Buckeye State Blog - Clinton Is In - Comments

I hear ya, but

MarkJablonski — Sun, 21 Jan 2007 08:23:05 -0800

I dunno. I'll be backing Richardson myself. He's got the fattest resume. And as an added bonus, he's not a senator. Even so, I think we'd all be wise to focus our efforts on governing for a bit before we start talking about the next celebrity election. Not to say that we shouldn't support the candidate we feel is best, but only that we should focus a bit on the present for a second or two.

No

AmberCat — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 21:06:55 -0800

I think others have mentioned this as disturbing too.

Disagree

AmberCat — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 21:06:04 -0800

I think that anyone who insists that only candidates who have ALWAYS been against the war are acceptable are demanding an insane and unrealistic level of purism. I seriously don't think that as this war spins out of control more and more, anyone's vote from 2002 is going to be able to be used against them or matter a whit — only how ardently they have opposed the war since. The Republican't won't have a leg to stand on. I have other problems with Obama that wipe out his "I was always against the war even though I didn't have a vote on it" stance. He needs to stop Liebermaning Democrats with Republican frames about "bipartisanship" and using faith language. His contention that Democrats need to use the religious right's terms to discuss faith and that there is a progressive movement to keep faith expressions out of public life (there isn't) disturbs me profoundly.

Dennis said the same thing

AmberCat — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 21:02:29 -0800

"I fully expect to win." Well, they can't ALL win, can they?

Support candidates who didn't vote to authorize Iraq War

lefty — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 20:07:54 -0800

Sorry Hillary and Edwards. Get in Wes Clark! Run hard Obama! Who knows how far out of control the Middle East will be by Nov 08. The Republicans would love to have an Iraq War authorizer to run against so they can muddy things up again.

Yay.

MarkJablonski — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 18:13:18 -0800

Bush I --> Clinton --> Clinton --> Bush II --> Bush II --> Clinton(?) Is this pattern slightly distrubing to anyone else, or is it just me?

Clinton Is In

Ohio2006 — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 07:23:18 -0800

Just announced. “I’m in and I’m in to win,” she says on her web site:

The stakes will be high when America chooses a new president in 2008.
As a senator, I will spend two years doing everything in my power to limit the damage George W. Bush can do. But only a new president will be able to undo Bush's mistakes and restore our hope and optimism.
Only a new president can renew the promise of America -- the idea that if you work hard you can count on the health care, education, and retirement security that you need to raise your family. These are the basic values of America that are under attack from this administration every day.

And only a new president can regain America's position as a respected leader in the world.

She will be hosting a series of live web chats over the next several days to solicit input and support. "Starting Monday, January 22, at 7 p.m. EST for three nights in a row, I'll sit down to answer your questions about how we can work together for a better future. And you can participate live at my website." The video web chats bracket Bush's State of the Union address.