Wow, a lot of action after a lot of silence.
Blah, you first. They don't have to defend her. I would like their opinions on what Hilary said and why she said it and how that changes or doesn't change their perception of her as a leader of the Left, since this kind of talk is more associated with the religious right.
Soph, you next...
I have never heard you state you would vote for anybody, period. I make the assumption that you would probably vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever it is, by default, since there are only two viable choices, and you, according to your choices on the party test, would probably vote for a Republican or Libertarian only when hell freezes over. If I made a mistake, it was in assuming that you would not want to vote for a splinter party or candidate with no chance of winning. Or maybe it was in assuming you would vote at all. So where did I assume wrongly, if indeed I did? Seriously, I would like to know.
As for hypocrisy, yes, i think a certain amount of hypocrisy is a neccessary part of the make-up of any politician and all politicians. Some have it in greater abundance than others. My point , which is open to debate but has not yet been challenged, is that IF hilary is sincere in her statement, then she is doing what many leftists condemn rightists for - injecting their personal religion into law, and if she is NOT sincere, then she is a hypocrite, professing something she does not believe for political gain. My personal opinion is that it is the latter. Hypocrisy, venality, dishonesty, greed, etc, are not the attributes of just one side of the political debate, which is the impression i get from many people, most of them leftists. As for as I am concerned, there is little difference between Clinton(any Clinton), Kennedy, Delay, and Richardson.
Gentlemen, I thank you for your responses.
|