The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

"So, America, I ask:
Are YOU better off now than you were eight years ago?"

Not that it should have much bearing on this election, but yes I am much better off than 8 years ago. However, how I am doing is not as important as how my country is doing. You would never know it from news accounts, but our county is also in much better shape than 8 years ago. 8 years ago we had dozens of problems festering under the surface do to years of neglect. We didn't realize it yet but ENRON, World Com and other companies were playing financial shell games with no oversight. We didn't understand the danger but al Queda was growing stronger and preparing to attack us on our home turf. Today companies like ENRON have been prosecuted, the economy is strong, terrorism is being fought instead of ignored. So, in total, we are much better off than in 2000.

WE are much better off now than we were under the Clintons. We've begun to address terrorism a subject that was completely ignored under the Clintons. We've overcome the recession that began under Clinton, more people have made it to the middle class since Clinton left office, unemployment is at a record low, and we aren't listening to people tell us that "It's okay to lie under oath if it's about sex".

The Clinton's single-handedly made the criminalization of politics an art, and that alone may result in the demise of the republic. If that sounds like "Barf, puke sputter, spit..." to you, so be it.

I actually think those on the left supporting Hillary want her elected because she will continue to polarize the country, and they like the sport.

"Barf, puke sputter, spit..."
That pretty much sums up the entire message of Clinton Haters.

When you ask a Clinton Hater if we're better off now than we were eight years ago, they'll respond with Loyal Bushie talking points like, "The stock market under George W. Bush is at record highs."

REALITY: As Halliburton stock soared, so did gas prices. Gasoline was at 99 cents a gallon when President Clinton left office.
(And, yes, I admit, Halliburton stock was quite a bit lower.)

So, America, I ask:
Are YOU better off now than you were eight years ago?

Here it is - the tie between Hil and green little men from outer-space: http://www.presidentialufo.com/clinton_alien_talk.htm

Thanks for indulging me - I find this stuff hilarious!

Baaaarf, Puke, sputter spit. Tell me you Democrats aren't going to swallow that crap.
You have GOT to find someone better if you're serious about taking the white house.

I mean Hillary is a BARE 3 percentage points ahead of Giuliani, and the serious last round mud slinging hasn't even begun yet.

Commenter Sassyinscruz above says Bill Clinton did not support the Defense of Marriage Act, but just decided not to veto it. That's wrong. Neither Clinton said anything negative about that Act at the time; no misgivings were expressed. More recently, Hillary actually AGAIN defended the bulk of that Act, saying only that she would amend a part of it relating to federal benefits. Wake up, everyone. Bill, with Hillary's encouragement -- not just her approval, but her encouragement -- brought Dick Morris into the White House, precisely to counsel them on how to pander to the so-called "values" voters, i.e., anti-gay voters. They created a perfect environment for the Defense of Marriage Act to slide through Congress like a greased pig, and progressives need to start holding Hillary accountable for DOMA and many other cave-in's to the right, not to mention her wrong Iraq war vote.

Good for you, sassyinscruz.

julieds, what my gay friends wonder is why anyone from the LGBT community would support any Republican -- yet there are clearly those who do. No one can get elected to a national or state office (except maybe in California - though even this would be a struggle) if they were to say they are in full support of gay marriage. The majority of the population remains incredibly biased, and the Clintons, along with other smart politicians, recognize that you can't cram change down people's throats. You have to take it one step at a time until finally, the wall is broken down.

Celebrate the small successes, such as the now widespread support for civil unions among Democrats, rather than accusing those who helped paved the way of pandering to audiences.

Sen. Clinton may not be an alien, but she certainly has one of the savvier campaigns in history.

Of greater importance than Sen. Clinton's "Ellen" appearance might be this little ditty from CBN.com:
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/224908.aspx

In what must be one of the more interesting media flourishes of this campaign, Christian Conservative cultural arbiter, David Brody, cites with abandon Kathryn Joyce and Jeff Sharlet's September 1 Mother Jones article, which details Clinton's long-term involvement with an ultra-elite prayer group known as The Fellowship.

CBN citing Mother Jones? Who would have thunk it. In fact, both pieces reflect exceptionally well on the senator. While the Mother Jones article maintains: "...the senator's project isn't the conversion of her adversaries; it's tempering their opposition so she can court a new generation of Clinton Republicans, values voters who have grown estranged from the Christian right..." Brody goes one step further: "Politically, Hillary Clinton's critics can paint her as a liberal. But there is a resume of material here that portrays her as more moderate than you might think. Sometimes Hillary's critics spend so much time trying to demonize her that the entire picture isn't properly represented."

More importantly, Joyce and Sharlet view Clinton's Fellowship participation as more transcendental than political, opining, "In her own way, she is a true believer."

Clearly, Clinton is already positioning herself for the general election. In the world of political brand-building, the Clinton campaign either hit the trifecta -- with props from Mother Jones and CBN all in one day -- or it is positioning Clinton for a soft launch as a Democratic woman of faith. Both sources convey an aura of authenticity. The question is whether Magenta State voters will be able to slice through two decades of GOP counter-framing Clinton as an ultra-liberal and take her acts of faith -- on faith.

Peter S. Cohl
The Political Brandwagon
http://www.politicalbrandwagon.com

In reference to the last posting....to be fair, Senators voted 85-14 for the Defense of Marriage Act. Bill Clinton just didn't veto it. He didn't introduce it, and while I disagree with his action, to call the Clintons responsible for the Act is to grossly misrepresent history.

I find it odd that gay folks support Hillary Clinton,

since the Clintons are responsible for the "don't ask

don't tell" bit of the military, and the Clintons are

responsible for the "Defense of Marriage Act".

Hillary Clinton just says what her audience

wants to hear. I wish people paid more attention

to a candidate's actions than their words.

Wow. Wait 24 hours for this one to hit the internet, google "Clinton alien" and watch an expanding number of nutty theories come creeping out of the closet.

Popcorn, anyone?

Did any reporter ask Ms. Degeneres why she has not invited the other front running presidential candidates on her show?