Eh--all of this stuff is only as important as we make it.

I wasn't moved either way, except that it made my eyebrow raise. You can't be everything to everybody.

Interesting thought.
However, the POV of someone I know who is working for Clinton is that she will NOT take on the role of VP. And the person I know seems to be a a close "circle" as they seem to regularly have dinner with her.

But only time will tell.

Oh really? I've unfortunately been out of the media loop today with being rather bogged down with work [wohm wohm wohhhhm].

Lemme just say this about the so-called "frontrunners":

McCain scares me with his talk on foreign policy. I can see it now:

January 20, 2009: McCain gets inaugurated.
January 21, 2009: McCain drops an 200 megaton nuke on Iran.
Januray 22, 2009: McCain drops a 200 megaton nuke on Iraq.

If McCain wins the White House, someone better call Dr. Strangelove. And to think I thought The Ghoul was evil!! *shudders*

Mind you, I don't find this country out of harm's way (economically, domestically, or foreign policy-wise) with either Obama or Clinton in office, though I doubt their tactics and measures won't be quite as extreme. But let's not split hairs.

I will fight tooth and nail to keep all of them away from the White House.

If you dropped two 200 megaton nukes on those targets, would there even be a Middle East left?

Yeah, you do that. Let us know how that one-man battle goes.

The histrionics make your "arguments" beyond ridiculous. I'm not a McCain voter, but to even suggest he'd launch nukes just days after his inauguration is so blindingly stupid it's indescribable. Though I can't believe I'm even entertaining this discussion with a counter-point, the logistics of bugging all of the Americans and other troops on "our side" out of Iraq before "dropping the bomb" (please) are impossible and it would never ever ever ever be entertained.

*lol* Nittany, you amuse me. You really do.

I was exaggerating details to make a point. I didn't think you actually thought I believed McCain would actually start nuking nations on Day Two of his tenure in office. Try some decaf next time, Nittany, goodness....

*lol again*

You talk about fighting "tooth and nail" to keep someone out of the White House and you're telling me to drink decaf. Yeah, I'm the one without a solid grip on reality. I'm glad I amuse you, Kappy, one of us should be interesting. Keep tippin' at those windmills!

It's not just that although part of Obama's appeal is that "common man" thing. He and his wife only paid off their student loans and got out of debt after his book became a best seller.

It's more the fact that Hillary's campaign funding has to be reported, but the Clintons won't reveal where donations to the Presidential Library are coming from, for example. And she put 5 million of her own money into that campaign, if it came from someone shady via Bill than it will look really bad. And honestly the more the Clintons protest the more it looks like they have something to hide.

Does anyone know what's new with the Ron Paul blimp? ;)

I think it's hard for anyone as currently rich as the Clintons to pass off the "common man" thing, but they've both claimed to represent the interest of the working class. The Obama's are rich today, but I don't think it probably compares to how much any former president can pimp himself out if he wants to.

Because it's the Clintons, I suspect they do have things to hide. I'm not saying Republicans are cleaner, but the Clintons are more financially compromised in a personal way that most politicians, I think. With others, it may be someone doing shady things on behalf of an industry or business connection, with the Clintons, they're usually tied in directly and it can be traced more easily, or so it seems to me.

Guarantee?? How much are you willing to put up???:D;)

Everything I own.

*pause*

OK, how about $50 and a bucket of KFC? :p :D

This is probably going to come out wrong, because I'm typing but here goes:

I don't know if either of the Clinton's took out student loans. Maybe neither of them had to because their families were either already wealthy and just paid outright for it for their educations... maybe they started a nestegg when the two were born. (If they didn't get loans?)

Why does it matter if/when they did, and even if they did, why would it be wrong that they are already paid off? They are at least 10ish yrs older than the Obamas, and her husband was the President of the US for awhile and prior to that he was doing all kinds of snazzy jobs where I'm sure they would have used funds to pay off the loans if they did have them, they both had books, and I'm sure they get paid to give speeches and all, they would have to pay back their loans just like everyone else.

I took out student loans... a bunch... and I've been out of school for almost 3ish years now... guess what? I'm not a millionaire, I don't make an insane amount of money... but I've managed to pay off more than half of them already. I'm not even 27 yet. It can be done. Does that make me some super rich elitist person? No. I just lived on a tight budget and put whatever free money I could to pay off the bank.

I just don't get this whole "well I just paid off my college loans so see? I'm just like you! You should vote for me!!!!" stuff.

What does Bill Clinton's Presidential Library have to do with any of this? Him & Hill are two completely seperate different people.

Sorry but I'm not buying the whole "YEEEESSSS WEEEEE CAAAAAAN!!!" crap.