Fifty percent of Adults would not vote for Clinton
By Kelly McCormack
March 27, 2007
Half of voting-age Americans say they would not vote for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) if she became the Democratic nominee for president in 2008, according to a Harris Interactive poll released Tuesday.
More than one in five Democrats that participated in the survey said they would not vote for Clinton.
Nearly half of the respondents said that they dislike Clinton’s political opinions and Clinton as a person.
Comment by Rodan —

Rodent,
The following line in the article, which you attribute to Kelly McCormack but don’t include what media it appeared in (if any),” already contradicts your silly assertion that Hillary Clinton is our leader:
“More than one in five Democrats that participated in the survey said they would not vote for Clinton.”
That means not all Democrats are supporting Senator and view her as their leader. I guess your reading comprehension isn’t so good, as evidenced by your inclusion on another thread of an article from the “Wall St. Journal ” to assert that Sharia law is being instituted in Minnesota, when the said article, in fact, concluded that Minnesotans were rejecting it.
Moreover, just in case you haven’t noticed, there are at least six other Democrats in the running.
Finally, the support numbers for your beloved Dumbya are even worse: hovering around 30%.

Actually, mikey, Plame posed for Vanity Fair after Robert No-facts exposed her as a CIA agent and ruined her career. Howsad that you have no facts also, mikey.

Also,if you want to lump hardcore communists in with “the left”, then you have to allow us to lump Nazis in when we refer to “the right”, and I don’t think you’d tolerate that, would you?

The root cause of the problem you (and tripmaster) point to, a problem which is manifest at both tail-ends of the political bell curve, is called logical positivism, a school of philosophical thought originating in the late 19th century. It’s a very handy construct in most cases, but in the context of politics and sociology it quickly ruins the ambitions of any who embrace it too closely. Unfortunately, in a scientific age, it is difficult to find a substitute for, outside of religion, which in turn leads invariably to its own unique set of undesired consequences.

Complete agreement, though I admit to being guilty of it myself at times. But I’m trying…

#210-Rodan,

Comment by Tuber — March 27, 2007 @ 4:11 pm

Tuber, I agree with you. And I have agreed with Rodan previously. Too often people are painted with one of two brushes. This happens here from both “sides”. Add to that the fact that very few politicians are NOT guilty of partisanship coupled with lack of facts regarding interpreting laws and actions and it is easy to see why all the brushes between black and white are forgotten.

Oddly, just in your two postings in 210 and 211 I see that we share more than we differ. It is truly amazing what happens to the dialogue when rhetoric and insults are removed.

That is the USA that I made an oath to serve and protect with my life if necessary. And I was not offended, so no apology necessary.

Yes I can name 2 off the top of my head. Gerald Gibson Jr. and stonehinge.

Gilded Age tycoons, barons, and Righty political entities (Republicans) started practicing their own proactive, elitist eugenics a long time ago by joining exclusive clubs and interbreeding their “good families”. By emulating the “landed classes” of their European past, they have been able to ensure that the vagaries of Democracy don’t threaten their “economic entitlements”. The Bush family tree provides a textbook example of this phenomenon.

Who needs to impair the reproduction of others when nepotism is so convenient, and the “right people” are already in the “right places”?

Besides, increasing numbers of “lumpen masses” helps keep labor costs down, right??

Valid point!
I actually got attacked too on Rightwing blogs since I’m Liberal on social views.
Example, I’m personally religious, but politically secualr. I hate abortion, but I’m Pro-Choice because it’s the lesser of 2 evils. I support Civil Unions for both Homo and Hetro couples.
I’m Pro-Immigration from Non-Muslim countries.
I support Stem Cell research.
I belive in Alternative energy.

If not, kindly refresh yourself on what the topic actually is, and confine discussion to it, especially if your noble purpose as stated, Rodan, is to find out what some other Americans (why do you seem to believe we belong to alien races?, you know better) think about some particular, real, things.

Better grammar and spelling is not a license to engage in cynically constructed begging of loaded questions, nor is it indicative of moral or ethical superiority. Can the whole “high horse” routine, because, if nothing else, it is tedious and recherche.