5, 2008, 2:18pm | #

J sub D,

It's right there with the meme that Ron Paul hates blacks because he says we shouldn't have fought the Civil War.

Cesar | January 5, 2008, 2:20pm | #

Kosovo could have easily turned into a Somalia had one or two things gone differently.

Its also worth pointing out the Europeans provided, by far, the largest contingent of the peace keeping force. Which is the way it should be, since its in their backyard not ours.

Cesar | January 5, 2008, 2:32pm | #

Hey joe, some Freeper just bested the above post on Obama. To wit:

Is Hussein Obama the weakest Dem for the General election?
Iowa Caucus ^ | January 3, 2008 | nwrep

Posted on 01/03/2008 9:07:11 PM PST by nwrep

Did the weakest Dem candidate for the general election won tonight? I think so.

By sending forth Hussein Osama out of Iowa, Democrats have unwittingly weakened their general election prospects.

Hussein’s exotic mixture of radical liberalism, Kwanzaa Socialism, antipathy towards the unborn, and weakness against his jihadi brethren will all come back to destroy him against almost any Republican opponent, even the snake-grope from Hope.

I think we as Republicans should be celebrating tonight at the coronation of Hussein, in whose presence millions of Democrat women, from elementary school teachers to journalism majors to law school grads to dykes on bikes will go weak in their knees.

As defenders of this great Republic, and of the pinnacle of Western civilization that it represents, we should all come together tonight and agree on a common strategy that will keep the White House from becoming a madrassa.

God Bless America, Land of the Free.

My favorite part is "Kwanzaa Socialism".

joe | January 5, 2008, 2:36pm | #

crimethink,

OK, I remember the motorcades and constant police presence, too. I lived down there when they put the Jersey Barriers around the White House. DC's rough like that.

But that's not really what I was talking about.

bigbigslacker | January 5, 2008, 2:37pm | #

I thought masterbating (taking matters ito one's own hands) is libertarian. He fired Elders for telling the truth and upsetting his public opinion apple cart. To me it was authoritarian, but admitedly maybe not antilibertarian specificaly.

Congressional testimony revealing Koresh went jogging on a regular basis and could have been scooped up on any given day without a shot fired. The military raid preceded a time when BATF funding was to be reviewed. The whole affair was a publicity stunt to demonstrate the need to continue funding all the important things the BATF was doing with their money. The BATF were the ones that tipped off the camera crews as to where they should be pointing their cameras that morning, and that is how the Branch Davidians were informed (the postman told them). You might recall David Koresh was never convicted...

On healthcare, the fact Bush sucks doesn't move Clinton up the list much. At best, one peg, and I think Hillary Care would have ultimately brought us to where Canada is now. Baby steps.

The medical marijuana smackdown by Clinton was very different from previous presidents. This was not just a continuation of pot being illegal. This was the first time a significant number of states (7) established medical marijuana laws. To make matters worse, Clinton actually had political cover to do the right thing. He had seven states, the constitution, people suffering from AIDS and cancer, medical opinion and some popular opinion supporting MM and he still couldn't discover the tenth amendment to save his life. What an asshole.

Kosovo wasn't our war. Who's side was more Libertarian (neither is irrelevant. Ask Ron Paul.

Diparity of senetencing: We're talking about the first black president and champion of the little guy. I expect Stalin to act like Stalin, but Saviour Clinton, a former pot and cokehead, should be above that. His behavior would be par for the course for a George Herbert, but I think most liberals and libertarians expected better of him.

joe | January 5, 2008, 2:45pm | #

Daze,

It is certainly possible - all too easy, truth be told - to argue anti-outsourcing politics using the race card.

That does not mean that any raising of that argument is playing a race card.

Bingo | January 5, 2008, 2:45pm | #

Cesar that is a beautiful piece

McCreamy | January 5, 2008, 2:51pm | #

I thought masterbating (taking matters ito one's own hands) is libertarian.

That's just a stereotype!

bigbigslacker | January 5, 2008, 2:53pm | #

On top of all that, Bill Clinton is responsible for me burning a pan of brownies this morning. Fortunately they weren't the good kind. Is there nothing this man won't stoop to?

crimethink | January 5, 2008, 3:00pm | #

It probably smells much worse when you burn the "good kind", right?

bigbigslacker | January 5, 2008, 3:05pm | #

Crimethink, let's find out. Time to make a couple phone calls...

Brian Courts | January 5, 2008, 3:08pm | #

They also shut down escalators at the underground Metro stops near Catholic University and the National Cathedral, where the vast majority of marchers attended services before the march. Nothing like watching thousands of pregnant women and elderly folks struggle up and down steep, narrow, slick metal stairs.

Do you know that they actually shut the escalators down for the purpose of making life difficult? I lived in DC at the time and I can assure you that Metro escalators being out of service was an epidemic in the 90's. Not sure if they've gotten better but it was not at all unusual to find escalators not working at any number of stations throughout the city.

joe | January 5, 2008, 3:20pm | #

Cesar,

As a lifelong member of the democrat party, I am concerned that Hussein O'bama would be much more easy for the Republicans to beat than the she-beast, Hitlery...

joe | January 5, 2008, 3:22pm | #

I remember that, too, Brian Courts.

Where you there for the burned-out traffic light epidemic?

joe | January 5, 2008, 3:25pm | #

I can't pick a favorite part, Cesar. I love them all.

I guess "weakness against his jihadi brethren."

How can one be weak against one's brethren?

Ruthless | January 5, 2008, 3:33pm | #

Remember Hillary's commercial just before xmas when she was looking around for her "presents"/government entitlement programs?
That really said it all, and I'll bet I'm not the only one in whose craw it's still sticking.
First xmas gifts are wrapped so you don't know the contents. You don't put tags on them revealing their contents. Duh.
Second, didn't all but the stupidest Amurrikuns get it that she purchased none of the presents herself? We would have to be the ones purchasing them all. And then we'd have a hell of a time "returning" them, eh?
That ad tied in so well with her earlier off-the-cuff remark that we couldn't afford all the programs she had in mind when she became President. Truer words were never spoken by either Bill or her.

She Beast Hitlery | January 5, 2008, 4:02pm | #

What is more libertarian than "It takes a village....." ?


I'm committed to diversity, that is why my lesbian lover personal assistant is a member of the Saudi Intelligence Services

kwais | January 5, 2008, 4:02pm | #

I haven't started reading the posts yet, and there are 108 if them.

This better be a 'bash Hillary' thread* and not a fucking abortion thread.

*(where Joe, and maybe Chicago Tom and MNG defend her, and everybody else points out how absurd that is and how evil she is(and maybe how Edward says we are all idiots for going for right wing extremist fringe Paul)

Brian Courts | January 5, 2008, 4:10pm | #

Where you there for the burned-out traffic light epidemic?

joe, no, I am not sure I remember that (though there were so many problems with DC in the news at the time that I may just be forgetting that one) - when in the 90's was it?

That does, however, remind me of a problem I had with DC traffic lights the very first day I arrived. I had never, to my knowledge, been in a city where all the traffic lights were mounted on poles on the side of the street rather than over-hanging the traffic lanes as in most places. After picking up my rental car at National Airport, I proceeded to blow through two or three red lights on Independence Avenue (luckily with no consequences to anyone else!) on my way to the house I was renting on Capitol Hill.

I lived down there when they put the Jersey Barriers around the White House.

Are you referring to when they closed Pennsylvania Ave. in front of the White House? I remember that well - I didn't really like the idea of closing it but it did make for a great stretch of wide-open pavement for pick-up hockey games. Wonder if they'd still allow that now?

joe | January 5, 2008, 4:42pm | #

Around '95 or '96. IIRC, Pepco had the contract to fix burned out bulbs in the traffic lights, and the city was some ridiculous amount of money behind on its electrical bill.

They've landscaped that block of Penn now. I think there are trees there.

Bingo | January 5, 2008, 4:59pm | #

It's an Obama love thread, kwais. Libertarians love progressives apparently!

crimethink | January 5, 2008, 5:03pm | #

I proceeded to blow through two or three red lights on Independence Avenue

How do you know they were red? If you saw where the first one was located, why didn't you start looking in that place for the lights?

Cesar | January 5, 2008, 5:03pm | #

It's an Obama love thread, kwais. Libertarians love progressives apparently!

I don't love Obama. I hate Clinton and Edwards.

David E. Gallaher | January 5, 2008, 5:13pm | #

kwais,
Would you vote for Paul because of his ideas or Obama because he actually has a good chance of winning?
As you know, I don't vote, partly because ideas will never be a winning strategy.

Ruthless

Brian Courts | January 5, 2008, 5:22pm | #

How do you know they were red? If you saw where the first one was located, why didn't you start looking in that place for the lights?

Good question. I would guess now that I think about it more, it was only one or two lights before I realized. As to how I knew, it was a feeling that something wasn't right - you know one of those feelings that is hard to identify exactly the combination of events that made me realize what had happened, but it was some combination perceptions - something like noticing cars going the other way in the mirror right after I went through, and maybe something in my peripheral vision like a car slowing down... It's been a long time so it's hard to recall the precise details of how I became aware, but the light suddenly went on, pardon the pun. Another thing is that looking back I could see everyone stopped and I soon noticed the timing of the lights (they were timed, not triggered) so it became pretty obvious what had happened. Of course I did stop as soon I became aware of the light location. As to how it could happen, I suppose not having much sleep the night before getting everything ready, being in a totally different environment under some stress (I was already late for a meeting due to a flight delay) and just the novelty of the lights in a different place all added up to what was a rather embarrassing start to my time in DC.

Brian Courts | January 5, 2008, 5:35pm | #

Around '95 or '96. IIRC, Pepco had the contract to fix burned out bulbs in the traffic lights, and the city was some ridiculous amount of money behind on its electrical bill.

Ah yes, I recall the city being far behind on its bills - that was around the time Congress brought in some guy to take over financial control of the city from "Mayor-for-Life" Barry.

They've landscaped that block of Penn now. I think there are trees there.

I suppose if it's going to be closed that was inevitable as it was not the most aesthetically pleasing thing to have a stretch of abandoned street in front of the White House. The closed off former parking lot on the east front of the Capitol was another good spot until the Capitol Police decided to kick us out of there. I thought I heard that is no longer just a sea of asphalt either?

Brian Courts | January 5, 2008, 5:41pm | #

Oh yeah, was drawing a blank, but that some guy was of course Anthony Williams.

prolefeed | January 5, 2008, 6:53pm | #

There's little question about Hillary Clinton being the candidate, from the major parties, most hostile to libertarian ideas.

No, Edwards has a special spot in that circle of hell all to himself.

kwais | January 5, 2008, 6:55pm | #

So, it didn't turn out to be an abortion thread, cool.

Cesar | January 5, 2008, 5:03pm | #

It's an Obama love thread, kwais. Libertarians love progressives apparently!

I don't love Obama. I hate Clinton and Edwards.

Amen to that.

Ruthless,
I would vote for Paul.
I am from Nevada, and I am not sure how to vote for him. I think we have a caucus thing, so I would have to fly home on the 20th, or so, and I don't know what the rules are.

I seriously want to vote for Paul though.

Daze | January 5, 2008, 7:55pm | #

It is sooo easy to get offended if you want to be. IOW, I didn't see race in the topic at all. Protectionism, economic stupidity? Yeah. Racism? Nah.

True, "race-baiting" was too harsh. I'll take that back.

whit | January 5, 2008, 8:15pm | #

"SWAT/Los Angeles "occupying army" model"

while i disagree with the OVERuse of SWAT in many raids/warrants...

it's undeniable that in the long run, the concept of SWAT teams (which was an LAPD invention and like many LE innovations - from the use of tactical armour, to use of semiautos, to use of less lethal, etc. etc. LAPD was always WAY ahead of NYPD) saved many more lives (including suspect's and innocent victims) than in the pre-swat days.

using a hammer to swat a fly is wrong (swat team to raid a high school mj dealer for instance) but in general SWAT (the NYPD version is part of ESU iirc) results in safer LE raids and warrant service - and that';s for ALL involved.

Brian Courts | January 5, 2008, 8:51pm | #

it's undeniable that in the long run, the concept of SWAT teams . . . saved many more lives . . . than in the pre-swat days.

Says who? I don't think that's undeniable at all.

but in general SWAT . . . results in safer LE raids and warrant service - and that';s for ALL involved.

That might be true if LE used SWAT only for situations where it was truly warranted, when someone's life was in immediate danger, such as armed stand-offs and/or hostage situations. Those situations are relatively rare, yet the use of SWAT teams is anything but rare. When every podunk town with no violent crime to speak of has a SWAT team it ought to be obvious that the vast majority of SWAT uses are not necessary. There is just no way such over-use of SWAT teams can count as a reduction of risk - quite the contrary in fact.

whit | January 5, 2008, 10:11pm | #

"That might be true if LE used SWAT only for situations where it was truly warranted, when someone's life was in immediate danger, such as armed stand-offs and/or hostage situations. Those situations are relatively rare, yet the use of SWAT teams is anything but rare. When every podunk town with no violent crime to speak of has a SWAT team it ought to be obvious that the vast majority of SWAT uses are not necessary. There is just no way such over-use of SWAT teams can count as a reduction of risk - quite the contrary in fact."

except that's not how SWAT is used. that's your false perception. most agencies employ a threat matrix. SWAT is used when the threat matrix and facts and circumstances deem it warranted.

imo, they are used too often (mostly political reasons), but they do and have (feel free to go back and read the literature - i recommend FBI Law Enforcement Journal...) saved innumerable lives.

as usual, since you only hear about the "bad" incidents, that naturally skews your (mis)perception.

like i said, we can all agree - they have been overused (like any toy, technology, etc. but if you think sending in undertrained, underequipped officers to deal with situations that are (in the vast majority of circ's ) solved sans bloodshed to ALL involved by better trained and equipped (for this type of detail) officers, you are nuts.

every national, state, and local agency of any reasonable size pretty much everywhere on the face of the civilized world has embraced the SWAT concept as one that makes it more likely that certain high risk incidents are solved more peacably and with less injury - from london Metropolitan Police to LAPD to NYPD to RCMP etc. etc.

sadly in some cases (see: columbine) patrol officers who have been trained to WAIT FOR SWAT (in exigent cases where they shouldn't have) have unfortunately seen death ensue and carnage escalate. THAT cowardly response resulted in the formation of ASAP ( a nice update to add to SWAT from a patrol angle) teams as well.

Brandybuck | January 5, 2008, 10:26pm | #

Abortion, I guess.

She wants more government power in this area too. Or didn't you hear that she's for universal taxpayer funded healthcare?

foetus | January 5, 2008, 10:42pm | #

Not very universal, if you ask me.

bellgong | January 6, 2008, 1:15am | #

Poor bill may get to stay home. i can see a first gentleman, but he held the office himself.

In any case, hillary has asked the most meaningful question, can Obama face the BS machine. Of course, there is also the small matter how to run government in the years following the pullout from iraq. Will need to save our pennies for gas, hope bloomberg doesn't buy the presidency in 2012 after the crash.
:)

Nick Wilson | January 6, 2008, 3:37am | #

I think Obama is more libertarian than Hillary (and of course, Edwards) economically.

Points:
1.) He has refused to force people to buy health care, and insisting that the market needs to be used instead of changing to a single payer system. His proposal is closer to health care vouchers.

2.) He hasn't joined the Hillary-Edwards let's-raise-the-minimum-wage-to-$9.50 love fest.

3.) Opposing NAFTA is not protectionist. NAFTA is not libertarian.

4.) He hasn't been included in the labor union love-fest. Unions tend to endorse the candidates most likely to restrict the free market in the name of workers. Obama hasn't got many such endorsements, where Clinton and Edwards have gotten tons. I think that's pretty telling.

Obama's definitely a liberal economically, but I think he'd be up a tick from Edwards and Clinton. Most of his economic leftyism is in funding rural businesses, high speed internet access, renewable energy stuff, research, etc.

While I don't really think that that is a valid use of our tax dollars, I must say most of that's better that wasting money on a pointless war. That's why I've always favored the Left, even though I'm a libertarian. It always struck me that the Right was out for elitism, profit and military conquest at the expense of everyone else, while the Left was digging their own grave by trying to help everyone too much.

Socially and foreign-policy wise, and on immigration, I'd say he's pretty good. Looking on a Nolan chart, I'd say he's a lefty on the top (libertarian) half of the chart, which is not so bad. Most of the Republicans (bar Paul), as well as Hillary and Edwards would easily fall in the bottom half.

My ranking 10 being most libertarian, 1 being least (I'm factoring in three areas: foreign policy, social libertarianism and economic libertarianism.)

Paul 9 (-1 for immigration stance)
++ foreign policy
++ social libertarianism
++ economic libertarianism

Richardson 5
+ social
++ foreign pol
- economics

Obama 5
+ social
+ foreign pol
- economics

Kucinich 4
++ social
++ foreign pol
-- economics

Thompson 4
+ economics
- social
-- foreign pol

Giuliani 4
+ social
-- foreign pol
+- economics

McCain 3
-- foreign pol
- social
+ econ

Romney 3
- social
-- foreign pol
+ econ

Edwards 3
-- economics
+ foreign pol
+- social

Clinton 2
- economics
-- foreign pol
+- social

Huckabee 2
-- social
- economics
- foreign pol

Hunter 2
- economics
-- foreign pol
-- social

Huckabee (theocratic big spender), Hunter (protectionist war hawk) and Hillary (socialist war supporter) are probably the least libertarian.

Nick Wilson | January 6, 2008, 3:51am | #

Actually, give Richardson a 6. He was the highest ranking Democratic governor on the Cato Institute's survey of fiscal responsibility, getting a B. Make that a +- on economics. I guess he's the second most libertarian in the race.

Nick WIlson | January 6, 2008, 3:55am | #

Yeah, Mitt and Huckabee got significantly lower scores on fiscal conservatism than Richardson did. I'm thinking an Obama/Richardson ticket wouldn't be so bad.

Alexis | January 6, 2008, 5:23am | #

She was mad and I think out of control...she is used to winning and having it her way. She needs to calm down.

Obama's Presidential Genes Triumph!

http://familyforest.com/inthenews.html

http://familyforest.wordpress.com

joe | January 6, 2008, 10:20am | #

whit,

My complaint is not that there are no appropriate situations for the police to use overwhelming force to compel compliance, as SWAT teams are used for.

My complaint is that many police departments, especially the LAPD in the 80s, were using that model as their basic policing strategy.

Austin | January 6, 2008, 2:05pm | #

Nick Wilson,

I think a Richardson/Obama ticket would be superior due to the fact that Richardson supports gun rights and Obama does not.

Also a Obama/Kucinich ticket might be feasible, and I like their views on foreign policy, but with all due fairness I stand strong with Ron Paul and these options would only suit me if Ron Paul does not make the republican primaries.

RBM | January 6, 2008, 5:16pm | #

Wait wait wait wait wait. I thought REASON and its readers are committed to the Rule of Law. I think we can agree that the disparity mentioned in the post has been a grave mistake. But retroactive changes to settled law is not something we should condone.

Nick Wilson | January 7, 2008, 8:42am | #

No, Reason and it's readers are committed to justice. If the law was immoral in the first place, and it has been overturned for being immoral, than hell yeah it should be changed retroactively for those who have been affected unfairly by it.

Crack laws unfairly affects the poor, who can't afford pure cocaine, while the rich, who can, get comparatively light sentencing.

Emma | January 7, 2008, 10:01am | #

Whoever accuses anyone of "being wrong in everything" can only be: biased, hateful, or fundamentally wrong her/him self. This kind of attitude is what polarizes America.

RBM | January 7, 2008, 1:08pm | #

Nick: Thanks for the response. The sentencing laws are indeed unfair and unjust. I agree. But it won't do to say that retroactive changes to law are okay *because the law was immoral*. Most people who want to change the face of existing law want to change it for moral reasons. And there are few laws that nobody thinks are immoral. If we condone retroactive changes to law here, that serves as something stretchable into a precedent for the retroactive application of fresh legislation. Those adversely affected by the law should be given a commutation of sentence.

loser face | January 10, 2008, 2:30pm | #

i do not like Obama.
He is a bad person and should not win.
he would do our country bad.
and neither should Hillary.
She has a bad background.


end of story.

Danny King | January 10, 2008, 2:31pm | #

REPUBLICANS RULEEEEEE :]

John Willians | January 10, 2008, 2:32pm | #

She is a scamp and I thinks she is cheating on Bill

John Willans | January 10, 2008, 2:34pm | #

DEMOCARTS RULE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jon Gregory | January 10, 2008, 2:39pm | #

I think that Democrats are WACK!
i mean, the stuff they say makes absolutely no sense at all!!




& whoever wrote those comments at 3 & 5 AM are crazyyy.
You can tell they have no life.
pahahahahahhahahahaha.
well i get back atcha latahh :]

Jon Gregory | January 10, 2008, 2:40pm | #

Deangeles GET A LIFE!!!
they know you aint no JOHN WILLIANS.
pahahahahhahaha.



see you in computers tomorrow!!

John Willans | January 10, 2008, 2:41pm | #

Hey Meaghen You Suck and you don't know what you are tallking about We democratist don't all support abortions

George Weigel | January 12, 2008, 11:54pm | #

That Rev. Sharpton is a hypocrite because he like Bill "Bubba" Clinton are both involved in the Scandal of Intercommunion (Communicatio in Sacris), I recently read this revealing book on the topic of Ecumenical Witchcraft which Bishops Jason Spadafore and Michael Carter have both censured. The book also covers the unethical involvement of Tom Cruise, Mel Gibson, and Michael Dimond who have chartered into the Occult Policies. You should really look into this hot topic story and cover a story on it (whether Democrat or Republican). You may browse Dr. DeTucci's Book "Communicatio in Sacris," online here it is:

http://www.vladcatholic.com

Regards,
George Weigel

Deangeles Hayes | January 14, 2008, 2:01pm | #

i love hillaryyyyyy :]