Fred Thompson Running

[fury2neon]

Hilary made herself a target for criticism when she stood up and said the American people were too stupid to pick their own doctor and that government should decide what health care people are allowed to receive. That may not be what you heard her say but it is what I heard her say and its what was in the national health care bill she was pushing. Since then she has been hated by by some and loved by others. I personally can never support someone who when she was first lady demanded that an elected official be censored for disagreeing with her.

There are plenty of good Democrats, Richardson for one, who are descent people who at least act like they have some respect for our nation.

[Marswolf]

Actually, the Founding Fathers intended that the Senators and Representatives represent the states. If the individual states wanted their Congress Critters to represent the vote of the people, then so be it.

[The Rabbi]

I firmly disagree. The constitution REQUIRES representatives to REPRESENT the people. This, by definition REQUIRES taking the views of one's constituents into account. (Represent: transitive verb: to go or be present somewhere on behalf of somebody or something)

As for the earlier post, you argued that Clinton's whole life was geared toward politics and offered some recent examples. I argued that these examples only represent her recent public life, not her whole life.

Then, I took you for task for criticizing Clinton for standing by her husband -for only political reasons. I suggested that there are other reasons for her doing so, including the "for better or for worse" portion of their marriage vows. Just because Bill broke them, does not mean she has to. Is it possible her personal convictions about marriage were the reason she stayed with Bill? Is it POSSIBLE? Yes, it is.

Next, I argued that the neo-cons would condemn Clinton for her actions whether she stayed with Bill or left him. I think we both realize there is plenty of evidence to suggest this would be the case if had happened.

Uh, no Len.

Please find any textual evidence that representatives are required to represent the people that elected them. There is none. There is only your imaginings on the subject.

As for Hillary, yes I was wrong. I cannot say that her choice of breakfast cereal is made on political grounds. I have no evidence that what she likes for lunch is politically inspired. I cannot say that politics has ever played a role in her choice of underwear.

So I exaggerated when I wrote that her every move is politically motivated. What I meant to write is that every major public move or statement she has made ever since her husband became a political figure has been geared to poltics, and probably specifically with the presidency in mind. Much like her husband, who wrote about the draft back in the 1960s with concerns about his political viability.

As for your assertion about "neo-cons" (and who are these people again??), you have yet to provide any evidence whatsoever that her divorce would be a point. Plenty of Democrats have gotten divorced and I have never heard or seen any criticism like you describe. Please cite some or admit you are projecting your own biases on the opposition.