« More on Saddam's capture | Main | Final vote on the Senate's bankruptcy bill »

Hillary will protect us from titties

Hillary is now so undeniably running for president that I think some people owe me an apology for all those years of calling me a paranoid conspiracy-monger. Hill has chalked up a fairly moderate record in the Senate over the past four years, but has recently moved even more aggressively toward the center. The latest example is her standing with the Senate God Squad (Santorum, Lieberman and Brownback) to whine about how children might be exposed to violence or boobies unless the government comes charging to the rescue.

As a general rule, I prefer Republicans to Democrats. Still, Democrats did always retain certain advantages for me. For one thing, with a few notable exceptions (*cough*Tipper*cough*), you could usually count on them to refrain from this kind of nonsense.

Not anymore, apparently. Bummer.

By the way, in the picture above, is it my imagination or is Rick Santorum scopin' Hill out like he wants a piece of that? Maybe the libs are right. Maybe he is sexually repressed after all.


I cease to understand why you keep repeating sentences like the following..

"Hillary is now so undeniably running for president that I think some people owe me an apology for all those years of calling me a paranoid conspiracy-monger."

Tell me if I am missing something. While Hillary ran for the Senate seat, she said she wasn't going to run in 2004. She didn't. Unlike Edwards, for instance, she is going to run for a second senate term before running for President. (She also has seemed to have done a lot of work for New York, especially Upstate where she is now very popular.) Like George Bush, she is most likely going to run for President two years after (assuming) winning re-election.

How does laying the groundwork for a run in 2008 make her any more power hungry than, say, George Bush? As far as I know, she has never said that she wasn't going to run in 2008, only that she wasn't running in 2004. So what is the deal here?

PE, it has nothing to do with whether she's "more" or less "power-hungry" than George Bush. I simply believe she had her eye on the White House from Day One. And there's nothing unusual about that, either. Lots of politicians do. What's different in this case is that I was repeatedly scorned for that belief, by people who presumably (and ridiculously) argued that serving the great state of New York in the Senate was her highest aspiration.

Well, I guess those people who considered you a dastardly vile conspiracy peddler for having pointed out that Hillary may want to be President some day.. should apologize.

I always believed she has positioned herself for a run for the Presidency. The only argument that I have made is that had Kerry won and had his winning meant that she wouldn't get a chance to run for the Presidency, then I believe she could have developed other goals such as becoming the majority/minority leader of the Senate.

That said, I have never viewed using the New York Senate seat as a stepping stone to even higher office is in itself a bad thing. She seems to have been, by many accounts, an effective Senator for New York. She seems to have worked hard to overcome the "carpetbagger" label, something she would have not been able to do had she run in 2004. There are pluses and minuses to having your Senator run. Certainly, Texas was not hurt by Bush's run.

Agreed, PE. And BTW, HRC was merely playing the same "official denial" game they *all* play. I'm not knocking her, and in fact, of all the Democrats I can imagine running in 2008, she is very probably my favorite so far.

Re: your Santorum comment - geez, you're right. It's like that look says, "I know she's got the dirty lady parts under that coat". Ew.

Goldwater Girl

You are right. She will run in 2008. She will also win and be the first female president. Her victory will be great for the country.

I think Santorum's look is more like "Wait 'til the skank gets a whiff of what I just snuck out"