in my previous post the link was cut off.

Ann Coulter is endorsing Hillary!

Go to HuffPo and see for yourself!

...she goes right ahead and pines about the change of eight years ago. does all that cheering for the final word creep anyone else out? what does that even mean? If we're looking at Hillary v McCain, its going to seem like this election was taking place ten years ago, and that our democratic process will have officially been unable to stop this war.

This is ridiculous. She's trying to have it both ways. "I want to be judged on my own merits" followed immediately by trying to play up her husband's administration to her benefit. Oh, and what is this about everyone starting off on an equal level? Clinton had a massive advantage over every other candidate running this campaign because she is a Clinton. Hillary is the most duplicitous candidate this election season whose only rival in this regard is Mitt Romney.

That was a fine line about a Clinton cleaning up after a Bush, and she did a good job of getting the audience on her side at the end, but I don't feel like she actually answered the question. "We all start from the same place"? I don't think so. Not starting from the same place is why she got so much money so easily and was the presumed front-runner from the beginning. She says she doesn't want to be judged favorably or unfavorably on her husband's administration - yet has counted those 8 years as a significant part of her experience and immediately tries to remind people of the good things that were accomplished. It was certainly an interesting question and I was impressed that Obama managed to keep from having a gigantic smile on his face as it was being posed. (I'm undecided, BTW, and would just hope that things remain more civil as they go forward, as they apparently were last night.)

Lets take that idea to its logical conclusion: in a year, we will have another failed effort at health care reform led by Bill Clinton, in 2010 the Republicans will takeover Congress again, marked by another six year period of partisan bickering, Bill Clinton will give dodgy answers on previous business deals and try to pressure government agencies to conclude their investigations. Hillary Clinton will be impeached for something silly like wearing clothes made in Cuba.

And in January 2017, we can look forward to the inauguration of Jeb Bush, because "it took a Bush to reverse the damage of the first Clinton, and it will take a Bush to undo the damage of a second."

How old will Chelsea be in 2024?

OH You Go Girl! lol I am actually surprised they asked her that question. Her answer was about as good of a response as she could possible have given though, but it doesn't make me feel any better about it. I mean who's going to cleam up after Jeb Bush?

I had two or three observations about this clip, but darned if previous posters didn't cover them all.

Although it was a good line, it was without substance and didn't really address the question, as most of her answers fail to do. It only served to reinforce the idea of the two dynasties struggling against each other into perpetuity. The woman who posed the question may never get the chance to vote for somebody not named Clinton or Bush, and that would suit Billary just fine.

Is Bush running roberto?

Nailed another one Norm; we're not in a Lancaster-York situation...yet. There are plenty of issues to deal with, this is not one of them. If there's a problem with a dynastic culture in our society, it's the one Edwards tried to highlight for us: the feudal corporate culture that is more truly evocative of 15th c. England.

Norm,

You said: "If Hillary becomes president It won't be because her name is Clinton, it will be because millions of Americans vote for her."

Do you honestly believe Hillary would even be a candidate if her full name was still Hillary Rodham?

Why would anyone support either of these pre-selected corporatist candidates? Honestly, do you really care about this beauty contest or are you just looking for something to root for, or a personality cult to join?

What if those of us whose candidate has been eliminated by the corporate media focused on something other than this joke of a presidential race? Here’s an idea: if you’re somebody, like me, who is pissed about the corporate power structure stuffing these two corporatist frauds down our throats, why not refocus that energy on something else, something you can actually feel good about? Like supporting Cindy Sheehan, for instance. Taking Nancy Pelosi “off the table” would be sweet revenge indeed. I sent Cindy Sheehan $100.00. Imagine if every other Edwards, Kucinich, Dodds, etc. supporter did the same …

http://www.cindyforcongress.org/

Ann Coulter is endorsing Hillary!

Go to HuffPo and see for yourself!

I just checked to see if that was true because I hadn't heard anything about it. Even though it is true I still hate the bitch I'm sorry. For those that want to watch the clip here it is: Ann Coulter will campaign for Hillary if McCain is the nominee.

Anyone who has the money and meets the qualifications can become a candidate, and just being well known doesn't get you elected president

Curious, because this is the exact opposite of the argument we heard when Bush Jr. was elected.

The only real strength of Hillary Clinton's campaign comes from two areas: being a Clinton and thus invoking nostalgia, and being female and thus pulling in people who are fervent to prove just how 'progressive' they are.

Judged solely upon her merits as a politician, she's a complete failure. And it doesn't help that she either condoned and participated in perjury in the Lewinsky case or is so incredibly dumb that she actually believed her husband. Not to mention the Whitewater scandal, her first failed attempt at 'HillaryCare', and on and on.

Sure, Hill, our candidates are picked on their merits - provided that having a lot of $ at your disposal is considered a big merit. Whatever. bob, you're right, though, that probably was the best answer she could've given. If she were a liberal, there would be more for her to say.

So I followed Erick's link to the Hannity (and Colmes) clip. So the little wraith is supporting Hillary over McCain. For what? To get the rational GOP folk to vote for McCain? To help Obama? Oh why - why did I not resist watching? It's like rubber-necking at the accident sight...

The Republicans only have one candidate that will mobilize them to come out and vote in large numbers: Hillary Clinton. Why the Democrats are so stupid to choose the two candidates that are least likely to prevail in November when it should be a cake-walk for the Democrats after these past 8 years is unbelievable to me. It shows the dysfunction of the Democratic party and the dysfunction of our nominating process. The Democrats only hope at this point in winning in November is Obama. If Hillary is the nominee, then prepare yourselves for 4 more years of a Republican president and a hundred year presence in Iraq.On the dynasty question--she dodged it beautifully. If she had any sense of humility and true concern for the nation she'd understand how unhealthy it is for our country to have the executive branch only have presidents from 2 families for so many years and withdraw. She isn't humble though. Oh well.

"If Hillary is the nominee, then prepare yourselves for 4 more years of a Republican president and a hundred year presence in Iraq."

I think you and several others who have expressed similar worries are forgetting something about polls. When opinion polls are taken, the polster comes to you via telephone, on the street, at your front door etc... When it actually comes time to vote, you must go to the polling place. I really don't see the Republican base getting excited enough about John McCain to turn out in force like they have in previous elections. That coupled with the fact that there are more Democrats and new voters in the first place, puts McCain at a serious disadvantage in the general election.

I don't know who will win, but as I see it now, either Clinton or Obama would probably beat McCain in the general election.

That said, there are still ten months to go and there could be another terrorist attack, Howard Dean scream, Makaka, 'there you go again' debate, sex scandal etc... that could change everything.

Norm:

Valid point, re: "legacy". See also: G.W.Bush, Bush the Elder, Ford, Nixon, LBJ... we could keep going.

Most of our past presidents were "groomed" for the job for many years before campaigning. Most represented an existing platform or ideology. Most were vice-presidents of an earlier administration.

So, I will agree that Hillary is no different than McCain in regards to a "legacy". That said: does anyone think that this is a good system?

I think America is at its best when we look to fresh blood. Clinton 92. Reagan 80. JFK 60. Love them or hate them, they each appeared "out of nowhere", and brought some radical changes with them. Changes which, right or wrong, remain incredibly popular and inspirational today.

does anyone think that this is a good system?

It is far from perfect. Approval Voting for instance would be a great improvement.

Having a president so close to another president, by blood or marriage, scares me. Executive order 13233, drafted by Alberto Gonzalez in 2001 for Bush II allowed the sitting President to have authority over all past presidents' papers. Considering Bush II had the foresight to put his gubernatorial papers in his father's presidential library, it meant no one could open those, either, without his say so. An executive order becomes law without going through Congress. It was five and half years later Congress struck it down. I learned about all this in library school. Yeah, it seems like a little thing. And the media never said anything. It isn't like it's juicy news. But it scares me.