Condi Rice

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

I think it's totally wrong to call Condy a liar because she backed her President's policies...to everything there is a season, and for every person there is a time to speak out. We learned many lessons in the Civil Rights movement, one was certainly that to be heard, you have to rise above the din. I've said from the beginning that I respect Ms Rice and think that you would see a vastly different side of her if she were to become President. It's easy for folks on the sidelines to put her down for being a "good soldier", perhaps had they seen the things we saw in the 60's they would have a different take! Before you can change anything...you have to be in a position to do so! Politics by definition is the science of compromise...the trick is to safeguard your beliefs and integrity inside until a time when you can make a difference! I firmly believe that both Hillary and Condy are good folks...I can only hope that we get a chance to vote for one for President...both would be great!

Somerfrost,
This has been a "polite thread", and I like it that way.
You are certainly entitled to your opinions, as are others, as am I.
Just a couple of questions...
1) Does it cost any more money to keep one's mouth shut rather than have lies come out of it to support a "war of choice"? (Condi)
2) Although Hillary certainly has a war chest that dwarfs her opponents, her positions have always been "hedged". Do you think she needs to do a bit more to gain the confidence of those that she seeks support from?

At this point, I don't support either of your choices.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Somerfrost,
This has been a "polite thread", and I like it that way.
You are certainly entitled to your opinions, as are others, as am I.
Just a couple of questions...
1) Does it cost any more money to keep one's mouth shut rather than have lies come out of it to support a "war of choice"? (Condi)
2) Although Hillary certainly has a war chest that dwarfs her opponents, her positions have always been "hedged". Do you think she needs to do a bit more to gain the confidence of those that she seeks support from?

At this point, I don't support either of your choices.

I'm really not sure about what you are saying/asking? My answer was "political". Cost money? What does that mean? And before you call someone a liar because you disagree with their point of view...I think you may need a little more insight on how change occurs, how politics work and the relationship of power to advocacy! Not my job to educate you and I'm not getting into an endless debate that goes nowhere because you are locked into your mindset of "Bush-loathing"...my last comment to you about Condy is that when you call her (or any figure) names, you are simply discrediting your own position. There is always the "big picture" to assess and a myopic point of view like you constantly display here is not conducive to seeing past your hate. If I viewed politics like you seem to...I'd vote for nothing but conservatives due to my anti-abortion views and nothing but radical leftists due to my social views...in other words, I could never vote for anyone! Regarding Hillary...this is why we have campaigns...so that candidates have time to present their views, be questioned about them and otherwise give us insight...the process is just beginning, when it's over then each of us can decide whether Hillary and others have defined themselves...at this point your criticism is premature!

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

I'm really not sure about what you are saying/asking? My answer was "political". Cost money? What does that mean? And before you call someone a liar because you disagree with their point of view...I think you may need a little more insight on how change occurs, how politics work and the relationship of power to advocacy! Not my job to educate you and I'm not getting into an endless debate that goes nowhere because you are locked into your mindset of "Bush-loathing"...my last comment to you about Condy is that when you call her (or any figure) names, you are simply discrediting your own position. There is always the "big picture" to assess and a myopic point of view like you constantly display here is not conducive to seeing past your hate. If I viewed politics like you seem to...I'd vote for nothing but conservatives due to my anti-abortion views and nothing but radical leftists due to my social views...in other words, I could never vote for anyone! Regarding Hillary...this is why we have campaigns...so that candidates have time to present their views, be questioned about them and otherwise give us insight...the process is just beginning, when it's over then each of us can decide whether Hillary and others have defined themselves...at this point your criticism is premature!

Somerfrost,
I think I'll just leave this tread alone. I didn't intend to offend you.
If you took it that way, my apologies.
DTS

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

I'm really not sure about what you are saying/asking? My answer was "political". Cost money? What does that mean? And before you call someone a liar because you disagree with their point of view...I think you may need a little more insight on how change occurs, how politics work and the relationship of power to advocacy! Not my job to educate you and I'm not getting into an endless debate that goes nowhere because you are locked into your mindset of "Bush-loathing"...my last comment to you about Condy is that when you call her (or any figure) names, you are simply discrediting your own position. There is always the "big picture" to assess and a myopic point of view like you constantly display here is not conducive to seeing past your hate. If I viewed politics like you seem to...I'd vote for nothing but conservatives due to my anti-abortion views and nothing but radical leftists due to my social views...in other words, I could never vote for anyone! Regarding Hillary...this is why we have campaigns...so that candidates have time to present their views, be questioned about them and otherwise give us insight...the process is just beginning, when it's over then each of us can decide whether Hillary and others have defined themselves...at this point your criticism is premature!

I wish I shared your enthusiam for the Pres campaigns. I'll pay attention but to me they've become a $1 Bil waste of tax money. The early campaigning is somewhat useful but only with respect to the non-Congressional people running. All the Senators have well-known positions on the issues and these do not change. To me, the campaign quickly and inexorably just degenerates into the mud-slinging negative advertising win at any cost cluster**** that it really is.

Campaigns could be more earnest if Senators who run for President forfeit their Senate positions. Senators are very much the royalty of America. And when they run for President, they do so for the most part with the primary objective of NOT losing their re-election to their Senate seat. I suppose a two-term limit for Senators would be the best thing that could happen, in my mind.

I respect Edwards. The only thing he wants is to be President and he gave up his Senate seat to go for it. I respect Hagel since he seems to not give a rat's rear about saying no to power. The rest of them are just lining up and trying to get lucky in my opinion. And if they don't, it's back to the palace that is the Senate.