For one I agree with QM... The whole system is a joke. You've got your choice of McD or BK.. Coke or Pepsi. Hillary or Rudy. Bush's or Clinton's. I still think Jeb might be coming in a VP, but Georgie probably made such backlash aganst anymore Bushes..

I dont think its a completely false choice, i mean imagine if Gore had won.. no Iraq war, funds to alternative energy research, perhaps some effort to fight worldwide poverty.. Of course a sitting prez usually lose some ground, so it'd probably be Bush in 04 anyway.. but you cant say "it makes no difference" the american president has SO MUCH POWER its almost ridiculous, even a slight change in policy will affect the whole world, which is why I take interest, if Bush was only screwing up america, that too would be sad, but atleast they'd sort-of have themselves to blame.. But when the american administration does little or nothing to lead the way in science and research to come up with alternatives to fossile fuel dependency, and instead chooses to fight over the remaining bits, thereby destabilizing the middle east further, and so the world further.. Its not a false choice. Although Hillary is a complete fake, almost as bad as a republican, hopefully she gets a good administration etc.

I just saw the tags...how disappointing. This is an historical moment for the US...the first woman in History to run for President. We're one of the only "superpowers" who has never had a female leader. It's sad that this historic moment has to be degraded by some into personal insults. Whether you like her or not, the bar has been torn down. Be proud of that. We're finally catching up with the rest of the World.

(Vote Obama!)

it is apparently NOT any one government doing or not doing....If the real issue had been energy/power/science for all, we'd have done away with pissing away trees for charcoal, or slavery for oil, in Tesla's lifetime, in Buckminster Fuller's , lifetime....in this lifetime.....Destroy the Head.....and beware their warrior....he tooo you must kill......

Screw all of you with your, well, "she's the lesser of two evils"... "Sure she probably the same as Republicans"... wrong answers. NEVER vote for more of the same. I pray a Nader / Perot appears, because forget the first woman candidate, we might be able to have a REAL third party which will change things. Really change things. Having a figurehead woman who was already in office, doesn't do anything for women. Heck most people don't consider Hillary a woman. It's just not the same.

Nancy Pelosi, now that is a great woman role model. Why can't she run? Oh yeah DLC, bullsht and who has been bought by big business..

First woman to run, BFD. The real history here is that only dumbasses ever run for president. And in a historical context:
I voted Clinton over Bush in '92.(and would again if time travel were possible)
But to be very honest I would vote Jeb Bush over Hilary Clinton in '08 if it came down to it.
I am not trying to promote our countries obvious misogyny, but just because there is a female candidate doesn't mean it is the right candidate.

May Obama or ANYONE ELSE wipe the floor with Hilary in the primary. Upvote for tags, freakin' Socialist Succubus.

i don't think we'll see any nader/perot candidates again for a while!

upvote commentary but downvote for Hillary. Canceled out...

I would love to see a wise, intelligent, strong, moral woman in the White House. Hillary doesn't fit the bill, period.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

It's interesting how strong the anti-Hillary movement is within other females. I wonder what the root of it is? Is it really policy, or something much deeper - much more primal?

Geraldine Ferraro suffered the same way in her VP bid.

Quote: "Post-election polls found that the majority of female voters voted against her, turned instead to re-elect Reagan and Bush"

Tags changed from "socialist, virago, phony as hell" to "president, clinton, female, democrat" by gold star member dag.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Let's not editorialize in the tags m'kay?

Interesting Dag...I'll try not to take offense to your comment since it came after my comment.

Ferraro partnered up with the wrong running mate. Mondale was a weak candidate. I was just in high school at the time, but I was very excited to see a woman run. Ferraro is a woman of character and it's too bad she didn't try again.

No, my motives against Hillary isn't a "woman thing" Dag. She's going to outshine/out compete everyone else because she's a Clinton. That's a shame. Obama would be a better choice for the Dems...well, given what I've seen so far about him. It's too bad that the corrupt Clinton machine will run right over him...and anyone else I'm afraid.


edit: And in defense of fairness .. many of us "editorialize" sometimes in our tags. It may be bad form, but our tags are our own. QM may not be everyone's most popular sifter, (sorry QM, it's true) but he's entitled to his opinion.

Socialist? She wants health care for everyone...that's a good thing. I truly hope people can avoid demonizing her goals simply because they don't like her personally. If you cut yourself off from listening to what she has to say simply because you don't like her personally, you're no better than someone else who's currently pretty high up in politics.

It IS a huge day in History...even though she won't win, she set the stage for the woman who will become President. Although I hope we get an African American President first...like Barack Obama, for instance (another plug...hee hee hee....)

And thanks for changing the tags...although I think it defeats the original purpose now. ;-)

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

No offense attended intended SG - I just think psychology always plays a role in any of our choices for politicians.

quote: edit: And in defense of fairness .. many of us "editorialize" sometimes in our tags. It may be bad form, but our tags are our own. QM may not be everyone's most popular sifter, (sorry QM, it's true) but he's entitled to his opinion.

Tags are used to help us search and find videos more easily. Gold stars have the ability to change these if they feel the original tags are not descriptive of the video. That's all I was doing. I would do the same if it was a Bush video ... probably. ;-)

QM wouldn't be QM unless he did something douchebaggy, hence the tags.
He has my pity.

I'd rather Hillary didn't run, personally.
It's time for the Bushes and the Clintons to back away and let someone else run the place.
That said, I will grit my teeth and campaign for her if she get the nomination.

I had a dream and Hillary was the Antichrist. I didn't wake up in fear because it was so easy to believe anyway.

Oh, and joedirt - it could be argued that third parties are to blame for the Bush presidency.
Depending on what/who you believe, a first Bush term might've been prevented, which of course, would've prevented a second.

I voted for Nader in 2000, but only because I live in Ohio, which was solidly for Bush then.
(Thank God we have a Democratic governor and senator again.)
It wasn't until after the aftermath of Florida that I became a registered Democrat.

Theo47, I would argue that a shoddy voting system is partially to blame for the Bush presidency. An alternate system, using a ranking system of multiple candidates rather than a one-vote-per-person system, would allow for a choice that suited more people. The exact logistics get a little more complex, but the result is that since in our current system certain third-party candidates are looked at as "stealing" votes from a certain candidate, in this system those votes go to the next highest ranked candidate, so people are free to not worry about a third party stealing away votes from another candidate. (Although, of course, I personally blame Bush's presidency on a complete lack of intelligence on the part of the American people.)

But that's neither here nor there. In my quest for true gender equality, I'm aiming to accept the landmark nature of a woman running for president, while concentrating on her ability to function as said president if she were elected, just like I would with a male candidate. By which I mean, I won't be voting for Clinton. In all seriousness, a president being elected is a pretty landmark occasion, too.

I probably will not vote for Hillary, one main reason is that she couldn't stand up to her own husband, i see that as weakness. It matters not if she stood up to him in private, she should have stood to in public. It is wrong to pursue power, but in that case she had a perfect chance to get some pride for strong women. Staying with a cheating man? How does that show strength, "I love him?" once a cheater always a cheater.

Ladies, Gentleman for president, i have no preference, what i would like is a person to run that has been in a war, and has seen true horrors. Not some prissy ass boat captain, or some crack addict pilot. I good old fashioned infantry man or woman (im for integrated military), because they know what wars can be, and how wasteful they are. I want some one who has seen the sh*t, and knows what its like to see their fellow soldier get blown to shreds.

Then i think these useless wars would stop, because why the hell are we fighting in somebody else's desert? Because they attacked us? England gets more terror attacks by the IRA then we could ever fathom, to them it could be a normal thing. I saw after the (i believe it was the parliament building)bombing on a double decker bus a barkeeper he said basically "This is normal, the IRA attacks all the time. We have gotten used to this." I'm not condoning complacency, I'm stating that when you wake up in the morning, your life could be over in an instant.

So in short, any one is better than bush, I vote for no useless war. Who ever gets our boys out of that sh*t hole i will vote for.

Men are wasted trying to fight Vietnam wars, whether in a desert or in a jungle.

Great moment in history it is. Hopefully these candidates will stand up for what they believe, and not become a shadow of what they stood for.

I love our american system of heathcare, and no pinko socialist should ever try to change it.

look, the rules are simple:
1. get a job that has heathcare benefits
2. keep that job until you are elligible for those benefits
3. hope and pray to the correct version of jesus that any medical issues you might have are covered.
4. Have no pre-existing conditions. Pre-existing conditions are un-american.
5. Because you are not upper management, learn to accept the fact that your company will do everything it can to cut your hours, raise your rates, or otherwise cancel your policy.
6. smuggle in american-made drugs from Canada for 1/10 the US price
7. get an online prescription for Viagra.
8. don't do recreiational drugs. Viagra is not a recreational drug.
9. get your kids on some good, wholesome American Ritalin.
10. Shut up and eat your Prozac.

lol...you forgot to add that getting laid off from your job because the company decides to move to another country to cut costs is also un-American.

I wish that Obama, Hillary, McCain, and random-further-right Republican could just get together and debate the issues once a week or something. Then we could all vote one of them off, like american idol until we're down to one. It would be great!


oh, and Sometimes; well said.

my girlfriend's parents have no college education, come from poor families, but have scraped and saved to become small business owners. her parents have always had incredible insurance probablems because her mother was "exposed" to Hepatitis C during a blood transfusion at a young age (but has never tested positive for the antibodies). hard to imagine if they actually had health conditions.

p.s. Hillary has always struck me as disengenuous. Something about her attitude maybe.

historic or not - it's *dead

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by jonny.

firefly has fixed this video's dead embed code - no star awarded because firefly was awarded too recently.